Charlie Casanova

Galvasean

A terrific interview (trailer inserted) with director Terry McMahon. It's a pretty cool insight into the indie film making scene in Ireland.
Despite no funding whatsoever this film is starting to make a big name for itself in festivals. American distributors trying to buy it and everything.
It's an interesting interview. Quite damning of the 'powers that be' in Ireland re: distribution etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnQGKu6oJ1o

Apparently the film cost €960 to make in total! :eek:

pickarooney

That's insane, under a grand? The trailer doesn't look half bad, irrespective of budget.

Galvasean

Gonna be shown in the European Independent Film Festival in April.
Momentum building.
http://ecu.slated.com/2011/films/charliecasanova0_terrymcmahon_ecu2011

JP Liz V1

*snip*

Emmett Scanlan has been named 'Best Actor' at the 2011 European Independent Film Festival in Paris.

The Hollyoaks star secured the recognition for his lead role in dark Irish movie Charlie Casanova, which was filmed last year.

Scanlan discussed the prize on Twitter this afternoon, paying particular tribute to Charlie Casanova's writer, director and producer Terry McMahon.

He told his online followers: "Am truly for the BEST ACTOR award at ECU European Independent Film Festival, Paris.

"No better man to receive it on my behalf than the one man I dedicate it to, Terry McMahon."

Billed as "A Clockwork Orange meets American Psycho", Charlie Casanova tells the story of a ruling class sociopath who kills a working class girl in a hit and run before using a deck of playing cards to determine his fate.

The film, which has the tagline "You don't know him, but he already hates you", had its world premiere at a festival in Austin, Texas last month.

http://www.digitalspy.ie/soaps/s13/hollyoaks/news/a312757/hollyoaks-actor-in-film-festival-triumph.html

Galvasean

That's great news for Scanlan. Hopefully it will help the film get more publicity.

Necronomicon

That's brilliant. I interviewed Terry for my masters and I couldn't have dealt with a more helpful chap, good to see he has something with serious potential on his hands. Very intruiging trailer.

Galvasean

Good Q&A here by the director about the film:
http://www.filmmakersnetwork.ie/content.php?13-CHARLIE-CASANOVA-QA

lorsric

I know Terry, did his acting classes - Dublin Acting Class, and have always found him a true gent. Myself and a friend have written a script for a TV drama, and when I saw Terry last month he was supportive and encouraging. He also helped out with information on putting the pitch together, so definitely someone who is a great talent, but also generous with his knowledge and skills.
Am not surprised by the success of Charlie Casanova, story is intense, and the lead role played by Emmett Scanlan is genuis casting. Emmett is the actor to watch and Terry the mastro of all things film.
Respect to them both

JP Liz V1

http://www.windmilllane.com/index.php/our_work/archive_view/1291/

CHARLIE CASANOVA has recently been acquired by the distributor OPTIMUM RELEASING/STUDIO CANAL. The film will be cinematically released in Ireland and the UK in 2012.

Hart

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://www.windmilllane.com/index.php/our_work/archive_view/1291/

I got to know the director Terry McMahon and I he gave me a 'screener' DVD of the movie last year. It's very good, albeit a hard watch. The titular character Terry is a complete git and the film will divide audiences but it is a fine piece of work. Terry is very much a director to watch in the coming years.

AnonoBoy

Oh dear oh dear.... Donald Clarke isn't happy about being misquoted for the Charlie Casanova advertising campaign.

If they have to misquote people to get good press on their posters that's not a good sign at all.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0505/1224315629923.html

Article Excerpt wrote:

Are you reading this in Dublin? Then glance out of the window and, likely as not, you’ll see my name emblazoned on a passing bus. They’re everywhere. Ten per cent of the fleet appears to be wearing the new Clarke livery. Why am I not happy? The vehicles are carrying commercials for a new Irish film, Charlie Casanova. Apparently Donald Clarke of The Irish Times thinks that Terry McMahon’s social satire is “a pretty jaw-dropping piece of work”. Mine is the only quote on the advertisement. The lettering is not small. It looks as if, like Pauline Kael standing up for Bonnie and Clyde, I am going out of my way to promote a brave new experimental film.

Here’s the problem. I would rather drink dilute caustic soda then sit through Charlie Casanova again. The quote is drawn from my report on the 2011 Galway Film Fleadh. After admitting that jaws may drop, I went on to say that the acting was satisfactory and that (a bit generous, this) the “tech-work is up to scratch”. The paragraph finished: “As the existentially troubled antihero engages with this contemporary Hades, large lumps of quasi-philosophic waffle squash the preposterous voiceover into puzzling indigestibility.”

johnny_ultimate

Aye, I wondered during the week if that was a misquote... seemed far too generous for the film in question. Although I was impressed Charlie Casanova even had a bus advertisement budget in the first place. How does one sell an almost unsellable film?

Meant to put up my thoughts on the film actually. This was written very soon after watching it, and while I still strangely admire McMahon, the film itself is almost impossible to 'like' in the traditional sense. You'll really have to have a high tolerance for writer self-indulgence to get much out of it. Original, most certainly, but barely enough.

Anyway:

Charlie Casanova is a rant, a call-to-arms, an agenda and a sermon. It's barely a film - it's a stream of consciousness. There's the old saying in film-making that you should never tell the audience something when you can show them it instead. First-time director Terry McMahon, frankly, doesn't give a ****.

The plot here is inconsequential. It's basically a two-man show: Emmett Scanlan as Charlie Casanova (nee Barnham), and McMahon (who crafted this passion project after years spent peddling self-proclaimed crap in the notoriously bleak Irish film and TV industry) as the rabid driving-force behind the camera. Charlie is an upper middle class guy fond of putting down the disenfranchised working class and, almost like Two-Face in Batman, allowing a deck of playing cards to determine his and others' fate. When he accidentally hits one of his despised 'hoodies' with his car, he runs. But that event is ultimately just a catalyst for a descent into a murderous psychosis.

There's no denying antihero Charlie is a force of nature. He's a thoroughly despicable human being, and Scanlan captures manic energy behind him almost too well. You can barely keep track as he embarks on absurdly wordy rants about the sorry state of 'lower' society. He is a man with a terrifying sense of entitlement, and the scariest thing is that there are genuinely people like him out there. Not to this extreme, but damn close. There's no attempt to contextualise him - he's simply a beyond arrogant asshole; no backstory required. Anyone who has ever seen charismatic, honest-to-a-fault writer/director McMahon speak can certainly see how he has crafted such a deplorable yet hypnotic fictional personality. Charlie as a character, however, belongs in a better film.

While Mr. Casanova is most definitely a force to be reckoned with, the film thinks that's enough to get by. He's allowed to rabidly rant so frequently - and at such lengths - that it becomes exhausting. It's one anti working-class tirade after another. To say it lacks subtlety is a serious understatement. Impossible to empathise with, he becomes McMahon's representation for everything that's wrong with society. And he repeats the messages again and again and again.

As a result, narrative seems like a careless afterthought. Everything that happens is inconsequential or at worst nonsensical. Sure, there are some story developments, but they fail to give this structureless & paceless film any momentum. Stuff happens and is swiftly ignored, leaving numerous lingering plot strands by film's end. There are subplots and side characters, but they're uninteresting. All the female characters are very purposefully written as mere objects in an exaggerated parody of a man's world - this makes perfect sense from the twisted perspective of the misogynistic protagonist, but further fails to provide the audience with anyone we can root for. There are actually some intensely delivered scenes here - a failed Garda interrogation (with a distractingly illogical conclusion), a disturbing comic routine or a lengthy one-shot conversation that ends with a genuinely surprising punctuation mark. But these are diamonds in the rough: rare highs amongst a sea of noise. The rest of the film is exhausting: by design, of course, but it's a design that's there to make the audience suffer, to challenge them to endure this thoroughly unlovable film. Terry McMahon has basically made a feature length '**** you'.

Technical failings aren't fair to criticise here - for all the complaints above, the fact that this was produced for less than a grand is a remarkable achievement for McMahon. And say what you will about the production - and I've said lots about it in the above paragraphs - but the whole project oozes a genuine anger and unflinching passion that makes it a very easy movie to admire. What Charlie Casanova isn't is an easy film to like, and that's because it's not a film at all: it's a videoed rant in search of a film.

johnny_ultimate

McMahon has responded to Clarke's well-considered criticisms with a thoughtful... sorry meant to say utterly obnoxious rant. Embracing his inner Charlie, it seems. I can see both sides of this argument, but frankly I'm firmly on Donald Clarke's side in this particular showdown.

Terry McMahon wrote:

On May 5th 2012 Donald Clarke wrote an article for the Irish Times titled ‘Five stars? I don’t f*****ng think so’

In the spirit of fairness and for greater context please read mister Clarke’s article at this link before you read my rebuttal below: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0505/1224315629923.html


CHARLIE CASANOVA and DONNIE CLARKE


“Kill me, push me through a window somewhere, I walked into this hallowed ground without knocking.” Sidney Falco SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS


World-class film critics like Anthony Lane or Pauline Kael are alchemists who posses the psychological and moral strength to truly facilitate cinema. Irish Times film critic, Donnie Clarke, might be one too. (Perhaps only his friends call him Donnie, but he has referred to me like he knows me in a few of his articles so I feel a kinship). I also have a man-crush on Donnie. I may have a crush on that entire cultured circle of his. Comprised of a coterie of critics, when this circle heard Donnie had been quoted on bus advertisements for a new film, Charlie Casanova, they, “made comical side-clutching gestures and fell theatrically from their seats.” Then they phoned Irish Times lawyers to find out how “slippery” the law might get while dear old Donnie decided to write a damning article.


Donnie, you see, would “rather drink dilute (sic) caustic soda than sit through Charlie Casanova again.” Now, some of you may feel that another futile, self-fellating Friday night penning poison about drinking caustic soda belies an ego so fragile it requires a mocked-up poster of one's face on a Dublin bus to quell the sense of being a eunuch, but you’d be wrong. Donnie has risen above the frailty of the human condition. According to the big book, Saint Paul was on a road trip to Damascus when God had a word. Now Paul never met the carpenter-cum-Christ but that didn’t stop him claiming the inside track on all things Jesus and building a religion. Just like Paul, Donnie’s acutely attuned ears must have heard the cinema gods exalt the glories of abstract theory. Only fools make films. It takes a genius to critique them. And, the way Donnie built his ‘Busgate’ article around the 1957 movie Sweet Smell of Success, be in no doubt, he is a genius. If you don’t believe me, ask Donnie.


I’m not a genius. In fact, since Donnie outed me, I have to confess, I am a glue sniffer. There, I’ve said it. Describing Charlie Casanova as “the deranged, over-reaching ramblings of a glue sniffer who has read the jacket blurbs – but no more – of too many Albert Camus novels,” Donnie knows a thing or two about writing. Men like me, you see, can’t read Camus. Men like me pronounce the ‘s’ at the end of Camus. Men like me only read the tabloids and, when we hit big words, we turn to a page 3 girl we will never meet, much less make love to. Men like me know nothing about cinema either. Men like me don’t know Sweet Smell of Success or that Burt Lancaster played Donnie’s hero JJ Hunseker in that movie. Men like me have no right to conceive of making a movie examining the delusions of corrupted elitism and the malignancy of class separation. If you don’t believe me, ask Donnie.


Only men like Donnie and his kind can read Albert Camus. Only men like Donnie can quote JJ Hunseker. Only men like Donnie have the right to examine complex ideas. That’s why I’m making a secret second confession. I want in. I want to reach past the jacket blurbs and read the inside pages. I want to be told by my betters how to react to books and movies. I imagine men like Donnie telling me what to see, think and feel and it sends spasms up my corpus spongiosum. (See? Just thinking of joining Donnie’s gang has rendered me conversant in Latin). I want to discuss the modern philosophical movement in movies the way Kant can’t but Cannes can (with the ‘s’ silent as I now also speak French). I want to be paid to spew sneering prejudice onto the newspaper. I want to never have to make anything. Goddamit, I want Irish Times lawyers on my speed dial. If you don’t believe me, ask Donnie.


“The next time you want information, don't scratch for it like a dog, ask for it like a man.” Steve Dallas SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS


One of the articles where Donnie wrote about me like he knows me was from July 22nd last year. Donnie evidently logged on to the Charlie Casanova website, and, selectively taking quotes, he constructed a disingenuous piece aligning Charlie Casanova with a dubiously used Mark Kermode review of another film. (He used the same anecdote in his recent article). This was done without my consultation but, when I considered speed-dialing my lawyers, I remembered, I didn’t have a lawyer. At the time Charlie Casanova had won a few awards and lost a few more, but we had some heavyweights behind us who recognized something in the film that others hadn’t. Despite a crippling Variety review, Janet Pierson picked Charlie Casanova as one of the top films of the 2011 SXSW Film Festival. Selected for Edinburgh and a couple of other festivals, Charlie Casanova’s polemic screenings were dividing audiences but attracting some serious advocates too, including Studio Canal. Boasting one of the greatest modern film libraries around, Studio Canal invited Charlie Casanova to join that library and a May 11th 2012 cinema release was set. Multiple quotes were available but, in deference to the reputation of Donnie Clarke, we used a quote from his July 12th piece on The Galway Film Fleadh where Charlie Casanova had just won Best First Feature. It appeared Donnie was conflicted by the film but he also seemed to give a balanced overview and we used his precise words: “A pretty jaw-dropping piece of work.” The complete article is online, where you can verify he was never misquoted:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0712/1224300551175.html
Then take a look at his article written several days later :
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/theticket/2011/0722/1224301092206.html
Is somebody misrepresenting quotes here? If you don’t believe me, ask Donnie.


“Don't remove the gangplank, Sidney - you may wanna get back onboard.”
JJ Hunseker SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS


The Ahern-esque hubris of your suicidal caustic soda comment aside, Donnie, you remain a humane and passionate protector of cinema. Your ability to quote verbatim from Sweet Smell of Success is testament to that. Yet, how did it evade your unimpeachable radar that this glue sniffing, overreaching illiterate slipped a direct quote from Sweet Smell of Success into Charlie Casanova? “The cat’s in the bag and the bag’s in the river.” Recognize that? You see, Donnie, some of us know more about Alexander Mackendrick’s Sweet Smell of Success than you and your gaggle of fellow critics would presume. It’s a quote from Tony Curtis playing Sidney Falco and we use it in the opening sequence of Charlie Casanova. Clifford Odets wrote that line. But you know that already, don’t you? Is this how attentive you are, Donnie? You dismiss me as an illiterate who can’t read Camus, concoct misleading articles about quotes, then select Sweet Smell of Success to build an article damning me, yet you miss a direct quote from the very film you selected? I’d explain the dramatic irony to you, Donnie, but you’re probably too busy writing your “rabbit punching” review of Charlie Casanova.


You see, Donnie it’s not that you didn’t engage with Charlie Casanova that bothers me. Nor is it your elevated sense of self or that you’ve never had the courage to personally create anything. What offends, Donnie, is your belief that only people like you can appreciate MacKendrik or Camus. What offends is there is an entire generation out there that you and the Irish Times know nothing about. What offends is we exist in a culture where alleging a politician has a predilection for booze results in a 450,000 Euro payout but you can say or write whatever you want about anybody from the working class with impunity. What offends is you can print what you want about me yet the Irish Times will likely never allow me the fairness of printing my rebuttal on the same page this week where yours was last week, even though it has the same word count as yours.


The truth is, Donald, you don’t know me. We’re not friends. If we were, you’d know I’d come out fighting. You’d know I wouldn’t allow you take food off my kid’s table. When you dialed those Irish Times lawyers, did you not feel the need to run your future article past them? Defamation is a serious business, Donald. Do your lawyers know, Donald, that, with the might of The Irish Times behind you, you have unlawfully done discernible damage to the reputation and livelihood of a citizen? I don’t f*****ng think so, Donald. So, should you find yourself forced to choose between caustic soda and a re-watch of Charlie Casanova, you can speed dial those Irish Times lawyers because they’ll be there for you, Donald Clarke, diluted caustic soda in one hand and a copy of Sweet Smell of Success in the other, all prepped to skip to the JJ Hunseker scene where he says, “You’re dead, son. Get yourself buried.” If you don’t believe me, ask your lawyers.

AnonoBoy

He's just dragging it down to childish bickering. He'd have been better served by making his point and saying the rest didn't bother him but instead he's ranted on and on and just shown that he has a massive chip on his shoulder about 'cultured people' and the 'elite'.

Can't wait to see the film though, I think I'm going to hate it.

johnny_ultimate

That rant is basically just another riff on the content of the film, TBH.

It makes it more and more difficult to admire McMahon's success in getting his unusual, no-budget film off the ground when he comes out with bull**** like that. He takes no prisoners, but responding to a relatively light-hearted article (Clarke himself admitting he's more amused than angry) with that nonsense (basically one step away from childish name-calling) is uncalled for.

I'll never begrudge the little guy, but really Charlie Casanova deserves every bit of critical and commercial ire it gets if McMahon is going to react like that everytime someone calls him out on something. Fighting the man is cool and all, but sometimes it's not the appropriate reaction. Especially when you have a film you want people to go to see coming out the same week.

banquet

Yeah agree he comes across as having a massive chip on his shoulder. Also it seems to be more of a personal attack rather than actually dealing with the article and point it made about the misquote

The entire last paragraph where he plays a victim and talks about fighting is strange.

e_e

That's an amazing read, is he trying to be the Vincent Gallo of Irish cinema or something? :pac:

johnny_ultimate

He's just the ranting sort, and an admittedly confident self-promoter. Not even sure what he's trying to get at in the last two paragraphs TBH - just spinning off on some wild tangent that has little or nothing to with the matter at hand.

Terry did have an account on here at one point (posted around Christmas during the film awards), so he might be reading this. Hi!

paddy kerins

So... He's an Irish Patrick Bateman? The character that is

pixelburp

Ha, I open this thread and there in the bottom-right hand corner is a banner ad for this very film.

Read that rebuttal from the director & holy jesus, what a tool. 'Chip on his shoulder' doesn't seem to begin to describe the rant. Clarke's article was an irritated, but fairly bemused reaction to a legitimate misquote, McMahon's response was like something from After Hours.

AnonoBoy

I have a sneaking suspicion though that the film won't be half as entertaining as this spat between Clarke and McMahon.

Welsh Megaman

McMahon was on 'Arena' last night calling Clarke to meet him face to face - definitely worth listening to.

AnonoBoy

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

McMahon was on 'Arena' last night calling Clarke to meet him face to face - definitely worth listening to.

Why would he want to meet him face to face? Is he going to fight him? :rolleyes:

If he was smart he'd just leave this alone, it's not doing him any favours at all. While he may think he's coming across as the maverick filmmaker sticking it to the man he's really just coming across as someone who can't take criticism and seems to have a massive chip on his shoulder about imagined slights against him.

Welsh Megaman

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Why would he want to meet him face to face? Is he going to fight him? :rolleyes:

If he was smart he'd just leave this alone, it's not doing him any favours at all. While he may think he's coming across as the maverick filmmaker sticking it to the man he's really just coming across as someone who can't take criticism and seems to have a massive chip on his shoulder about imagined slights against him.

The phrase 'any publicity is good publicity' definitely applies here. McMahon even mentioned Boards!

stupidusername

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion though that the film won't be half as entertaining as this spat between Clarke and McMahon.

Indeed,I've had more interest reading this thread about the spat than I had as I watched the film just a short time ago.

We wandered into the screening, and were puzzled as to why the smallest screen was picked for this. After the first 20 painful minutes it became clear.

We were the 9th and 10th people to walk out of it,an hour just gone. I'm not knowledgeable about all the cinematographic subtleties (sp?) but I do think the camera work was awful - seemed to be trying to be arty - as well as the lack of a budget being very obvious. The acting was awful,even by the standards of Irish actors.

I've never walked out of a film before. It has me scared to see another film
:eek:

e_e

stupidusername wrote: »

We wandered into the screening, and were puzzled as to why the smallest screen was picked for this. After the first 20 painful minutes it became clear.

We were the 9th and 10th people to walk out of it,an hour just gone.

What cinema did you see it in?

Funnily enough the extreme reactions to it only make me want to see it more.

This is definitely one of the more passionately argued and entertaining negative reviews I've read in a while:
http://www.averagefilmreviews.com/2012/05/film-review-charlie-casanova-2012/

stupidusername

Don't pay to see it,seriously. I want my €11.80 back

Turtyturd

The Sin City esque Jim Gordon posters piqued my interest in this......this thread killed it.

ricero

The trailer looks terrible even for a Irish movie

johnny_ultimate

Every print review I've read as been overwhelmingly negative too (only Little White Lies has been positive, according to rotten tomatoes). McMahon has spoken a lot about the film dividing audiences, but really fans are fast proving the exception here.

It probably is worth a watch just to see what all the fuss is about. Whether you can get over its almost undeniable failings as a film in the traditional sense to find the supposed gold underneath is the big question, I guess.

e_e

stupidusername wrote: »

Don't pay to see it,seriously. I want my €11.80 back

11.80? Jesus.

Hopefully I'll get a free ticket with my IFI points.

Dudess

I read a review - admittedly the Clarke one. When I saw it contains the line (paraphrasing) "You think I'm the bogeyman? No I'm not, I'm you." I made up my mind.
Seriously, that "deep, philosophical" nugget about how we're all responsible for society's woes and no better than a sociopath, a sociopath is just doing what we long to do, bla bla, is the stuff of teenagers trying to look intelligent on After Hours.

BarackPyjama

At least he only needs 100 people to see this to break even. It looks like horrendous, self-indulgent tripe. I won't be watching it.

AnonoBoy

Went to see it.

Some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard. Poor direction and things that are supposed to be shocking that are just laughable:

A woman getting her dog to perform oral sex on her

I laughed out loud at some of the lines

Man to escort: "Teach me how to make my wife love me."

:rolleyes:

Charlie Casanova himself wasn't so much a sociopath as a whiny annoying d*ckhead. And the actress who plays his wife was just awful.

Don't even go to see it as a curiosity piece.

I bet McMahon will hear stories of people walking out and think, "they couldn't handle my truth!" but really I think people are just walking out because it's poorly made sh*te.

pixelburp

Going by his rant, something tells me McMahon will simply dismiss any negative press as the evil Cultural Elite hating from their ivory towers & that they / the audience aren't ready for The Truth.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

At least he only needs 100 people to see this to break even. It looks like horrendous, self-indulgent tripe. I won't be watching it.

One would wonder; Bus Ads aren't cheap & the advertising campaign was fairly prominent on these shores. I was actually amazed something this low-budget was running with such a slick advertising campaign.

Galvasean

pixelburp wrote: »

One would wonder; Bus Ads aren't cheap & the advertising campaign was fairly prominent on these shores. I was actually amazed something this low-budget was running with such a slick advertising campaign.

I'm guessing funding came in off the back of the film's success at American film festivals. StudioCanal seem to be the ones funding the advertising.

Think I'll check it out tonight.

AnonoBoy

Galvasean wrote: »

Think I'll check it out tonight.

Don't say I didn't warn you......

Not going to write too much about this as it's just a dreadful piece of trash that isn't deserving of anything more than a few words.

Charlie Casanova is by far one of the worst things I have ever seen. A truly atrocious piece of film making that is badly made, atrociously written with some of the worst dialog I've ever heard and with some truly dreadful acted. Charlie tries hard to be the Irish Patrick Bateman but instead comes across as a whiny baby who lost it's bottle. Truly deplorable film making of the worst kind, the only redeeming factor is that you can get up and leave when ever you feel like it.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

Going by his rant, something tells me McMahon will simply dismiss any negative press as the evil Cultural Elite hating from their ivory towers & that they / the audience aren't ready for The Truth.

That's the thing - every speech he's given has said how the film was designed to provoke. But it's not provocative, it's merely poorly made. There are potentially interesting points in the film. But it's such a challenge trying to root that stuff out that it's not worth the hassle at all.

As for the Cultural Elite? Well, if the posters of the boards.ie film forum are considered the Cultural Elite, I can consider that a good day :P

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's the thing - every speech he's given has said how the film was designed to provoke. But it's not provocative, it's merely poorly made. There are potentially interesting points in the film. But it's such a challenge trying to root that stuff out that it's not worth the hassle at all.

As for the Cultural Elite? Well, if the posters of the boards.ie film forum are considered the Cultural Elite, I can consider that a good day :P

Everything I read from McMahon, just makes me hate the film a little bit more. It's obvious that be believes that his film is a strikingly original piece of cinema that somehow challenges the status quo when in reality it's a poorly made film whose terrible message is poorly told and amateurish. I've seen a lot of comments comparing the film to A Serbian Film which is ridiculous beyond belief. A Serbian Film may be hard to watch but there is a message and it is made by talented professionals who understand the medium and how to tell a story.

Having read some of McMahon's short scripts it's clear that he does not understand and how to use film to tell a story. Charlie Casanova is his first film and while it's admirable that he made the film on such a small budget and got it out there it does not make the film any more watchable. People like Scorscese, Tarantino, Kubrick, etc are all entitled to have massive egos as they have put in the time and proven themselves time after time. McMahon is a nobody who has made one film but to read his many public statements regarding the films negative critical reception, one would think that he is an industry veteran who has repeatedly challenged cinematic norms and crafted films which define their genre.

baalthor

Galvasean wrote: »

pixelburp wrote: »

One would wonder; Bus Ads aren't cheap & the advertising campaign was fairly prominent on these shores. I was actually amazed something this low-budget was running with such a slick advertising campaign.

I'm guessing funding came in off the back of the film's success at American film festivals. StudioCanal seem to be the ones funding the advertising.

Think I'll check it out tonight.

According to IMDB, the budget is half a million, so McMahon is just being misleading with the 900 euro.

I was wondering if I should see it, one of the cast is a work colleague, otherwise I probably wouldn't have paid it much attention.

Galvasean

baalthor wrote: »

According to IMDB, the budget is half a million, so McMahon is just being misleading with the 900 euro.

That figure must include the marketing budget so because the film received no funding from outside sources. There's no way the filmmakers would have raised half a million off their own back.

Gee Bag

I went to see this despite the poor review Donald Clarke gave it, wanting to support Irish cinema and all that.

It is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It looks like it was acted, scripted and directed by a bunch of particulalry dim-witted transition year students.

The dialouge is pretentious and occasionaly hilarious (unintentionaly).

Forr me its up there with Crushproof as the worst Irish film to ever get a cinema release.

Technocentral

Arrogant idiots involved in making it were on Live Line they completely put me off seeing it, apparently the reason for the appalling reviews is that "its so groundbreaking" that critics don't understand it :rolleyes:, as opposed to it been a piece of crap.

Anyone who is interested in seeing the film simply to see what all the fuss is about should take their money and go see How I Spent My Summer Vacation aka Get the Gringo. Both films have similar production histories and were a lobour of love for those involved. The only difference is that HISMSV is a competently made, entertaining, witty piece of film making that is never less than boring.

e_e

Also Jeff Who Lives At Home and The Raid are on, both terrific movies that need a bigger audience than they're gonna get.

e_e

Technocentral wrote: »

Arrogant idiots involved in making it were on Live Line they completely put me off seeing it, apparently the reason for the appalling reviews is that "its so groundbreaking" that critics don't understand it :rolleyes:, as opposed to it been a piece of crap.

I'm listening now and am actually cringing. If you can't accept a difference of opinion you frankly deserve all the criticism you are going to get.

Hearing Joe Duffy reference Gaspar Noé was kinda amusing though!

foxyboxer

Could this be Ireland's answer to 'The Room'?

"...a fantastic piece of shít..." foxyboxer
"...a fantastic piece..." the marketing team

Clarke is correct to point out the blatant misquote.
A critic's reputation is everything. To be noticed commending such rubbish can be very damaging.

There was potential with this but the final product is the reason why bigger budgeted screenplays go through major drafts and re-writes, possibly even employing a script doctor to patch things up but the budget wasn't there to engage that.

Technocentral

e_e wrote: »

I'm listening now and am actually cringing. If you can't accept a difference of opinion you frankly deserve all the criticism you are going to get.

Hearing Joe Duffy reference Gaspar Noé was kinda amusing though!

Especially when yer wan patronisingly says "it will appeal more to the disadvantaged" in her D4 accent! The main thing that annoyed me, as I said, was that according to them virtually NO critics are advanced enough to see how groundbreaking it apparently is (even ones like Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian who gave it one star, Bradshaw frequently recognises the brilliance in really unconventional but amazing stuff like Enter The Void), one of them said it was just like the way "Citizen Kane and Bonnie and Clyde" weren't praised by all critics at the time of their release (oh the arrogance, to mention them in the same breath as their yoke!). What's the chances this shower have invented a completely new and never seen before form of cinema like Eisenstein, Welles, Godard and the initial Dogma stuff over their lattes in the IFI cafe (with their well thumbed copy of Film Making For Dummies on the table), eh?

pixelburp

Technocentral wrote: »

Arrogant idiots involved in making it were on Live Line they completely put me off seeing it, apparently the reason for the appalling reviews is that "its so groundbreaking" that critics don't understand it :rolleyes:, as opposed to it been a piece of crap.

See? I said it a few posts back from yours, it's obvious the makers of this are suffering from delusions of grandeur & bad reviews will simply ping against the hull of their unflappable & misplaced confidence.

They would no doubt dismiss criticism here as the mere ramblings of housebound nerds, maybe throw in a few zingers about living in mom's basement and whatnot. So I say let them have their 15 minutes, ignore 'em and move on.

Technocentral

pixelburp wrote: »

See? I said it a few posts back from yours, it's obvious the makers of this are suffering from delusions of grandeur & bad reviews will simply ping against the hull of their unflappable & misplaced confidence.

They would no doubt dismiss criticism here as the mere ramblings of housebound nerds, maybe throw in a few zingers about living in mom's basement and whatnot. So I say let them have their 15 minutes, ignore 'em and move on.

I resent that, I have a great view from the window in mom's attic.