Charismata (2017) [review]
Charismata (2017) [review]
Slightly spooky British crime drama(ish)
Quick Review
Good film.
Supernatural crime drama with a bit of gore but nothing underwear returning scary. A pair of police detectives are investigating ritualistic murders. One of them begins to mentally breakdown as they draw in on the suspect, leading to something I doubt most people would predict.
Quality movie all round. The only bad point is the final (final) ending scene. Well paced and boredom free. Unless you do get bored watching it. That’s a you problem.
Worth a watch or two. So long as you don’t judge it strictly by the box art or official synopsis. Which many seem to when writing reviews. If you’re not a horror fan, don’t dismiss this “horror” movie.
Overview
Genre(s): Thriller, Drama, Mild Horror
Location(s): Surrey, UK
Writer(s): Andy Collier, Tor Mian
Director(s): Andy Collier, Tor Mian
Main Actor(s):
‘Sarah Beck Mather’ as ‘Rebecca Faraway’
‘Andonis Anthony’ as ‘Eli Smith’
Official Synopsis:
(1) “London-based detective Rebecca Faraway (Sarah Beck Mather) investigates a number of murders linked to a potential serial killer. Real estate owner Michael Sweet (Jamie Satterthwaite) is considered a suspect after a number of bodies are discovered on some of his abandoned properties. As her domestic life unravels and her dependence on drink and medication increases Faraway finds herself becoming attracted to the charming Sweet and questioning her own sanity.”
(2) “Charismata is a terrifying psychological horror that invokes David Finchers ‘Se7en’. When the chief suspect in a series of ritualistic murders takes a personal interest in Rebecca, the rookie cop investigating the crimes, it starts a deadly game of cat and mouse that leads to a terrifying climax where she will have to fight for her sanity and possible her very soul.”
Box Art:
First View Impressions
My reviews aren’t numbered so it doesn’t matter what I review first. I’m writing 3 at the same time, but this will be the first published. Therefor I wanted my first review to be a movie I enjoyed and may not be too well known.
In synopsis #2, quoted at the top of this review, ‘Charismata’ is likened to the cinematic milestone ‘Se7ven’ (1995). It's never a good idea to rely on a consumer’s prior viewing experiences. Perhaps they misremember the original, had a bad day which tainted their experience or particularly disliked something in the quoted movie which isn’t present here.
Not to say ‘Charismata’ isn’t in the spirit of ‘Se7ven’, but now there’s an expectation of quality and content. That reference lit up my noodle though, as the similarities never occurred to me. They’re both crime dramas, we follow 2 recently partnered detectives who don’t get along fantastically well, the atmosphere is dark/depressing (more so in ‘Se7en’), brutal ritualistic murders are being investigated with a puzzle leading to a graphic final encounter. Trying not to spoil anything!
‘Charismata’ is labelled a ‘horror’ movie. If you actively avoid this genre, do not be put off as I somewhat dispute this categorisation. To me, it felt more like a dark crime drama given the depth of character development and their relationships. I’m not a fan of unnecessary sex scenes. The one included here is somewhat tastefully done, though more graphic than required for a non-porno.
There are dead bodies, horror elements, supernatural events and you may not make it through the ending if squeamish. Which is why, to me, it stands out when facing off against mainstream jump scare trash ‘horror’. I guess it’s of the horror genre, but is no more scary than the most terrifying episode of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends - S2E24 (Ghost Train).
In the mood for some light spookiness? This is a good watch, just don’t expect a ‘Hellraiser’ (1987) gore fest as promised on the box art. If you’re after something with a bit of drama and interesting characters, there’s enough here to keep you engaged and coming back.
In More Detail (some spoilers, nothing major)
No major spoilers here, but film structure and plot is analysed in detail. If in doubt, just watch the film.
Before getting in to the movie, my interpretation of the ‘main characters’ should be explained. Top billed are Sarah Beck Mather and Jamie Satterthwaite, the latter of which plays our prime suspect. He doesn’t have many scenes, very little character development and I honestly couldn’t remember what he looked like by the end. Not to take anything away from Satterthwaite, but it’s the reason I swapped him out with Andonis Anthony as a main character.
‘Charismata’ follows the dysfunctional and crumbling life of Rebecca Faraway, played by the excellent Sarah Beck Mather. She’s living alone, going through a breakup, selling a house, medicated, drinking moderately and dealing with a clownish partner hazing her in a new job.
This is not some Hollywank nonsense, chronicling the whimsical days of an incompetent snowflake blaming her problems on everyone else. Faraway is a real (fictional) strong woman, living a tough life with nowhere to turn for help. Or so she thinks.
Andonis Anthony plays fellow detective, Faraway’s partner, Eli Smith. He is equally competent in the role and their opposite personalities blend together flawlessly. There’s not much known about his background. Other than he appears to be single, is a more seasoned detective and frustratingly laid back. He also has a fondness for trashier women…
The chemistry between Faraway and Smith is what makes this movie a frequented favourite of mine. One time Smith corrects Faraway with inaccurate information, she later repeats this to her boss and is corrected by Smith, parroting her initial statement. Embarrassing Farraway in front of her peers. It’s funny! Well, if you’re a guy it’s funny.
Another time has Smith in a car outside Faraway’s house repeatedly sounding the horn, for a very long time, until she calmly makes her way out and presents him with the correct response. If it were any other day, perhaps she would play along with his games? As her life collapses, so does her patience.
The writers appear to understand there’s a difference between men and women. Humour, emotions, fears; men and women handle situations differently. It’s not only Smith ‘annoying’ her. Faraway is treated like one of the guys by 2 other prominent detectives. It’s how males show acceptance. Misinterpreted, by people who don’t understand there are 2 genders, as sexism. What she needs is a friend to offload on. Maybe another girl? She doesn’t appear to have anyone. By choice or as a result of her career?
Perhaps Smith cares about Faraway and this is his bonding mechanism? I’m not defending his actions, only acknowledging that not everyone in the world is the same. Only 99% are.
What can I say about the suspect? Not much. He’s apparently a rich, successful, handsome guy. I didn’t find him remotely attractive, however good looking girls do gravitate towards unattractive men. Possibly to do with control? They feel safer with a less attractive guy knowing he’s unlikely to walk out? Rather confident it’s the money.
Back on track. The suspect isn’t fleshed out too much. Which is good and bad. Without a deep dive into his psyche or extracurricular activities, we’re left with an air of mystery. With only brief glimpses of the suspects life and given the intensity of the crimes, could he be capable of these murders?
The story is well paced. I never felt bored or rushed and it held my attention throughout. Which is the highest praise I can give. Many movies send me drifting off, checking YouTube notifications or thinking of better things I’ve seen. To track down the real killer, or killers, we’re led around various Surrey hot spots of pubs, warehouses, offices, homes and grittier nondescript locations. Equally diverse are the supporting characters, all of whom are highly adept in their roles.
As mentioned previously, there are horror elements but nothing to keep the light on at night. The horror is manifested from a general uneasiness focused around Faraway’s mental state. Is she having a breakdown or is this reality? Either way, how will she escape it and what role will Smith play?
There are… hmm. The conclusion to the story is very good and very not what I expected. I predicted something more cliché. A compliment to the talented writers. The ‘Ending’, by which I mean the literal end of the film, almost ruined the experience. I can’t tell you when to turn it off without spoiling anything, only recommend you brace yourself.
‘Charismata’ did not have a £500m budget and it didn’t need one. There wasn’t a single actor I recognised. It’s not laced with product placements and garbage ethnic music appealing to idiots. The entire film doesn’t take place on a green screen with terrible lighting, blending and low budget CGI.
This had great acting, directing, writing, plot, music and setting. Everything a good movie should. It’s not the best movie ever, but it is an enjoyable journey with good replay value. Apart from that last scene. Don’t judge any film by a single scene.
…unless it’s Americanised brainwashing horse shit.
Don’t Read This Section!
I’m not covering the entire movie and taking away potential earnings. This is an area for parts of the review which may ruin the viewing experience, not for disclosing every plot point. From here I’m assuming everyone has seen the film.
Seemingly SJW, Definitely Not
When first meeting Faraway, she may come off as grating. Things are not going well in life, just stick with it. She’s quite likable once you get to know her. Don’t dismiss ‘Charismata’ as a girl power, woe is me, I’m better than men but no one appreciates my greatness lecture.
I almost fell in to this trap after the first few minutes, but understood the reasoning after hearing how Smith talked to her. There’s a way to communicate with girls, especially when they’re like that, which doesn’t involve dicking around 24/7. They really don’t like it.
Faraway seems accepted by the men she works with, who are the prominent people in her life. Aside from an ex-boyfriend (husband?) who has zero sympathy for her plight. The reason her colleagues act the way do is likely for 2 reasons; the job and they’re men.Most people would be eating lead in unhealthy portion sizes if they had to see mutilated corpses every day, calmly interview the suspect and treat them with respect. I couldn’t do it. Not without killing a lot of people. Who would deserve to die.
We’re following 2 teams of detectives in a series of brutal ritualistic murders. The men have seemingly been in this job for years and their clownish behaviour is likely a coping mechanism. However, stupid people may interpret this as unprofessional or mocking.
The film does open with some questionable repartee’s! Power through them and accept they’re intended to be humourous, not social commentary on gender roles in society. My favourite inappropriate line being; “Like a menstruating virgin at a gang bang”. Context matters. The character delivering this wondrous imagery has the most mentally straining job of all.
As for men? To reiterate; men and women are different. There are men, there are women, they are different. This joking around they’re doing with Faraway is how guys talk to each other. She needs to loosen up. Also, the guys also need to be more understanding towards her. Which may happen by the end of the film.
Sex
There’s a single sex scene which isn’t as bad as some movies, though it did annoy me a tad. There has to be a point to them! Otherwise they comes off as juvenile and perverse. The scene placement here makes sense, however the choice of shots was clearly to fulfill someone’s fantasy rather than progress the story.
Faraway’s descent in to madness triggers a sexual dream between her and Satterthwaite. Or is it a dream? Pretty sure it wasn’t. Although she didn’t use a condom and he definitely ejaculated in her. Don’t see how he could stop himself after her stellar performance.
The premise of this ‘dream’ is that Satterthwaite enters Faraway’s bedroom to take a lock of hair. Not for the first time. She awakens, pulls him close and fucks his brains out. Could have worded that better. If the film makers wanted class they should have filmed a classier scene. Why do we need extended full-frontal shots of Faraway’s (awesome) tits bouncing around?
Sarah Beck Mather looks fantastic clothed, more so naked, with exceptional bedroom skills. We managed perfectly fine for decades of cinema without any nudity, so why is this degeneracy acceptable now? Why do I need to see multi-angle shots of Sarah grinding fast and hard, culminating in a painfully long tit thrusting shot of her staring in to the camera? I don’t.
A better effect could have been achieved while retaining her modesty. It’s demeaning to everyone involved in the production and insulting to the viewer. They think so little of us that we need boobs and sex to give a positive review. That’s what annoyed me. Not the inclusion of the scene, only the immature way it was framed. Shoot her from behind? Head shots? Move the camera over her body, cutting out before reaching the naughty parts?
Box Art (see top of page)
I’m mentioning this after the sex rant, as it’s obvious the highly inappropriate box art originates from that.
‘Charismata’ is a supernatural, horror, detective, drama. So why does box art #1 feature a shot of Faraway sexy-pose naked on her bed? It does happen in the film, but has no impact on the story. If the scene were omitted, things wouldn’t play out differently. What does this imagery put in peoples heads when they’re deciding on a movie to watch with their partner?
Even the tag line “Face your demons” makes no sense. There is no demon facing. Faraway has problems and is dealing with them from the start. Living the best life she can, handling whatever is thrown at her. Even within the sex scene, around half way through the film, she’s the one taking control and instigating the act. Faraway pulled the guy on to the bed, whipped her top off and rode him hard. Very, very hard. Was that facing her demons? Demon? Perhaps in the final scene with the mirror? Ugh.
Box art #2 is slightly better. It’s another bedroom scene, however this one makes Faraway look weak. It also never happened. I don’t remember a supernatural entity hanging from the ceiling with a cross dangling down. Maybe I missed it? Or those frames are on the cutting room floor? Attaching review quotes and ratings to movie promotions are also a personal irritation. They’re always misquotes, taken out of context or paid for.
I detest both covers. Neither accurately represent the film. If I were to see these on a shelf, I’m not picking them up and looking like a pervert. More of a pervert. I also could do without seeing another movie of a girl plagued by misery, struggling to find her strength and facing her demons! Seen it a dozen times. This is what these covers scream to me.
Having worked with too many garbage marketing teams over the years, like there’s any other, I’m well trained in ignorance. A skill I recommend everyone learn. Else you may miss out on gems like ‘Charismata’.
The End
The end of the story was great. Considering the bar incident (no spoiler) I was expecting Faraway and Smith to become romantically involved. Not sure why that would happen? Must be all the Hollywank trash I’ve been watching. Instead, Smith visits Faraway in hospital and shows some compassion towards her.
He’s sympathetic to what she’s been through, perhaps realising how badly she needed a friend, finally treating her like a girl. Even berating the other 2, less gender attuned, detectives who occasionally popup. Faraway questions reality and is assured the ordeal is over. Story wrapped up, yet open to a possible sequel. This is where I believe the film should have ended.
Unfortunately, the movie didn’t end there. I do not know what the production team were thinking for the final scene. Perhaps they included it for shock value? If that’s the case, mission accomplished. In a bad way. Could it be they wanted to shoehorn in a final supernatural element to appease the horror crowd? Whatever the reasoning, it was tone deaf.
Farraway is alone in hospital, everyone has left, she’s on her feet and feeling better. As good as one can after such trauma. She slowly opens her eyes in front of a mirror to find the battered killer looking back, sporting a devilish grin. Farraway panics and runs for help. There’s no one. She reaches a large locked door and begins banging on it. An ominous score tells us the killer is fast approaching from behind. The camera moves in progressively closer until we see her literally explode. Like a menstruating virgin at a gang bang.
Was this final insult a dream or reality? There are supernatural elements to the film, but the existence of such powers were never proven. The killers demonic rituals didn’t bestow them with any abilities. Either Farraway was the key to unlocking the powers, the killer needed to die to unlock them, or she was dreaming. The latter would explain the lack of people in the hospital!
Thinking cap on. Farraway only began hallucinating after meeting the killer, who supplied her with a drink. Perhaps it was drugged? Then he could have broken into her house and further drugged her over time. That could also mean the sex scene was real? This is how I like to think of the ending; a dream. Farraway exploding in such an undignified manner, is too comically bad given the consistently strong writing.
Digesting the ending as it was literally depicted, would drop my rating a fair amount. There is a possibility for a sequel. Maybe with Smith investigating how Farraway exploded? Sounds more stupid the more I type it. There’s also the possibility of a sequel if she had not exploded.
Although there’s a definitive ending to the film, it’s still open to some limited interpretation. Something I hadn’t acknowledged on my first viewing; rage quitting in disgust as the credits rolled.
Movies have rules. They can be broken, though most follow the same formula. A fade to white infers a dream. A fade to black means the end.
‘Charismata’ fades to black.
