Charlie Casanova

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 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.

Film advertising misusing quotes from reviews is nothing new, it's an accepted part of the industry and while Clarke's article was a little unnecessary McMahon's reaction has been one which can only be called absurd. There is nothing worse than a film maker who refuses to accept any criticism and even worse is one who believes that any criticism is down to some elitist agenda or misunderstanding of the material. Charlie Casanova is not an intelligent film, it is the cinematic equivalent of some misguided teenagers angry manifesto.

A lot of people are going to go and see the film due to the whole furor that has been int he media of late and that's a real shame as each ticket sale is only going to inflate McMahon's already over inflated ego and lead him to think that his film is in fact of note.