Steven Spielberg's first great film Jaws (1975) was a film that was destined to be ripped-off, parodied, and referenced in horror films for ages to come. They continue today. As recently as the Shark Attack movies, which started in 1999. But while those films only copied certain elements of Jaws, the Italian low-budget horror film Great White ripped-off nearly every single element. As a matter of fact, it copied Jaws so closely that Universal Pictures filed a successful lawsuit against the producers and Great White was yanked out of American theaters shortly after its release.

Because it's a rip-off of Jaws (1975), the plot is no different. A great white shark attacks a sleepy little summer resort town, attacking surfers and swimmers as they venture into the water. The police chief (James Franciscus) knows it's out there, and so does a crusty sea captain (Vic Morrow), but the mayor of the town (Joshua Sinclair) doesn't want to frighten away tourists. Yes, it's just a repeat of the great Spielberg classic, down to the point where the characters go out in a boat to hunt down the ferocious fish.

Steven Spielberg's Jaws (1975) is my all-time favorite movie and therefore, I find it kind of blasphemous of the producers of Great White to copy it as extensively as they did. But believe it or not, during the first half-hour of the film, I was getting the impression that I was going to enjoy it and might even forgive it for its plagiarism. It still would have been a rip-off, but the point is the movie starts out on a cheesy but fun level, and then disintegrates into a travesty.

And yet, it continues to mimic Jaws (1975) down to the bone. They even copied Spielberg's horrifying technique of not showing the shark until the movie was half-over. They had a sequence where the shark attacked a buoy and dragged it across the surface of the water (just like in Jaws (1975) where the shark was struck with harpoons rigged to barrels). But these blatant attempts to create suspense failed miserably. But wait, there's more! There are moments in the film where it even tries to duplicate Jaws 2 (1978)! What I found kind of humorous was how closely Vic Morrow tried to imitate Robert Shaw's stupendous performance from the original film. Right down to the accent. Sometimes it was kind of sweet, other times, it got flat-out annoying.

In terms of the shark itself, for when it is seen, just like in Spielberg's classic, it was done through a mechanical shark and live footage. And in Great White, these two elements are blended together so badly that it never sustains the illusion. We will see the mechanical shark (which is a pretty poor effect) rise above the water and then sink down. The next shot is a live action shark under the water and it looks completely different than its animatronic counterpart. No resemblance.

Are there any highlights at all to Great White? Yes, but very few. The music, while blown out of proportion at times, is intricate. Not masterful like John Williams' score for Jaws (1975), but intricate. Performances are generally good. James Franciscus was likable as the police chief even though he was copying Roy Scheider's character. But remember, he just took the salary and played the role. He didn't write the script. And like I said, even thought the initial thirty minutes is also mimicking Spielberg's film, it did have a kind of respectful sweetness and was kind of fun. But after that, it really bogged down, overstayed its welcome, and lowered the standards. And the ending was truly awful.


This movie is really worth the money! I went to a DVD store one day and found this movie amongst splatter movies. I read the cover describing it as a real success at the 80's and how mad Spielberg was when the movie got released. I can't believe this movie got that low rating! It may be cheap, it may be campy, but it's really truly entertaining! When I watched the movie I almost smiled the whole time. And that scene with the helicopter... the gore... his legs! Amazing! Laughed my tears out! Sure it isn't as great as Spielberg's Jaws, but it sure beats the guts out of the bad Jaws sequels! Those who thinks my comment is stupid are just the ones who don't understand how bad can be good. Worth watching!


Great White isn't to bad of a film. I was expecting worse if they had to sue a law-suit.

Anyway, i watched it online and loved it! Plot: Writer Peter Benton soon finds out a shark has been terrorizing there beach and wants to put a stop to it. his daughter, Jenny, loses her leg to a shark, a toy helicopter crashes replacing real one, a man's legs is torn of, oh and it made me smarter because in the movie, sharks roar, are made out of rubber, bob up and down, and look real fake.

the shark looks real fake, and roars which disappoints me. i did enjoy the film, and am probably going to buy it.

I think it was a decent film.

10/1o stars.


This wonderfully entertaining (and hugely derivative!) flick plays out like a veritable whose who of the Italian movie industry. Indeed, regular fans of the sadly missed Italian B-movie heyday will have a field day spotting a plethora of stars of the time including top billed James Franciscus, Vic morrow, Romano Puppo, Massimo Vanni, and Giancarlo Prete. A splendid cast - in fact it could only have been topped if Luciano Pigozzi would have popped up at some point!

Of course, the film itself is a completely shameless rip off of the Spielberg classic Jaws, but let's be honest - it's so much damned fun that you just won't care. Special mention must also go to the shark itself in this which whilst not as menacing as Bruce from the aforementioned Hollywood blockbuster, is nonetheless a very impressive rendition considering the tiny budget of the film.

Well, what are you waiting for? Track this gem down my fellow B-movie lovers.

Final note: Be sure to grab a beer and sing along to the cool opening soundtrack in this - ah, those high notes sure do sound wonderful don't they? ;o)


well it's obvious that this movie is not JAWS, but you have to admit, the amount of cheese that's been poured on to this film is just awesome. i watch it almost every day on Google Video, and i just can't help but laugh at the scenes where we see the shark's head. the whole "exploding victims" gimmick is just so humorous, that i just have to replay it over and over again in order to get it out of my system. another thing notable about this film is Vic Morrow, who is playing a character largely similar to Robert Shaw's character in "Jaws". Now, as a die hard "Jaws" fan, i should know, anyone who imitates Qunit must die, but actually Vic Morrow gives that kind of tough guy attitude to the town council that Shaw didn't really do in "Jaws".

What's my point? Well, "Great White" isn't exactly the best movie ever made, but it's still fun to watch. Gives you a good laugh.


Clearly the best of all the movies about sharks which came after Jaws. This is a decent and exciting movie with OK actors and realistic gore-effects. It's a bit strange that this one is so unknown, because I think it would have been popular at the cinema. (7 out of 10)


This is one surefire case where the unavailability of a film (even if I did catch it, on local TV of all places, in the mid-1980s) turns it into a cult which is ultimately undeserving! Incidentally, I know first-hand about its 'banning' from the U.S. following a lawsuit by Universal for plagiarizing the first two entries in the JAWS series  having heard director Castellari boasting about the fact (even going so far as to contend that the real reason behind the film being pulled from theaters was that its profit ratio exceeded that originally made by Universal) at a press conference during the 2004 Venice Film Festival!

If anything, Castellari's career has shown him to be a shrewd if erratic film-maker who was not only generally content to go with the flow rather than make his own thing so to speak but, on a number of occasions, he cannibalized elements which had been successful in previous films by shamelessly including them in his own (notably Woody Strode's bow-and-arrow expert from THE PROFESSIONALS [1966] being incorporated into Castellari's admittedly impressive KEOMA [1976]). Interestingly, he even saw fit to steal from himself  since JONATHAN OF THE BEARS (1993) bears {sic} more than a cursory nod to the latter; another thing he was prone to doing was reviving popular mythical figures, such as the disastrous SINBAD OF THE SEVEN SEAS (1989) and the TV mini-series THE RETURN OF SANDOKAN (1996; which I recently acquired but have yet to check out)  though, in all fairness, he did muster a fairly successful re-imagining of Homer's "The Illiad" in gangland terms with the little-known spoof HECTOR THE MIGHTY (1971).

However, there's little to say about the crass commercial thinking that went into the making of THE LAST SHARK (by the way, Castellari had already made the even sillier THE SHARK HUNTER [1979]); the greatest insult, though, is that the film-makers couldn't hope to raise the budget (most likely, they didn't even have the inclination!) to attempt a product on the same level as JAWS 2 (1978), let alone the classic original  which is why the thing smacks of blatant rip-off, pure and simple!! Given a lean 88-minute running-time, it's no surprise the plot is so thin and obvious (virtually recreating all the highlights from the first two Universal shark flicks  however, while characterization was a strong element, in JAWS at least, the scriptwriters here lazily resort to mere stereotypes). Worse, the film repeats a good many of its incidents and effects twice or more: the idiotic 'explosion' when the shark attacks from below; the heroine  played by the director's own lovely daughter  falling into the sea, where she's not so lucky the second time around; the dives by would-be expert shark-fighter Vic Morrow  complete with heavy Irish brogue a' la Robert Shaw's Quint from the first JAWS  to destroy the creature both fail miserably, the second time getting tangled up in ropes and being dragged Ahab-like by the shark; characters get bitten in halfto say nothing of the ultra-fake blue-eyed[!] shark's head emerging open-mouthed out of the water and always hilariously tilted at the same angle. What about the sheer excess of stock footage, then (with the shark changing dimension and look from one scene to the next)?; some of these were genuinely unsettling, to be sure  but, while this practice may be forgiven when viewed in excessively dark prints (as some online reviewers have complained), it wasn't in the surprisingly clean edition that I came across only recently

James Franciscus has the lead role here; for the record, he had played a villain in another Italian JAWS rip-off  or, more specifically, PIRANHA (1978)  i.e. Antonio Margheriti's KILLER FISH (1979; which is one I'd also love to get a second opinion of after all these years). Another standard character is the oily aspiring Governor who, all of a sudden, decides to hunt the monster by himself in his helicopter in what emerges as the film's undeniable highlight of absurdity  he throws huge chunks of meat into the sea to entice it, but we're never sure just what he'll do once the shark turns up (needless to say, we're not allowed to find out as both the man and his vehicle tumble to the sea before long). Also on hand are a TV crew who are always trying to get the best shot of the sharkuntil the latter personally intervenes to this end and brings down the whole pier into the sea! Mind you, the film is hugely enjoyable while it's on (albeit unintentionally so for the most part)  right down from the very opening scene, accompanied by the cheesiest song imaginable, of a surfer trying out some impossibly intricate moves until the shark takes a bite out of his board.

It's ironic, then, that this movie was itself ripped off by the makers of both JAWS 3-D (1983) and JAWS: THE REVENGE (1987), the vastly inferior concluding episodes in the Universal saga: as in the latter, the shark is depicted as an intelligent animal (such as when it systematically pursues the entire line-up of surfers without killing them only to then vent its anger on the man leading them in a boat and, again, when it tries to bury our two heroes inside a cave by crashing repeatedly into a rock-face and barring its exit with the falling stones!)while the explosive ending was replicated wholesale into the official third JAWS entry (THE LAST SHARK was actually released as part of the series in Spain!). At this point, I should mention that the scenes at sea were partly filmed in Malta; normally, I ought to be proud of that fact  but I guess that only a country with no cinema industry of its own could be duped into believing that this is how a professional monster flick is made!!


This hilariously horrible Italian horror howler slavishly imitates both "Jaws" and "Jaws 2" so blatantly that Universal successfully sued the shameless filmmakers on the grounds of plagiarism and had this perfectly putrid picture yanked out of theaters during its disastrously short-lived American release. James Franciscus sleepwalks through the part of a drippy shark expert with a numbing blankness which suggests that poor Jim was severely doped up on anti-depressant drugs when he acted in this endearingly awful atrocity. Fortunately, we've also got the incomparable Vic Morrow on board hamming it up with his customary deliciously eye-rolling rip-snorting gusto as a crusty, macho, rough'n'tumble Robert Shawesque old sea salt fisherman sporting Vic's trademark furry mustache and a simply sidesplitting "won't fool you for a second" overripe Scottish accent ("I've been killin' sharks for most of my life!"). Enzo G. Castellari's hopelessly ham-fisted direction fails to generate any tension or momentum, with an especially clumsy use of slow motion which sucks all the punch and suspense out of scenes that are meant to be harrowing and frightening. The sequence where the shark attacks a bunch of surfers during a big surfing contest is absolutely gut-busting. Ditto the wonderfully ridiculous, uproarious and utterly preposterous scene where the shark jumps some ten feet up into the air as if was shot out of a cannon and bites a guy hanging out of a helicopter in half. What this beautifully bad baby lacks in credibility and originality (plenty, to be brutally honest) it more than compensates for in sheer riotous absurdity, tasty all-out cheesiness (the shark looks laughably fake throughout), and, since this is an Italian fright feature, the expected in-your-face graphic and unflinching abundance of gory carnage (one poor lass has a leg bitten off by the shark). While it's by no means in any way, shape or form a remotely good movie, this delightfully dopey and unabashedly derivative doozy nonetheless still manages to provide loads of sublimely stinky schlockoid fun just the same.


I wish IMDb had a 0 of 10 rating. This was a terrible piece of cinema. Absolutely no creativity, no originality, and no talent went into the making of this film. It is an utter piece of sh*t.

The one saving grace of the film is that it ends eventually. I am glad this was banned in the United States, because it shows a total lack of professionalism in regards to theft of ideas.

There is one funny part... When the jackass town mayor smacks his son in the hospital and a great Kung-fu slap sound is added. Other than that it fails on all levels, I was seriously hoping that the shark killed everyone in the movie, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Nice try on making a Robert Shaw worthy character, but I would rather watch Zombie Planet with my testicles attached to a car battery than watch this again...


Its a lot of fun watching the really fake shark that isn't scary at all,you will crack up when you see the shark coming out of the water with his head. There is also alot of documentary stuff used for this movie, that are maybe the most bad parts of the movie, the storyline is alot like "jaws". The acting is OK (not more then that) i give it 3/10, BUT IT IS FUN WATCHING THE SHARK !!!


If I could choose a 0 out of 10 for this show, I would. I watched one episode, and it just SICKENED me. I cannot believe that kids like this exist in the world. They act like they are so high and mighty...just because Daddy has a few million pounds in the bank, doesn't really help the fact that they are ugly, stupid, stuck up and not likable at all. I feel sorry for them, their friends are obviously only interested in being best friends with the rich girl, and they'll never know the real value of money, or what it's like to actually earn your own money - which is such a good feeling! They've been robbed of a normal life, so I feel sorry for them. But fair enough, they exist, but WHY PUT THEM ON TELEVISION TO SICKEN AND ENRAGE THE REST OF THE WORLD? What is the point of this show? These girls shouldn't have the satisfaction of thinking they are some kind of celebrity... MTV really has gone downhill - its obvious they are running out of things to broadcast. Awful.


MTV, in its seeming quest to find the absolute bottom of the barrel, has certainly outdone itself with this truly depressing series on the lifestyles of the rich and unimportant. Why in the world would the parents of these foul and obnoxious children ever want their complete failure at child rearing put on television? Whenever I have accidentally channel- surfed into one of these episodes, it's like seeing an awful car wreck. It catches your interest for a couple minutes and then you realize just how utterly tragic it is and you have to stop watching. These rude and ill-bred teenagers are completely clueless to the fact that arrogance, ostentatious parties and expensive cars won't make them any less "tacky". There is not one birthday girl, or boy, on this show that isn't overly indulged and undeserving "trailer trash"...spoiled, stupid and totally without any real "class". They all seem to be sad, needy and very shallow. The really cool people with mega-wealth don't need to show it off. On second thought, could MTV be featuring these screwed-up and nasty kids as a public service so the rest of us can avoid them? Ya, right!


'My Super Sweet 16' follows the lives of 15 year old teenagers preparing to celebrate their 'Sweet 16' party. MTV could have made this a very enjoyable and watchable show, had they come up with a suitable pitch for it.

Basically, the cameras follow spoilt, rich teens as they prepare for their party, and what the cameras pick up is truly cringe worthy.

For starters, these teenagers believe that the world revolves around them, and that they are the best thing since sliced bread. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are people who are annoying beyond belief, because if something doesn't go their way, such as their favourite celebrity won't be showing up because he/she had other plans (like WORKING), or the fact that the parents won't let them buy the $300 dress that makes them look like a whore, then they bitch, whine and moan until they get their way. And what's shocking about the show is that they actually do get their way.

None of these teens seem to know how the real world works, as they are living off mommy and daddy's money, and will probably do so for as long as they can.

Now, I TRIED to see the good side of this show, I really did. I honestly thought that at least one of the teens featured would actually come across as a decent human being. But to no avail. This show is quite possibly one of the best examples of what is wrong with the rich in today's society. What's more, I can see RICH people, who have worked hard for their money actually watching this show and feeling embarrassed for the families of these spoilt, stuck up teens.

Well done MTV for showing off all these disgusting people. At least now most of us know how lucky we are not to be associated with any of them.


In some cultures reaching 16 is a right of passage. This show is showing you those who are going WAY overboard to impress their friends families with lavish, senseless things. It's all about their world, and their world is one day of excitement and flash.

Don't mistake the traditional "Sweet 16 party" for this. Many of my friends have had Sweet 16 parties as well with food, cakes, friends, DJ's and the renting of the neighborhood hall. I don't think it cost them over a few hundred dollars, and many of them worked and paid for it themselves. Some worked and had people pay at the door. Some parents actually cooked in the kitchen at these halls for us party goers! Fun times for all. But for MTV - boring.

This is reality television at it's finest - excess while the looker-ons are judge and jury. And gee, how many kids are BUGGING their parents RIGHT NOW to throw an over the top Sweet 16 party so that they can GET on MTV?!?!?! Ah-ha!

My Sweet 16 shows us these sad, meaningless, and yes - very lonely children in life who think money will give them the adulation they need. MTV may be trying to get this across: Parents, it's up to you to teach your children that this kinda thing is easily forgotten even after you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make your sweetie "Queen" or "King" for a few hours, and they aren't really "entitled" to a thing at 16. At 16, they should be throwing YOU the party.

This is an awful program for the morals, manners, and self-worth of teens and their push-over baby boomer parents...but someone has to show the rest of the world how brain-dead the other one percent really are.


This show is stupid. Its about a bunch of bratty teens getting their sweet 16 birthday party exactly how they want it, for a price of probably over 30 000 dollars! It is a lame show and unrealistic because how can a bunch of teens afford their Sweet 16 for over 9000 bucks? there cant be that many not famous, rich 15 year old kids out there? Honestly, this show is stupid.

Plus, the theme is sang by Hilary Duff! AHH! NOOOOO! Run for the hills its the anorexic biatch! Well still, this show is lame and totally pointless. My sweet 16 will not be like this, like a fantasy, people look like their going to a wedding, and these kids are blunt, rude, and only care about themselves!


My Super Sweet Sixteen is a show where rich soon-to-be 16 year olds get the party of their dreams. This show has been panned by critics for "over the top materialism" and I would have to agree.

I think it's one of the worst shows on MTV and there's been some pretty bad MTV shows. The show is about spoiled kids who get whatever they want, but wait-not only do they show the good parts of being a total spoiled brat, they also show so-called "drama" in planning the perfect sweet sixteen party. These kids seemed like their party is ruined if they get a performer that no one's ever heard of or if Rihanna shows up late to escort them to the party.

Not only that, but their parents seem perfectly willing to spend a ton of money on their parties. Someone on the show even said that their parents spent more on their party then on the parents wedding! It seems like this kids have no appreciation of their parents or even realize how lucky they are because they are only part of a small minority who can actually afford Sweet Sixteen parties like theirs or their parents want to spend so much money.

For a show that stresses over the top materialism and laughs in the face who are less privileged I rate this show 1/10


One look at this show and you know that it's devoid of all intelligence and a completely frustrating, painful waste of time.

All the other reviews have covered how shallow and ridiculous Super Sweet Sixteen is, but I've figured out what the show needs: Follow up episodes. A few years down the line Mtv should document the mental breakdown every single one of these sons and daughters will have when their luck runs out and they realize how pointless their existence is, or when they end up in rehab from their drug/alcohol/eating disorder issue and how they finally grow up from it. That's a show I would watch.


I've watched a lot of episodes of this show,and i can say that its an absolute piece of crap.it sickens me to watch these kids pride themselves in being snobby,rich,unhumble,spoiled,selfcentered bratts.why would anyone be proud of that?their parents should truly be ashamed and embarrassed of these useless sacks of meat,that they have unfortunately raised.now society is forced to be burdened with the pure nothingness of their existence.to the sweet sixteen kids,stay out of us goal oriented kids' ways.we don't need u.we certainly don't like u.and we certainly don't 'think you're hot.'you're nothing but poor exscuses for human beings.we know that,and hopefully you know that.not that you care.


My god, I must say I've never really been compelled to write comments about a TV show, but.....after seeing this hideous shite vomiting out of the C.R.T, how could I not. These young children are some of the most disgusting examples of whats wrong with the world today. Also unfortunately for the population of USA it's this type of behaviour that gives the country such a bad name in basically the rest of the entire world. While dozens of poor little Cambodian children are chasing after anyone with a $1 NOTE to sell dozens of postcards to so they can afford another day of school, these unlicensed brats are whinging about the brand new "SUV" they received. Only cheering up when the even newer "Spider" sports-car arrives 10 minutes later with their diamond-encrusted Rolex. The biggest problem though has got to be with the parents. How can they let their children turn into such pampered little bastards who believe anything and everything is their god-given right. One of the biggest problems though, is that this isn't the only show that makes the yanks look like a bunch of idiots, Laguna Beach, Rich Girls, The Hills + countless other reality TV. Luckily I've been to the US several times and know that this isn't the real world there. Generally everyone I've met were great people, very friendly and not obnoxious fools. And, the amount of poverty and poor people is quite alarming contrary to what you see on these television programmes. But, it looks like it's MTV's mission to make Americans look like the most annoying, dumbest people on the planet!


Hey yeah, this is for Tina...I read your comment, with some degree of sadness. I'm sad for how delusional you and the others who make similar comments about these people are. Hate to break it to ya, but we're not jealous. Do you really think we are jealous of people who are spoiled and bitch out their parents, are obsessed with material things and are in for a very RUDE awakening when they hit the real world? Don't think so. Would I turn down a chance to win the lottery and upgrade my digs? Heck no. But if it meant turning into one of these shallow brats, heck ya. But for now, I'll take being dead broke and happy, if means my ego is in check.

You and your materialistic MTV friends need to get out of fantasy land.


Simply put, this show can be summarized in these short examples:

DAD, YOU DIDN'T GET JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE TO PERFORM AT MY PARTY? WAHHHH!!!! YOU ONLY RENTED A 45 ROOM MANSION FOR MY PARTY? I WISH I WAS NEVER BORN!! WAHHH!!! A LEXUS SUV????? I WANTED A LEXUS CONVERTIBLE SPORTS CAR!! WHY DO YOU HATE ME MOM AND DAD!!! WAHHHH! WHY WON'T YOU GET ME A DRESS LACED WITH 1/10 KARAT GOLD THREADING AND OUTLINED IN DIAMONDS AND EMERALDS???? MY PARTY WILL BE RUINED! WAHHH!!

"My Super Sweet 16" is basically 30 minutes of nothing but that. No matter how much money is spent on their 16th Birthday Party, the person turning 16 will complain.

What is so special about turning 16 anyway? I remember my 16th birthday. I only had a get together with my close friends at my house. That was it. And the presents I got? Not much. Some money from relatives, a video game or two, and some other minor things. I didn't get a car, I had to pay for mine straight up with money I earned. So basically, if I got 1% of the stuff these kids get in "My Super Sweet 16" I would be very grateful.

This show could have been something. MTV could have had this show revolve around 15 year olds from unpriveledged families and/or areas of the country who otherwise would not have had enough resources/money to throw a decent 16th birthday party. But instead, MTV decides to have the show revolve around extremely privileged and rich kids; whose parents probably make 6 figure incomes; and live in upscale, high end neighborhoods; in houses which the real estate value is probably over 1 million dollars. It's a real shame, because these kids are very ungrateful, even though their family has more money than just about most other families in the entire world.

These kids will likely never understand what its like to be unpriveledged and have to earn or work for something. Instead, they will just cry to mommy and daddy whenever they want something and they will get it. And once they turn 18 and leave for college(which their parents will likely pay for all), they will just continue to live off of some trust fund for the rest of their lives without having to earn anything.

The most telling thing about my review is that I am a conservative republican who gets tired of people complaining about the rich people in our country and think that the wealth should be spread around. I feel that rich people are rich because they work hard. With all that being said, I am still disgusted by the people and money spending in this show.

This is a bad show. Only watch if you want to watch spoiled 15 year olds cry, kick, whine, moan, and make total fools of themselves, so you can feel good about yourself not being on the low level these kids are.

MTV, Drugs, and Alcohol - The 3 brain rotting resources in the world


This was without a doubt, the worst show I've ever watched. I was at home one day, bored, and decided to watch the television. This came up. I thought, hmm, let's see what this is like. I spent the next hour wanting to bash someone's head in. These girls and guys obviously do't appreciate what they have, and their parents really need to give some of them a spanking. One girl stopped her father from trying to get a lower rental price for the mansion she wanted for her party. 'Ooh, $ 50 000 is fine, daddy'.

She was the girl in high school that everyone hates, and is completely obsessed with herself, saying that she's hot (she only rates a 5 on my scale), and publicly giving invites so that everyone knows who didn't get them (and inviting guys and not their girlfriends). She whined when she didn't get a star for her birthday (her parents later surprised her with Lil Frankie, or some such person).

It scares me that there are people in the world like this. Her party cost US$ 150 000 in the end, for one night. I couldn't help but think, that's more than my university and living costs for 3 years. Nearly double, actually, even with flight costs factored in. Scary.


It's difficult to find words to describe how truly sickening this show is. It's also extremely difficult to know whether MTV deliberately made a show which is a complete shower of trash or whether this really is the insult to humanity it appears to be. Even if this show is a deliberate strike at the heart of human decency the fact this point is not made obvious (perhaps because of the increasingly shallow context of MTV) could even be considered quite dangerous owing to the fact that the intended audience really are too young to realise just how this sort of attitude blights society. The primary problem is the unabashed worship of materialism - this show represents selfish, hateful, greedy and ignorant behaviour in much the same way loyalty, respect, dignity and love are represented in mainstream media. Revolting garbage, has to be seen to be believed.


The Jerry Springer show was the tin standard for all these years, but now along comes MY SUPER SWEET 16 to sink lower into the primordial muck of TV.

Where to begin? 15-year-olds want sweet 16 parties. Fair enough. And most parents are happy to throw nice parties for their kids. But these are parents and kids from hell. The parents allow unbelievable rudeness by their spawns of the devil, yet lavish these monsters with clothes, cars, etc. that no 16-year-old deserves. Clearly, the parents are paying to be on TV, not realizing that they are not seen as "cool" but as pathetic. I would not do business with these people, and hopefully others won't as well.

Most of these kids need a swift kick in the butt. They too play to the cameras, and embarrass themselves in the process. Their friends seem equally obnoxious. If this is America's future, maybe we would be better off under the Taliban.

Enjoy your 15-minutes of fame. No one remembers you, other than as the "fat one" or the "loud one." Enjoy the cars because you have little chance of becoming employable. And mom and dad - be proud. Your little monsters will turn out as gluttonous and useless as you are.


..to regular teens? What normal teenager wants to watch or even cares about some spoilt brat who they have nothing common with screaming and shouting until they get their own way? MTV has started featuring the children of celebrities now as well. So not only do you have to be filthy rich to even have a chance of appearing on the show, you also need to have a famous singer or sport star for a parent. Its just a slap in the face for normal, respectful teenagers and their hardworking parents who would love to give their child a party to remember but don't have the money or the connections. MTV is also sending out the wrong messages with this programme. That everything is better if you have more money. They should start showing normal families who maybe only have a few thousand dollars saved up for their kid's sweet 16, and how even though they had a limited budget, it was still a night to remember. It would give the show a kind of feel-good quality, instead of all out greed and inconsideration.


I've seen some bad shows in my time, but this... this show takes the cake. It is possibly the trashiest shows I've ever had the misfortune of viewing. I don't give out 1 stars often, in fact, this is the fist 1 star I've ever given. Personally, I think the only people who could possibly like this show are rich, stuck-up, snobby, shallow brats, just like the stars of this show. While watching 'My Super Sweet 16', one starts to wonder what the creators were smoking when they thought of this show, and why anyone would put them self through the pain of watching this poor excuse for television is beyond me. Now, to my main problem with this show, how could this possibly count as 'music television'? does anyone remember when MTV wasn't full of shows that couldn't be any less about music if they tried? The worse part of the show are the birthday girls, if the slight possibility of the party being too expensive and it having to be made cheaper arises, even though it is still 10 times more than most people could afford, they cry a bloody river until they get their way. In conclusion this show is a MUST avoid, and if you're a tad curious, watch 5 minutes of this show, if you manage to last that long without wanting to gouge your own eyes out that is...


I wish I could slap every 16 year old in this show with a full sized trout! How could any 16 year old be such a low life bag of slime and better yet how could the parents be so mind numbingly easy going toward them! IT MAKES NO SENSE! Couple of words for Mtv. Take the show off the god damn air! Don't give those 16 year old desperate wannabe celebrities the satisfaction of getting on TV! Actually, no forget what I said. Let it stay on. I would be fine seeing these Paris Hilton clones get bad reputations and better yet, publicity in their High Schools.

I hate these god damn 16 year olds on it! They make me (as the title says) SICK! PHYSICALLY SICK! 1/10


I Just watched this last night for the first and last time. This one was about an 18 year old girl who didn't have a Sweet 16..so she is making it up for herself by having a sweet 18.I read the reviews here and most of them were talking about how rude these brats are to their parents.but the most thing i noticed is that they really give them selves credit for nothing.All that i was hearing is that she wants to show the girls at her school how so damn rich she is,and how sexy and how wonderful and how she deserves the 300 grands that her daddy-her incompetent daddy-payed for her "bash of the decade". "AWWWW the girls are gonna be so jealous,i have to show everybody how rich i am,we get money to spend it,right daddy? whatever makes you happy sweet heart"!!!!!! she was literally carried on a throne,with a snake around her hand..a snake that she kept whining over cuz her sweet daddy couldn't get it on time! She states proudly at the end of the episode that her dad spent over 300 grands for this party and got her a car.and that she deserves every penny cuz she is a princess. i am not blaming her am blaming her parents,Who managed to teach her how to be a waste of skin. what is the matter with you girl? Who named you the sun and put every single person around you just spinning around you in your little sick galaxy.what did you offer the world.what good have done to anything around you?!you are not capable to face the world.I hope time will be a better teacher for these girls than their pathetic sad parents!!

i don't know why i felt like the world is falling apart around me when i was watching this.WHat in the World has gotten to us!!! Did i mention how Fake and cheesy she seemed.Its like they like being on TV so they have to be swearing all the time at their parents and burning then down to ashes with these creepy yet hilarious stares. OK,i'm done!!


I think this show needs to be renamed to "Spoiled, Rotten, B****es" I have yet to see an episode without a rotten teen featured in it, and believe me, it's not a show I will ever try and catch a new episode. Yet another horrible TV show to add to MTV's already horrible lineup... whatever happened to the music? They could put that money to so much better use than giving their teen a huge gas guzzling SUV. I'm not saying every teen that grows up with money is spoiled rotten, just the teens featured in sweet 16. This is just another reason why I'm thinking of canceling my cable subscription, too many crappy shows on TV anymore without and substance to them... stupid "reality" TV killed all the good shows.


This show is nausea inducing. It features rich kids celebrating their 16th birthdays and basically behaving like the most spoilt individuals you have ever seen. The episode I just watched feature Jazmine who was formerly in foster care but now a full time brat. Having watched half an hour of her on screen I think perhaps being adopted by rich parents wasn't the best thing for her as she was clearly a horrible young woman who was only going to get worse with age. All of the kids featured on this show make your blood boil due to the sheer lack of respect they have for others around them. Why you would choose to raise your child like this astounds me. they have no work ethic, no manners, no discipline.

The most amusing thing about the show is those appearing on it think that appearing on the show is a really cool thing. How wrong they are.


I have to agree with giveitsomeblonde. This show is just terrible in every way.

It's insane to think that we live in a world that tries to idolize stuck-up, snobby little brats like these. Even if the point is to show people just how obnoxious these kids are, they're still doing nothing but raising up their pedestal higher.

The show contains nothing but 'teeny-drama'. Little kids screaming and cursing at their parents for booking Ciara instead of Janet Jackson. Yelling at directors to 'get to work'. Telling the 'ugly' people that they aren't allowed to come to their party. It's just disgusting. MTv has really let us all down by showing this atrocious children get their way.

If you haven't watched it yet, save yourself some time. Every episode is the same, all these brats are the same.... Worthless. I would have certainly given it a 0 if I could have.

-Touche'


WOW! I have never ever seen such spoilt brats like these girls. Don't their parents do anything about it? And they are only child's so they don't know what it is like to have the attention on other people i think. This show totally disappointed me. That is what is wrong with the world, people like those girl think they are large and in charge because their parents are super-rich and own a couple cars and a pool. They think that the world revolves around them (as a matter of fact it revolves around the sun!) and it is just annoying. Why do they have to act so B*t*y? Those girls AND their parents deserve a big a** kicking!! From everyone on the earth!! This show just shows how awful people can get. I am glad that there ARE some people in the world who are not self centred and so selfish. People like the people i know, not the people i see on My Super Sweet 16. It is quite weird how everything just gets better by the end of the party! This show just annoys me so much! Cant they have just a little small party or go to a restaurant? NO they have to make a name of themselves. I hope they will get taught a life lesson!!


Giant clichéd characters try to teach us morals as they go through shocking events. This movie is gaudy and fake. If I have to watch one more movie where a girl sleeps with the wrong guy and declares all men are (insert derogatory animal reference here,) I am going to puke. It seems that everyone in this production knows how stupid these girls are, so they are displaying it in the writing and in the acting. This movie is trying to hard to appeal to all those girls in the audience that feel this way. I wasn't touched watching Shallow Hal, in fact as an overweight person I was just plain disgusted, so don't relate to this movie. I don't want a movie to think it is smarter than me and try to prove it to me, it should simply be smarter. Thora Birch and Dominique Swain deserved better than this. Thora Birch is the only one who seems to have their head right in this movie. Her part is underwritten and yet another cliché, but she is so crazy that it doesn't matter. As for Busy Phillips, she made me laugh like a little boy during her "we have to do this, for all woman" speech. This movie may have worked as a black comedy with all of the cardboard characters, but Dominique Swain's part wouldn't fit in that movie. The last scene is the apex of stupidity with the slutty Busy saving the sweet Dominique in a ridiculously filmed and wrongfully acted climax to the film.


I was getting ready to go to bed and saw this was coming up on TV. I decided to stay up and watch it-Keri Lynn Pratt has an ambiance about her that I find mezmorizing. Anyway, after the PAINFUL 2 hours I can honestly say I feel dumber. While watching this movie I think my IQ dropped about 20 points and I suffered ireperable damage to my stem cells....

Terrible acting, a cheesy plot and INCREDIBLY weak character devolpment make this move a trainwreck. If you're into movies with nonsensical ramblings of unskilled actors and actresses-this movie is for you. Simply having Keri in the movie was enough for me to stand the entire 2 hours, but for many this will not be the case. Do not invest any time or money into this one, you will be SORRY!


Being a big Thora Birch fan, and seeing this DVD at FYE for $12, I figured it'd be worth a look. I thought Thora's scene was freaking hilarious... the poem was Shakespeare-esque. I also thought Dominique Swain was pretty good in her lead role... but the producer, Nicholas Loeb, was putridly pathetic. Were they so over-budget that he HAD to cast himself? And in the lead male role! I couldn't stand watching him. I thought anyone could be an actor. I was wrong.

Still, because of the interesting plot, Thora's amazing scene, Swain's good acting, and my ability to chuckle at Loeb every other scene, I gave it a pretty high ranking in my book.


Although the movie was pretty lame, with all honesty, it was a nice change for a new storyline. Unlike those typical teen movies with partying and some fruitless high school teens, this movie.. well, it didn't have substance, but it had a "nice" attempt. The movie went by pretty quick, though it repeated many of its sequences. I, however, was only glued to the tube because of my favorite actors, Dominique Swain and Oliver Hudson. The actors, well, most of them looked good, and that's a bonus for the film's empty significance.


No need to go into a really long description of what I hate about this movie...just read all of the other below comments and you'll get the picture. Bad acting, bad dialogue, and atrociously directed. The fire scene at the end was hilarious though.


Spoiler Ahead

I can't stop beating myself up for having fallen for the snazzy cover and video summary on this one! I thought to myself, sounds like Heathers (and we all know, if it sounds like Heathers, there's very little that could make it bad). But I would like to take this moment to make it crystal clear that, despite what some misguided viewers might tell you, this film is not even in the galaxy of cult classics such as Heathers!!! This film is bad, as it is described in the GOOD movie with Ms. Birch, so bad that it's beyond good and back to bad again. I can't believe a woman created this. Their "liberation," realized by blindfolding a guy and making him wear a chicken hat (since nothing else really happened) is far overshadowed by the graphic scenes of not one, but two of the three heroines being raped. There couldn't have been more thrusting, sweating, crying, and runny make-up if they tried. Unnecessarily long, detailed, and of course totally eroticized, these scenes have no place in a film that purports to be about female liberation. The director/writer should be ashamed. When the girls say that they do what they do for all womankind, I beg that they speak for themselves, and refrain from embarrassing my sex.

However, it has not been in vain. I have derived several chuckles and hearty guffaws from reading the numerous digs others have made on the film here at IMDB, and now share a special bond with them. As I said to my boyfriend after the credits rolled, I hear that sharing a traumatic experience with someone can make the relationship even stronger.

Tip: For gleaning extra fun from this movie, cover up the clocks in the room. Periodically, guess how much time has elapsed, then glance at the clock and see how accurate your estimation was. You'll be amazed at the warp in the space-time continuum created by this film. 90 minutes really can feel like an eternity!


You can tell from the first moments of "The Smokers." If the shooting medium isn't DV, it's 16mm. The sound is passable (often a distinguishing feature between the good, bad, and ugly films). While it seems like the acting simply sucks, I think it's more the writing and/or direction. It's a immature story of private school girls who like to say "shlong" (it means "penis," for the uninitiated) and makes allusions to a sexually violent (on a man...at least that's a change in things) act of revenge act being empowering, something NOW should condone. It's insipid. Better to find something on cable. Maybe the currently-popular "The Osbournes" on re-run. The soundtrack is O.K., but nothing you'd go out and buy for even a single track. Maybe if you could just hear the music and see the scenes of the girls smoking pot in an endless loop, it'd pass for an art film. In leiu of that, just pass.


This movie is horrible. The script is juvenile, I've heard better sound on soap operas, and the direction is just plain bad. The acting, for the most part, is stiff and unbelievable. The only semi-okay thing about this whole movie is Dominique Swain, whose acting ability is wasted. One of the strongest things I can say about this movie is that I want that 90 min of my life my life back. I don't know what these people were trying accomplish with this movie and I suspect that they don't either.


the smokers is a film that tries to convey an angst ridden coming of age movie based around the lives of three young girls. it does so through dramatic overused cliches, sub-par acting and laughable musical accompaniments to "enlighten" the viewer when to discern the dramatic moments.

a truly painful movie to watch. the three main characters are deluded into a demented idea of sexual revolution consisting of trash talk and violence against men. none of which tries the simple idea of self empowerment. by their views guns and fear are the only weapons a woman can use to gain a standing in the world. all in all the film had a happy ending because the dumbest girl who started it all died.

II you feel too good about yourself and would like to waste 1and a half hours of your life (that you can never get back) this movie should still be penultimate on your list ... cause nobody can hate themselves this much.


I noticed that several people have given this film a 10/10 (!!?) rating...they could ONLY be the people who stand to make any money trying to rig this vote... Anybody who who pays to view this flick is gonna feel very ripped off. This is one of the worst i've ever tried to sit through. Thora Birch (in a small, ridiculous bit part) is the only actor with any talent in it -but i would have forced the producers to remove my name if i'd had anything to do with this film. I'm still tring to figure out why anybody made this and what the point was. Features the most pathetic attempt at slick film-making i've ever seen.


this is a good movie...if you want to do the equivalent of burning 4 bucks for a crappy dvd. my god, this was bad. i only got 10 min into the movie before the picture went and i just shut it off. here are the bad points:

1.) The plot does seem interesting, but it doesn't work the least bit. If you can relate to even one character, you need help. 2.) What the hell is up with the makeup? Was this filmed on halloween? 3.) What bad acting. Were they stoned for real? 4.) Bad quality. this isn't low-budget, its NO-budget. 5.) No plot. At all. 6.) Impossible to follow. 7.) The most unrealistic ANYTHING i've ever seen.

My all time worst movie. Do NOT rent unless insane.


After about five minutes of this film starting I felt compelled to empty the contents of my stomach onto my designer coffe table. No plot (to speak of). Some of the worst acting I have ever seen. It was all I could do to stop myself from destroying the video tape to prevent anyone else falling into the same trap as I did.

Very poor indeed.


Moviegoers who love cult films should take notice! The Smokers is a real contender. It's not fair to compare The Smokers with Heathers because Heathers characters were never this *@#%" Up! The Costumes and makeup were great and Christina Peters made an excellent contribution to the ever-growing coming of age category.


I saw this film and thought it was totally cool. Finally... a chic flick without a bunch of wimpy women. This is the real stuff girls. And guys... this is what we're all about. Thora Birch was amazing. The clothes were killer. Loved it.


Girls coming of age in a confusing time where morals and beliefs are lost in the new world kind of film. This is an interesting look at the lives of the three young women trying to figure out their world as they are throw into it without knowing where they belong.


i LOVE this movie! its actually one of my favorites! i really don't have anything to complain about except that i think it could have been longer! I think it's indie vibe and supposed 'bad acting' are a few of its many charms! and there are memorable characters AND quotes worth watching the movie for! perhaps i appreciate it more because i went to a boarding school as well and i can relate to a lot of it. or perhaps i just have a better sense of taste than the others! i don't know, all i have to say really, is that, myself and everyone that *i* know LOVE this movie so if you have never seen it, i think its at least worth watching ONCE to judge for yourself!


This might be the worst movie I've ever watched. Complete crap from front to end... I doubt the blind mice that produced this vomit fest are still allowed to even go see a movie let alone produce one. Very offensive, dumbing down of American cinema, sloppy editing, terrible lighting, did I mention terrible lighting? I would rather watch paint dry than sit through disgusting thing. Who funded this is one question? How in the hell did anyone not think it was going to be a complete joke... maybe I am being a bit harsh... but this thing was a complete abortion of movie making. I bet the actors in this movie really wish they didn't agree to this one... it was worse than a grade school recital.


We were flipping channels on tv and came across this movie.. It drew us in with its complete lack of purpose and continuity. I have watched hardcore pornography with better acting and plots. If I ever happen to meet the person who wrote and directed this crap I would demand the two hours of my life back.


is it possible for a movie to suck more than "the smokers"? it's possible- "tart" (also starring Dominique Swain) was worse, but not by much. who cares about spoiled little rich kids at a prep school in wisconsin? answer: about as many as liked this movie (i.e. enough to fill phone booth and no more)


Ok, so all of the budget, talent and creativity for this flick went into the design of the movie rental box and there was none left on the screen. The award for the most talented performer in this sorry mess goes to the gun which I prayed would shoot ME and put me out of my misery.


This film is absolutely terrible. It has very little plot, the characters are two dimensional & boring. I expected better from Thora Birch - luckily for her, she was only a supporting character. The film tries very hard to be a "Heathers" for the next generation, but it fails on every level humanly possible. A complete waste of time.


This movie is so wonderfully bad. It never let's up -- just a continuous downward spiral of awfulness. (or is it awfulitude?) I really urge everyone to rent this movie -- especially if you are a fan of flicks like "Street Trash" or "Biggles: Adventures in Time" or "Moon Trap".


because they are all dead on. This movie was absolute crap from start to finish. Sometimes when you see a movie you haven't heard of on the video store shelf you find a gem, but not this one. Do not rent this, unless you are curious to see just how bad it is.


I am another one who remembers this wonderful production when I was a child. I also had the cast album. I think my favorite song was "My Mother's Wedding Day" sung by "Meg Brockie" - Marlyn Mason. What a hoot! Notice that was the one song that was left out of the Gene Kelly/Cyd Charisse version! I guess it was just a touch racy. Its funny, but for years I couldn't get anyone to believe that there had ever been another version of Brigadoon besides the Kelly/Charisse version. I almost thought that I had dreamed it, but then I would look at the album cover and KNOW i was right! Even my mom didn't believe me - and she had watched it with me!

And yes, I dearly wish this was available on VHS or DVD!

YIPPEE!!! There are 9 pieces of it on YOUTUBE - including Charlie singing Come To Me Bend To Me to Jeannie!!


I'm from Scotland, & the Kelly version just didn't have it, even although it was entertaining, but the 1966 Goulet version was more realistic & caught the essence of the highlands, I know because, I was a youth hostel member & my happiest memories are when my group of mates & I would travel all over the highlands, magic. With movies that run hundreds of times on our TV over & over again, I can't believe they keep this gem under wraps. I would pay any one $100 if they could send me a copy taken in the 1966 version. Again it's difficult to believe the powers at be pass up the opportunity to make millions of dollars on this film. I remember the movie played twice in the one day, & as I sat there enjoying my vicarious journey to my childhood homeland my heart just swelled with joy. Walter White email < ww76@sbcglobal.net.


I watched the movie in 196?. I believe it was a Hallmark production. I immediately sent for the vinyl record which I still have. It was one of the finest musical productions I have ever seen. Is there anything that can be done to convince them to show this wonderful movie again and make it available for purchase? I fell in love with Sally Ann Howes after seeing that movie. The entire cast was magnificent.I would love to see it again.Perhaps if enough people were to contact Hallmark they could be convinced to play it again on TV.Strangely enough I have never seen the Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse version but somehow I feel that it would not compare with this one.


Okay, I'm speaking out of my hat here. I was only three when this aired and I don't remember having seen it, but I do have the cast album and it is tremendously good.

I can only imagine what it must have been like to see Edward Villella dance. Goulet and Howe are perfect leads, and Tommy Carlisle has a delightful tenor.

This must have been recorded for posterity. Why on earth it isn't on DVD...

Recreating it as a dance vehicle for semi-singer Gene Kelly and non-singer Cyd Charisse may have seemed like a good idea, but this one needs a singer's treatment, and the TV broadcast should be available.

Whom do I write?


Finally had a chance to see it. Goulet and Howes have such rich voices. Production values are 1960's, but if you get away from the fact that they are singing/acting on a set, what a joy to see. Definitely plays better as a musical then the dance/musical of Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse (although that version would have been great, too, if they didn't film it on a set.

Also, Peter Falk plays Goulet's friend. And he's not just comic relief - he actually acts and is the voice of logic for Goulet, who believes he may be hopelessly in love. The songs are thoughtful, wistful, even sad in a heroic way.


I have remembered this movie being on TV when I was a child and have never forgotten it. We had the soundtrack that I played often, really enjoyed all the music. In High School we did Brigadoon and I played Tommy. (I was a far cry from Robert Goulet in appearance or voice, but I was the only one in my class who could sing!) As luck would have it a few months ago I connected with someone on the internet who had made a copy of the movie using a movie camera of the TV screen and provided me with a DVD copy. It is not the best recording, but since this is probably the only version I will ever be able to enjoy, it is priceless. Actually, the sound is terrific, the video certainly not DVD quality but passable for someone who had enjoyed it as a child. Great fun to watch and brings back many fond memories.


Musically this is the definitive version. All leads demonstrate outstanding vocal technique and dramatic showmanship. It is some of Goulet's finest singing, Falk plays the perfect shallow friend, and Howe,the comic female, and the townsfolk tenor are fantastic.They convey all the romance of the musical, sadly lacking in the Gene Kelly version,(hampered by weak vocal performances and eccentric character portrayal, sorry Gene & Van). Although the production values were that of television tape at that time, the performances are so strong that a vivid memory remains.I hope that a tape of this performance will surface someday so that the full intent of the production can be shared. Until then there is only the LP.


I saw this film when it was shown on TV, and I really enjoyed it immensely. As I recall, it seems like the film (and two more with Robert Goulet, "Carousel" and "Kiss Me Kate") were presented by the Armstrong Circle Theatre. I was already a Robert Goulet fan from his role as Lancelot in the musical "Camelot." I liked the film so much that I bought the Soundtrack LP which was offered (Armstrong, I believe, sold it in their stores). I didn't really know much about Sally Anne Howes before this film, but I think she was great in it. I would dearly love to be able to buy a copy of this film, or at least see it again. Anyone know if it's available? Did the TV network that showed the film ever repeat the showing?


This is such a wonderful version of the movie Brigadoon. I by far remember it as being far better than the one with Gene Kelly in it. I would absolutely love to purchase it in DVD and have tried literally for years to find it. No luck. If anyone out there knows where you can get a copy of it in DVD, please let me know. Thank you. I liked it better than Gene Kelly's version because I love Robert Goulet's singing. There's nothing wrong with the other version just that I remember loving this one. I was only about 13 when I saw it and have never been able to view it since then. This movie is a little more updated than the earlier version. It still retains the quality of the original but as I stated, I love Robert Goulet's singing and I loved how he played the part of Tommy. This movie would quickly sell in DVD format so if anyone out there with the knowledge of how to get it put on DVD, please do so.


this version aired in the 80's when i was just around 10 years old, i remember so well watching with my mother and loving it so much because we had the soundtrack with Robert Goulet singing...he kissed my mother at a concert in Edmonton when she was a young girl...tragic that the world only knows the gene Kelly version...he is not an issue, just the whole movie, all dancing and the singing is weak. i wish CBS had not destroyed the original...someone must have taped it on one occasion...please let us know if we discover one! the record is really very good and Peter Falk one can never go wrong. funny that made for TV can be so much better.


Having missed the original television presentations, have long wanted to see this production, knowing the strength of the Goulet and Howes talents. (In the movie, Hollywood did a terrible job with the music!) Finally, a clip is available on YOUTUBE.COM of the full "Heather On The Hill" with Goulet and Howes. It is a delight -- but a fair warning: it whets your appetite for more which, sadly, is not available. But check it out and enjoy....... Goulet's and Howes' voices are certainly in their prime, and this particular number appears to be shot on location -- wonderful vistas combine with perhaps the most beautiful piece in the Brigadoon score.


This was a great movie. Much better than the original. I would love to see it again, but to date I have never seen it on TV since it originally aired in the 60's. It would be great if it was aired again or if it was available on video


Great version... with a more complete musical soundtrack than the Film version..... The focus was also on the soundtrack rather than dancing, so this is a much more thoughtful and full-bodied presentation of the score. If it becomes available... grab it.


I remembered it starred with Robert Goulet. It was like a play version of the story. I am 44 and I can still hear the sounds of "Brigadoon, Brigadoon" and "This was a real nice clambake, ..." I have seen Robert Goulet in several plays , Camelot, and Man of LaMancha. I would like to see this earlier work.


I am not Asian, yet I totally identify with the mail lead. It's uncanny how true to life this film is. It is my belief that most of the American public shuns this film because it is too truthful about emotional isolation and social isolation. This movie extends beyond racial boundaries and displays the universal truth for all to see. Charlotte Sometimes is like looking into a mirror, which shows all your foibles. We can then examine these foibles and learn from them. One can experience something very unique when examining films that analyze basic human behavior. All in all, I give this little gem eight out of ten stars. Please go to your local video store and rent it.


CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES tells the story of Michael (Michael Idemoto), an automobile mechanic that rents part of his converted house to Lori (Eugenia Yuan) and her lover Justin (Matt Westmore). Lori and Justin's relationship is based almost entirely on sex, so after their frequent coital encounters, Lori finds herself knocking on Michael's door in search of emotional intimacy. Lori and Michael talk, watch videos and basically just hang out together. They are friends, but clearly Michael is in love with her.

So Michael doesn't have to hear the sounds of Lori and Justin's love making, he often escapes to a local bar for a drink or two. One day, Lori asks Michael if she can fix him up on a date. He declines.

On a subsequent visit to the bar, Michael meets Darcy (Jacqueline Kim). Intrigued by her, Michael begins to spend time with her. Although Darcy's clearly interested and Michael's attracted to her, he decides to wait for them to have sex. This is true despite that fact that Darcy tells him that she is going out of town.

While Darcy's away, Michael examines his feelings toward her and learns more about her in the process. We also discover that things aren't quite what they seem.

In Eric Byler's film, which he wrote (based on a story by Byler and Jeff Liu) and directed, the basic situations are set up very nicely. There isn't the compulsion like some new filmmakers to explain every detail. On the other hand, some of the dialog is obvious, especially when it comes to Michael's expression of his feelings toward Darcy. However, given the nature of Michael's character, that's not a significant shortcoming of the script. A major logic problem that develops at the end is a problem. It causes unnecessary confusion in the final act of the film.

In terms of character, Michael is much too passive. Rather than show some initiative, he waits for others to take action before he does anything. Simply put, there is no fight in him. As a result, it's hard to connect with Michael on an emotional level. This is really a shame, because being in love with a woman that only wants to be your friend is a situation in which most men can relate.

That aside, the other main characters are pretty much on point. Justin is a self-absorbed ladies man that is unwilling to share himself emotionally. Lori is the pretty and sweet girl that always feels unsatisfied in relationships because she's always attracted to emotionally unavailable men. There's something very different going on with Darcy, but you'll have to see the film to find out.

Overall, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES presents a very worthwhile scenario, but doesn't live up to its potential. For those looking for an intelligent film that presents its characters in interesting ways, it is definitely worth a look. It features an attractive cast with generally strong, believable performances. I just wish Michael's character had a little more fire in him.

The film is nominated for two Independent Spirit Awards. One is for the "John Cassavetes Award" for best feature made for under $500,000. The other is for "Best Supporting Female" recognizing Jacqueline Kim's fine performance as Darcy.

While not a great film, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES is better than a lot of what Hollywood has to offer. It's also an apportunity for audiences to see some fresh young talent in a film with something on it's mind


Oft-remarkable, the lone flaw here is its' energy level - with very impressive performances, and through great use of shadows and silences, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES often generates an unforgettable tension, but this isn't sustained effectively 100% of the time. Aside from this complaint, this is a fantastic film - subtle in its' story, the characters reveal themselves slowly, and come across as real people, with some very real dysfunctions. Eric Byler's direction is careful, measured and free of gimmicks; and the story is notable as a story with an Asian-American cast that isn't about ethnicity, but instead zeroes in on general human dilemmas. A striking and strong debut (and a GREAT model for non-white American filmmakers), this film is worth seeking out.


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 sosecrets, 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.


Now out on DVD with added features largely devoted to self-praise for this super-budget Indie film, "Charlotte Somebody" suffers from insufficient critical reviews and extravagant overpraise here on IMDb. Roger Ebert apparently has dedicated himself to championing this movie. Director/writer Eric Byler crafted a small but interesting story set in San Francisco. Essentially this movie is about four characters who explore various depths of their increasingly intertwined relationships. For a start, Lori (Eugenia Yuan) rents an apartment in the house where Michael (Michael Idemoto) grew up - he occupies the other flat. Michael is lonely but not despondent. Lori's boyfriend, Justin (Matt Westmore), is a regular hormonally-dominated sleepover. Their life together seems to consist of little but torrid and loud sex which Michael voyeuristically eavesdrops on (conveniently thin walls). But after breathless coupling Justin falls asleep and where does Lori go? To Michael's flat to cuddle with him very platonically while they watch movies on TV into the wee hours. She's oblivious to the fact that his, obvious to us, adoration of her must also be enhanced by the fresh odor of sex that trails her to the couch. Now Michael picks up Darcy/Charlotte outside a gin mill (I won't reveal why she has two names). Darcy is a smoldering mystery who believes that sex at first sight is a great way for two people to get to know each other. Nope, says Michael (who is an "mechanic who reads," we learn) - "no shortcuts." What follows is the interaction between the four as they sort out what they want from each other. Darcy is a troubling catalyst for Michael as well as for Lori and Michael. The pluses include a fresh cast acting with spontaneity, a story that explores the deepening of relationships and the surfacing of problems and - given that this movie was filmed on the very cheap - some smart and sophisticated use of shadows and light. Byler may well turn out more impressive films with greater resources in the future but Roger Ebert's almost worshipful pronouncement that he's a "born filmmaker," in a pre-screening lecture followed by a Q&A; session with the audience, is premature. Lori, Darcy and Michael are Asian-Americans but this isn't really a film about being Asian and in love in San Francisco. The emotional issues and the unpredictable clashes can occur with any born-in-the-USA young adults. The "filming of..." extra features highlight some bloopers but is excessively self-congratulatory. "Charlotte Sometimes" is a good film but it isn't great. 7/10.


A subtle and complex experience. It runs as smooth as silk yet creates just enough tension to keep you on your seat. As in all great films, dialogue takes a back seat to the unspoken interaction amongst the characters who, without words, are able engage us and force us to see the universality of love, sex, betrayal and manipulation.

It is undoubtedly rare to see a western film with all Asian characters in major roles without being stereotypical or pushing an obvious socio-cultural theme. Uncommonly (and, personally, to my relief) race seems almost coincidental and, most importantly, apolitical. Yet, inevitably, because of this rarity, we can't but be intrigued as we watch these people behave as all Americans do, yet with a grace and refinement so unique to Asian culture. It leads us to explore and to question whether or not this cultural element actually affects the way these characters relate and live their lives and if the story would otherwise have taken a different course altogether. Food for thought.

"Charlotte" is remarkably powerful and engaging in its simplicity. Just beautiful to watch. Bravo.


"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.


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.


Charlotte SOmetimes really hit the mark in terms of defining the relationship dynamics of this generation with honesty and realism. I was very impressed with the maturity and depth the cast and director brought into this film. It seems to me that with the sparse dialogue and emphasis on body langauge and position and cast and director really had to give a personal performance drawing from experience and so on. I loved the simple sets and uncomplicated camera work because it reminded me a lot of the recent Taiwanese movies I liked. There have been comparisons to In The Mood For Love, but I think the most apt comparison is to the New Wave Taiwanese auteurs and especially Tsai Ming-Liang. Just that and a personal resonance made me love this film. I don'tknow if being Asian has to do with anything, but I definately will recommend this to my crew.


I really enjoyed this movie - the characters were sophisticated and the relationships complex. I especially enjoyed that this movie treated me as an adult, it did not spoon feed me; rather, the movie left me thinking, so I could reach my own conclusions about the relationships between all four characters. The movie was extremely well done and I look forward to other work by Eric Byler.


Why did I rent this DVD? Well, I was driving down the road a couple months ago and decided to Google up my childhood best friend from when I was 11-12.... Eric Byler. I had tried to find him a few years back to no avail. You'll notice in the movie that Cody Chestnutt has a Little League patch on one shoulder and Lori (I believe) wears a baseball shirt at one point. That's no accident, as Eric was our #1 pitcher and we may have made it to the world series if he had not broken his finger in practice after we won the VA state title. To think that our team picture was on the cover of a phone book back in 1984... crazy! I visited him in Hawaii in 1986 and lost touch afterwords and remember his discussions of how the locals there treated him differently as a 'Hapa' (Eric's mother is full blood Asian, although she grew up in the same neighborhood with his father in the U.S.) Anyway, it is no surprise to me that Eric went into writing and directing. He was a very interesting and creative kid and I still have some of his cartoons and a fond memory of the Purple Flower Joke.

As for the film, I can't give it extremely high marks, but it is very well made. See it if you want a different type of love story. My favorite low budget film is probably Blood Simple, which had both a love triangle and murder theme. The background music was really well done in that film and I give Eric very high marks for his scoring of CS.


Saw this at the press screenings for the Asian American Film Festival in San Francisco, and like others I am baffled by the ratings here. There has been speculation it is sabotage -- the film is up for independent awards as we speak, which would make any saboteurs extremely small, insecure, mean and petty.

Regardless, the film revealed its story slowly, without a lot of the standard devices of plot and dialogue that are often all too apparent and call attention to the fact that this is a storytelling medium and not leaving you to the story itself. That was a pleasure to see.

There is not a lot of plot -- it could be summed up in two sentences, but devotion to those kinds of small incidents in our lives (which often turn out to have the largest impact) allows attention to nuance and subtlety, rather than the broad strokes that gloss over the texture and feeling in our lives.

If you can appreciate a film without car chases or explosions and a talky-type movie that chooses to reveal much of itself through the filmmaking and not dialogue, see this. If you're not that kind of moviegoer, this probably won't be playing near you anyway.


This is exactly the kind of quiet, complex storytelling that we all hope to find at the festivals. Films like this are the reason we turn away from the studio driven multiplex features in the first place. It is also one of the rare indies that doesn't try to overcompensate for it's low budget-ness with overzealous shaky-cam blocking. The filmmaker and his camera are present in the scenes just like a guest, like any one of us just sitting rapt, taking in the story. The first 15 minutes of the movie are interesting if unremarkable. But with the appearance of Jacqui Kim's character the film comes alive and gently lifts off, becoming steadily more engrossing straight through to the end. It is no wonder that she has been nominated for this year's Independent Spirit award. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I am truly baffled by the negative reviews that have been logged on IMDB. They seem utterly clueless. I'll have to side with Roger Ebert: This is a great film.


I caught this on IFC awhile ago, and I was rather hooked (the main reason at first was the title---The Cure is the best ^^). The conversations are interesting and the subtle relationships that build up; the way you can sort of tell what the characters are feeling is a really unique and rare thing in films. In fact it's more of a study of how people are than a movie. It also features one of the single greatest sex scenes ever in cinematic history (without any nudity at all!), revealing its sensual side. I definitely recommend this to anyone feeling up to some thinking.


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 saw this film at the Asian American Film Festival in San Francisco. I think this new director has a future in film-making. To put up a first feature that is not plot driven or is not a formulaic comedy looking for easy adulation definitely took guts on the director/writer's part. It meant that he was willing to put money on the line (mostly his family's) to make a film that he believed in rather than one he knew would break even or make a small profit.

I haven't read the other reviews but seeing that the average was 2.2 when I first brought the rating up was kind of shocking. Then I saw from one of the more recent reviewers that it was sabotage and I can only believe that that is the case. This is deserving of a rating in the 7's. Pay no attention to the 2.2 - that is a fabrication.

If I had to articulate why I liked this movie, which is really a character study more than anything else (and I love character studies - maybe it's why, in fine art, I like still lives, too), it is because it is so true to the characters. There is a review below which says it is like watching a polaroid that never develops. I actually think that might grab the essence of my thoughts, too, but to me that is positive criticism whereas that other reviewer is using it as a negative. It's positive because that conception is the way life is and there is no real need for it TO develop. It is a snapshot of a point in time of the lives of these 4 characters and that, to me, is enough as long as it is done with quality.

I was not sure why I liked the movie at first: the dialogue is simplistic, there is no real plot to speak of, and there are no special effects (which I have really come to detest in movies anyway). Afterwards, I realized it was because the situations that the characters were put in and the way they responded to those situations was so true. It wasn't hollywood-ized or contrived in any way. Of course it helps that there were some interesting and intriguing characters along the way (especially Charlotte/Darcy). I was kept rapt by the action because I wanted to find out how each character would respond to each situation presented and, in every case, it was so natural and easy and, most important of all, believable, that it was gratifying to watch. That is a testament not only to Eric Byler's direction but his writing as well.

I hope Mr. Byler doesn't sell out and that he continues along this path. It renews my faith in movie-going that young directors are able to create films like this. This is not a perfect movie but it is certainly cast in the right direction. I hope to see more from this director and I suspect I will not be disappointed.


I viewed this movie at the Hawaii Film Festival and felt is was one of the more impressive films. It was extremely well done and all the characters were well portrayed. I liked the way that everything was understated in subtle ways.


I just saw this film earlier this evening at the Florida Film Festival, & in my 4 years of attending the festival this was one of the best I've ever seen. Character-driven stories such as these can be very difficult to pull off successfully; you will either care about the characters or you won't. This one succeeded in spades. Beautiful dialogue (even the meaningful pauses), sound, editing, characterization, all of it, simply beautiful.

After the film ended there was a short Q&A with the director, Eric Byler. When that was over I was able to do something that most of us will never get a chance to do...to shake the director's & thank him for making such a wonderful movie. It was definitely my privilege to have seen this film.


Not your slam bang big budget action film by any means. If you're looking for a recent exemplar of the well crafted, low budget, independent film, this is it. It's the kind of film you might want to see by yourself so that there's no chance for comment or interruption. The characters gradually emerge, the plot thickens, and you're with it all the way. What a talented group of actors this is and the direction and cinematography are absolutely fascinating. My only complaints are that the music is sometime intrusive, disruptive and the tennis match is a little trite -- small criticisms for what is otherwise a really nice movie.


The indie gem, "Charlotte Sometimes," proves that subtlety and economy of expression can speak volumes about the human condition. Whereas many romance flicks rely upon verbal dramatization, Eric Byler's first directed feature subdues the audience with tacit performances. The dialogue, when occasionally present, is carried by sparse words and heavy pauses. Such laconism gives "Charlotte Sometimes" its unique strength by letting the images do the talking.

The first few minutes of the film establish the character of Michael (Michael Idemoto) through only visuals-a montage of his daily routine. We watch him as a mechanic by day and a loner by night. Sometimes, he frequents a local nightclub, but most nights, he reads while the sexual moans of his neighbor Lori (Eugenia Yuan) seep into his Silver Lake apartment. Postcoital, her hunky boyfriend Justin (Matt Westmore) sleeps while Lori tiptoes upstairs to watch a movie with Michael. Long after the movie is over, she is asleep on Michael's shoulder, and he is gazing upon her. His eyes tell us that this, sadly enough, will be the most intimate moment between them.

A chance encounter with Darcy (Jacqueline Kim) affords Michael the opportunity to end his insipid lifestyle. She claims many things, among them being a writer and a transient. Even though Darcy warns Michael, "Men don't really want to be with me, they only think they do," the two begin a relationship against their better judgment. The love rectangle that forms in this Silver Lake duplex comes with realistic consequence and unabashed honesty. We're in short supply of films of such artistic integrity.

Also admirable are the characters for their unflinching independence. They don't compromise. They make love and war. They demand fulfillment instead of pining for it. The script would have benefited from more externalization of Michael since his reticence obstructs our ability to fully empathize. Still, Idemoto's Zen-like stoicism is powerfully implicit. Yuan deftly plays Lori with blithe abandon and tenderness. Kim commands the most deliciously shrewd character of Darcy with aplomb. At times, Darcy's smile is an enigma. Other times, her curled lips sing utter mischief. Asian Americans comprise the handsome cast but their cultural backgrounds don't beg for significance like other self-aware films. Ethnic undertones in the scenes suffice.

The soundtrack by Michael Brook and Cody Chestnutt lends great texture to the visual style of jump cut editing mixed with classical continuity-a wonderful marriage of sight and sound, appropriately so for complex character psychology and nuanced storytelling. Observing the intelligence of his story, the maturation of characters, and the technical wizardry on a meager budget, I surmise that Byler is off to a promising start as a feature filmmaker, having already exemplified an aphorism of Alfred Hitchcock: "Dialogue should simply be a sound among other sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms."


The use of silence and conversations filled with silence is one of the strongest aspects of this surprisingly mature and interesting film. This dramatic triad has as much problem facing feelings as it does wants and desires. As the masks come off, we learn just how fragile and messed-up each one is, and how difficult it is for all three of them to reach out and communicate. Understatement and silence and powerful parts of this movie, and it all has a very asian feeling, even if their dilemmas are acculturated and familiar to non-asian americans. Though the son who gets stuck with the family business out of obligation and something like filial piety, struck me as very asian. The film also manages to convey a significant existential quality to the main characters that is very nuanced and requires contemplation.


Lovely. Round. A great example of what independent film making is all about. Great humanely story, with great performances, excellent production -with almost no economic resources-, lively photography; what Robert Humphrey did with the photo is amazing and Erik´s direction is so sensuous you perceive the characters and their lives vividly. I enjoyed it a lot. Congratulations to everyone that took part on it.


Charlotte Sometimes was very well-done. I saw this film at a Washington, DC screening. It deals with people's need of love and companionship, but unlike many dramas, the storyline is unpredictable. The acting was superb. I definitely recommend this to those who want to see something innovative. Go out and watch this film!


I don't think there are enough good things one can say about Eric Byler's film CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES. A contemporary relationship-drama that avoids cliches, that unfolds in a unique environment (which happens to be in the middle of Los Angeles, the most over-used location in the world, but Byler somehow makes it happen - a double coup) and is so f-ing honest in the way it delineates the characters desires and fears that it hurts! I saw this film at the LA FILM FESTIVAL and I was amazed. I don't think people champion films like this because Byler avoids the cheap tricks that plague so many of the films that are coming out of the independent production world. The characters involve us but they aren't always easy to relate to because if we're honest with ourselves we'd find they are uncomfortably a lot like us. Byler is working in Cassavettes territory...


I thought this was one of the better films I saw last year, and I see a lot of films. It wasn't nominated for two Spirit Awards for nothing.

If you've never seen an artistic film, I can understand why you might not like it. It's a smart film for smart people.


Why is this movie ranked so poorly on IMDB? I just saw it at the Hawaii Film Festival, where it was sold out, and it is such a good film. If you're going to post a negative, please explain why. There has to be a reason this film has been not only invited to show at festivals across the country, but that it has also been winning awards at several of them.


Beautifully filmed, with great subtlety, and surprising insights about the complexity of love, sex, and relationships. Charlotte Sometimes takes you on a mysterious journey in which you are the eavesdropper, following the paths of four lovers, imprisoned by their own pathology.


a fabulous and sometimes painfully honest portrayal of life for a modern twenty-something man who happens to be asian american. this film is about a lot of things: sexual dysfunction, hazy identities, repressed desire, and everything else complicated and meaningful.

anyone who doesn't get the real truth behind the portrayals here should take an honest second look and gauge the film outside of their own bitterness at the issues underlying it. this is an important film for american cinema, let alone asian-american cinema.


I saw this film at the Florida Film Festival in Orlando last month. It was probably the best one I saw there no doubt about it. I was truly blown away by the incredible acting, directing tactics and storyline. Mr. Byler takes us on a journey with these characters and it was one trip that I didn't want to end. There are so many films in the world today that are so cliche and not original! "Charlotte Sometimes" is unique, fresh and beautifully executed on all levels of filmmaking. If you a true film fanatic, run don't walk to see this brilliant work of art. Pass the word on because this is one film you don't want to miss out on.....