CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.3/10
1.1 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaMichael, a young mechanic, is forced to choose between a daring tryst with an alluring stranger and the habitual comfort of his bittersweet obsession: his beautiful young tenant.Michael, a young mechanic, is forced to choose between a daring tryst with an alluring stranger and the habitual comfort of his bittersweet obsession: his beautiful young tenant.Michael, a young mechanic, is forced to choose between a daring tryst with an alluring stranger and the habitual comfort of his bittersweet obsession: his beautiful young tenant.
- Premios
- 3 premios ganados y 2 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
Not only does this film capture the subtle dynamics of four intertwined people in intimate relationships, but it is ground-breaking in revealing the cultural context of Los Angeles based Asian-Americans. The acting and directing are superb...and the DVD Q&A with Roger Ebert is worth a look.
What a pleasure to watch this film!
What a pleasure to watch this film!
I don't think this is a film unique to Asians, it just so happened that the characters are Asian. There are hues of cultural family/generational expectations, like the scenes of Michael and his aunt. The dinner table scene somehow reminds me of writer-director Mina Shum's 1994 "Double Happiness," which included Chinese-Canadian family dinner scenes with Sandra Oh in the lead; also brings to mind director Wayne Wang's 1985 "Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart."
Overall, I felt there are similarities in filmmaking style between Lynne Ramsay's "Morvern Callar" and Eric Byler's "Charlotte Sometimes" - the value of quiet moments, sparse dialog scenes, minimal lighting and silhouette shots; depiction of lonely feelings, alone-ness all by her/himself; loving yet not openly/readily showing so secrets, pains, longings kept within. The storytelling approach is resonant of each other: not revealing it all to the audience, yet using music - here Byler has included songs by Cody ChestnuTT, to set the pace and tempo of the film. The presentation of relationship psyche is mature - the brief exchanges come across natural and of everyday ease. Yet, yes, it does feel like a thriller, emotion-wise. It's a tug of war. There is sexual tension. The sex in bed scenes - may be as sexy and suggestive as cable late nights, but it's not pornographic. Its camerawork integrally delivers with the soundwork - the grunts and noise of lovemaking are not forced but can be tantalizing.
Secrets and lies - yes there are: the relationship between Michael the quiet mechanic who reads (also the landlord) upstairs and Lori the pretty actress neighbor & friend downstairs; the relationship of Lori and Justin (her bed fellow and live-in boyfriend); the ménage à trois between Michael, Lori and Justin; the relationship of Michael and Darcy the stranger; the relationship between the two women - Lori and Darcy (or Charlotte sometimes); the other triangle of Michael, Darcy and Lori, and not to miss the Darcy and Justin moments. On the surface, simple and quiet as Michael would have it (seemingly so) - there are a lot goings on what lies beneath.
"Charlotte Sometimes" may not be for everyone (NFE), but it's definitely a formidable mature feature film first from w-d, co-editor, and co-producer, Eric Byler. Bravo to him and the actors and crew of this film, and to VisionBox Pictures for taking on the distribution.
For contrast, try w-d James F. Robinson's 1998 romantic fantasy: "Still Breathing" with Brendan Fraser and Joanna Going. There's also w-d Alan Jacob's 1994 down to earth fairytale of a relationship: "Nina Takes a Lover" with Laura San Giacomo and Paul Rhys. Both I've comments posted on IMDb.
Overall, I felt there are similarities in filmmaking style between Lynne Ramsay's "Morvern Callar" and Eric Byler's "Charlotte Sometimes" - the value of quiet moments, sparse dialog scenes, minimal lighting and silhouette shots; depiction of lonely feelings, alone-ness all by her/himself; loving yet not openly/readily showing so secrets, pains, longings kept within. The storytelling approach is resonant of each other: not revealing it all to the audience, yet using music - here Byler has included songs by Cody ChestnuTT, to set the pace and tempo of the film. The presentation of relationship psyche is mature - the brief exchanges come across natural and of everyday ease. Yet, yes, it does feel like a thriller, emotion-wise. It's a tug of war. There is sexual tension. The sex in bed scenes - may be as sexy and suggestive as cable late nights, but it's not pornographic. Its camerawork integrally delivers with the soundwork - the grunts and noise of lovemaking are not forced but can be tantalizing.
Secrets and lies - yes there are: the relationship between Michael the quiet mechanic who reads (also the landlord) upstairs and Lori the pretty actress neighbor & friend downstairs; the relationship of Lori and Justin (her bed fellow and live-in boyfriend); the ménage à trois between Michael, Lori and Justin; the relationship of Michael and Darcy the stranger; the relationship between the two women - Lori and Darcy (or Charlotte sometimes); the other triangle of Michael, Darcy and Lori, and not to miss the Darcy and Justin moments. On the surface, simple and quiet as Michael would have it (seemingly so) - there are a lot goings on what lies beneath.
"Charlotte Sometimes" may not be for everyone (NFE), but it's definitely a formidable mature feature film first from w-d, co-editor, and co-producer, Eric Byler. Bravo to him and the actors and crew of this film, and to VisionBox Pictures for taking on the distribution.
For contrast, try w-d James F. Robinson's 1998 romantic fantasy: "Still Breathing" with Brendan Fraser and Joanna Going. There's also w-d Alan Jacob's 1994 down to earth fairytale of a relationship: "Nina Takes a Lover" with Laura San Giacomo and Paul Rhys. Both I've comments posted on IMDb.
This was a good film, but it has flaws.
Visually it's got problems because much of it was shot on digital. I suppose they ran out of money, but it's a shame they couldn't use film. There were some interesting shots but the discipline of film would have had them making sure the light readings were carefully evaluated rather than what happened: the typical low quality of digital, but with even muddier shots than normal for digital.
Now, on to the story: very interesting plot. And interesting characters. I felt they were real people. But the two actresses did a better job than the actors. Not that I didn't think the Michael character was that unbelievable. But he wasn't given lines to show any range of emotion. Of course his character is SUPPOSED to be subdued and pensive, but all people have a range of emotions within their personal boundaries and the Michael character didn't test them.
The different takes on sex give you a lot to think about. But there could have been a little more irony/human condition/redemption...something in the story to give us more to ponder about. But there WAS something there. I left the theatre thinking about how there are more chaste individuals and more "alpha" individuals but how they can sometimes drift into the opposite directions. Specifically in this film how Michael unexpectedly responds to "Do you want to make love?" with "No. I want to f*ck you hard." Contrast that with the sexually confident Justin, who has to deal with one of those "criers after sex" on a one-night-stand and contemplate alone in a car later just what he lost with his current girlfriend.
6 out of 10 because it kept me thinking and I'm confident that both the director and actor/actresses have the talent to create even better art in the future.
Visually it's got problems because much of it was shot on digital. I suppose they ran out of money, but it's a shame they couldn't use film. There were some interesting shots but the discipline of film would have had them making sure the light readings were carefully evaluated rather than what happened: the typical low quality of digital, but with even muddier shots than normal for digital.
Now, on to the story: very interesting plot. And interesting characters. I felt they were real people. But the two actresses did a better job than the actors. Not that I didn't think the Michael character was that unbelievable. But he wasn't given lines to show any range of emotion. Of course his character is SUPPOSED to be subdued and pensive, but all people have a range of emotions within their personal boundaries and the Michael character didn't test them.
The different takes on sex give you a lot to think about. But there could have been a little more irony/human condition/redemption...something in the story to give us more to ponder about. But there WAS something there. I left the theatre thinking about how there are more chaste individuals and more "alpha" individuals but how they can sometimes drift into the opposite directions. Specifically in this film how Michael unexpectedly responds to "Do you want to make love?" with "No. I want to f*ck you hard." Contrast that with the sexually confident Justin, who has to deal with one of those "criers after sex" on a one-night-stand and contemplate alone in a car later just what he lost with his current girlfriend.
6 out of 10 because it kept me thinking and I'm confident that both the director and actor/actresses have the talent to create even better art in the future.
I just saw this film on Sundance channel (TV). I thought it was an enjoyable film, the main character is a passive intellectual but I've known people like him and he rings true to this time (around 2002). The dialog is very believable, many things that are said aren't true, though the characters might want to believe they are.
These characters seem to be L.A. "slackers", though at least we see the main character at work upon occasion. He doesn't seem to take it very seriously, and his garage is the most laid back garage I've ever seen. The two girls seem to do little but travel and have sex. Would this story make more sense if it was set in Hawaii as opposed to Los Angeles? Perhaps.
Its a languid film but I think I learned something real from watching it. 7 out of 10.
These characters seem to be L.A. "slackers", though at least we see the main character at work upon occasion. He doesn't seem to take it very seriously, and his garage is the most laid back garage I've ever seen. The two girls seem to do little but travel and have sex. Would this story make more sense if it was set in Hawaii as opposed to Los Angeles? Perhaps.
Its a languid film but I think I learned something real from watching it. 7 out of 10.
"Charlotte Sometimes" addresses questions of love, intimacy and sex in ways that I've never seen before. The movie's characters say more by what they DON'T say rather than what we do.
Like the best movies, the script is cut to a minimum so that we may drink in how the characters are reacting rather than what they are saying. Sure, it's not a perfect film but it's very good.
Like the best movies, the script is cut to a minimum so that we may drink in how the characters are reacting rather than what they are saying. Sure, it's not a perfect film but it's very good.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe book Darcy gave to Michael is The Oblivion Seekers by Isabelle Eberhardt and translated by Paul Bowles.
- ConexionesFeatured in The 2003 IFP Independent Spirit Awards (2003)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 80,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 150,445
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 3,284
- 4 may 2003
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 247,554
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta