WHY does this movie exist? Who thought it was a good idea to send a coked up Tara Reid down under to be a part of such a horrible, horrible film? Sharknado I can understand and I honest to goodness thought Charlie's Farm was supposed to be in the same category - satire. It took all of about 5 minutes into the film for me to come to the horrible realization that no, this film was legit trying to take it self seriously.
Through some of the worst acting/dialogue I've seen in an age, we're introduced to the main players of the film. A laughably bad group of stereotypical twenty-somethings looking to shake things up. A leading man with no screen presence or charisma, a leading lady who quite literally is in it for the pay check, a bumbling, chubby comedic sidekick with a classic misogynist outlook (and ego to boot) & a dead eyed cute girl who for some reason decides to come along.
Literally, from the opening scene you know exactly where the film is headed (and honestly you may as well switch it off there).
I wont go into the details of the film too much because honestly, I could jump on to the wikipedia page's of ANY slasher film and cherry pick plot points from there - as it seems the screenwriter/director Chris Sun has done with this self titled 'return to form' for the genre.
i have been on the look out for a fresh new horror franchise of late (since the Saw movies went south FAST) and after seeing online that this film had not only Bill Mosely but Kane Hodder as well I was well enthused to see the picture. Boy was I let down! In what were essentially cameos both major draw cards to the film are killed off in ridiculously weak, poorly thought out ways. Heck, Bill's death is so early into the film I'd completely forgotten he was in it until sitting down to write this.
The Australian Outback is highlighted through some (and I stress SOME) good photography from the camera team although the dark scenes weren't very well shot with the exception of one beautiful frame inside Charlie's mine shaft thing (what was it? Why was it there?) toward the ending of the movie.
Now on to the death scenes. In what are supposed to be highlights of this kind of film (and based off of the Director's constant hype building via social media) with fresh, exciting and brutal ways of dispatching his victims, Charlie tends to be pretty tame when it comes to the killing. Disregarding one delightful kill involving a piece of machinery mind way through the film, the rest of the killings feel cheap, stock standard and overall extremely underwhelming. Almost all the killings take place in broad daylight, a nice change at first but it quickly became a major problem. In one scene involving a some kind of river, the bumbling fat friend (whom the daft script repeatedly beats you over the head with the knowledge is gifted with a rather large C@#$ - even going as dumb as to name him Donkey) has his member cut off and shoved down his throat in what might just be the silliest moment of the film - in what i suspect was supposed to be a small moment of comedy, it does nothing but undermine any kind of threat the audience is supposed to feel in the moment. truly ridiculous.
Not only is Charlie a cheap rip off of far superior slasher films (apparently this cost 3million dollars? No wonder its so expensive to live in Australia) it's actually funny to think that anyone involved in this project suspected that this could ever be thought of as scary or be taken seriously.
Did they even do screen tests on Charlie? He looks comically out of place amongst this back drop (especially his silly yellow eyes) and apart from that - showing him in broad daylight from the first kill instantly takes away any kind of threatening reveal you could have built up to.
Actually while we're on the topic of the look of things - what on Earth was with the casting? Random backpackers just appear from the wilderness at one point in the movie - essentially kill-fest fodder - but both actors were horribly out of place. The red headed man (who I seriously hope isn't a respected actor in Australia) looks, sounds and IS completely out of place. A well kept beard and his hair perfectly quaffed and he's supposed to be playing the type of person we would believe to go hiking? The woman also, with no character apparent except the appearance of some brightly colored hippy pants is also way too dressed up to be believable. Good thing they're dispatched quickly because neither has an ounce of on screen presence.
All in all - the film was wasted time. I am still searching for that great new horror franchise because this is definitely not it.
PS: Don't believe any of these 10/10 reviews - I was just looking through the page for the directors next movie "Boar" and a lot of the people acting in it are Australian people who left positive reviews on this film lol. No wonder the acting in this was crud. They're not even real actors! Just people sucking up to a director with some money. Is that even allowed?
Through some of the worst acting/dialogue I've seen in an age, we're introduced to the main players of the film. A laughably bad group of stereotypical twenty-somethings looking to shake things up. A leading man with no screen presence or charisma, a leading lady who quite literally is in it for the pay check, a bumbling, chubby comedic sidekick with a classic misogynist outlook (and ego to boot) & a dead eyed cute girl who for some reason decides to come along.
Literally, from the opening scene you know exactly where the film is headed (and honestly you may as well switch it off there).
I wont go into the details of the film too much because honestly, I could jump on to the wikipedia page's of ANY slasher film and cherry pick plot points from there - as it seems the screenwriter/director Chris Sun has done with this self titled 'return to form' for the genre.
i have been on the look out for a fresh new horror franchise of late (since the Saw movies went south FAST) and after seeing online that this film had not only Bill Mosely but Kane Hodder as well I was well enthused to see the picture. Boy was I let down! In what were essentially cameos both major draw cards to the film are killed off in ridiculously weak, poorly thought out ways. Heck, Bill's death is so early into the film I'd completely forgotten he was in it until sitting down to write this.
The Australian Outback is highlighted through some (and I stress SOME) good photography from the camera team although the dark scenes weren't very well shot with the exception of one beautiful frame inside Charlie's mine shaft thing (what was it? Why was it there?) toward the ending of the movie.
Now on to the death scenes. In what are supposed to be highlights of this kind of film (and based off of the Director's constant hype building via social media) with fresh, exciting and brutal ways of dispatching his victims, Charlie tends to be pretty tame when it comes to the killing. Disregarding one delightful kill involving a piece of machinery mind way through the film, the rest of the killings feel cheap, stock standard and overall extremely underwhelming. Almost all the killings take place in broad daylight, a nice change at first but it quickly became a major problem. In one scene involving a some kind of river, the bumbling fat friend (whom the daft script repeatedly beats you over the head with the knowledge is gifted with a rather large C@#$ - even going as dumb as to name him Donkey) has his member cut off and shoved down his throat in what might just be the silliest moment of the film - in what i suspect was supposed to be a small moment of comedy, it does nothing but undermine any kind of threat the audience is supposed to feel in the moment. truly ridiculous.
Not only is Charlie a cheap rip off of far superior slasher films (apparently this cost 3million dollars? No wonder its so expensive to live in Australia) it's actually funny to think that anyone involved in this project suspected that this could ever be thought of as scary or be taken seriously.
Did they even do screen tests on Charlie? He looks comically out of place amongst this back drop (especially his silly yellow eyes) and apart from that - showing him in broad daylight from the first kill instantly takes away any kind of threatening reveal you could have built up to.
Actually while we're on the topic of the look of things - what on Earth was with the casting? Random backpackers just appear from the wilderness at one point in the movie - essentially kill-fest fodder - but both actors were horribly out of place. The red headed man (who I seriously hope isn't a respected actor in Australia) looks, sounds and IS completely out of place. A well kept beard and his hair perfectly quaffed and he's supposed to be playing the type of person we would believe to go hiking? The woman also, with no character apparent except the appearance of some brightly colored hippy pants is also way too dressed up to be believable. Good thing they're dispatched quickly because neither has an ounce of on screen presence.
All in all - the film was wasted time. I am still searching for that great new horror franchise because this is definitely not it.
PS: Don't believe any of these 10/10 reviews - I was just looking through the page for the directors next movie "Boar" and a lot of the people acting in it are Australian people who left positive reviews on this film lol. No wonder the acting in this was crud. They're not even real actors! Just people sucking up to a director with some money. Is that even allowed?