Charlotte Sometimes

Not for those with short attention spans, this movie builds its characters slowly and methodically, with attention to telling visual detail and realistic dialog. Nevertheless, it's a very sexy movie, though not in a lurid sense. Even its most melodramatic elements are so well-grounded that nothing comes off gimmicky or cheap, and its shot-on-video photography is utilized intelligently and intuitively, with a surprisingly broad pallet of colors and textures. With such an overall understated tone, it's easy, on first viewing, to not notice the movie's technical suppleness. Forget the ethnic makeup of its cast, or its low-budget market niche. This is a masterpiece of character study and adept film-making.

"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.

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!

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.

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.