Rating: 
Summary: Bright Lights, Big City 2
Review: When viewing "Lost In Translation", try to forget Bill Murray the comedian (in past outings such as "Meatballs", "Caddyshack", "Stripes", etc. - including his stint on "Saturday Night Live"), and attempt to focus on Bill Murray the thespian. After seeing this motion picture, it becomes apparent that there are traces of the "former" Bill Murray present in the above former scenario. Middle-aged actor Bob Harris (Murray) is in Tokyo to shoot a series of commercials for a whiskey company, and, at the same time, wonders to himself: "Who am I, and what am I doing in "The Land of the Rising Sun?". In answering the first question, Mr. Harris, you're a fifty-something individual who's eager to find out what life will continue to have in store for you, and whether or not you'll continue to have a career based on doing only B-rated TV commercials. In answering that all-important second question, Bob, your company sent you to Japan, because they simply said so, as well as to experience a new and different world on a social-cultural level. Like it or not, it is also a test of love and fidelity, when Harris meets up with a twenty-something female (Scarlett Johansson) just a few years out of college, who's in Tokyo to experience how the other half of the cultural spectrum lives, as well as to find herself, so to speak. Here, Bill Murray proves to be the master craftsman, as his suave demeanor and charasmatic wit carries him through the film without any traceable snags or bumps, as he wins the hearts of the local Japanese faithful, regardless of the fact his character doesn't understand neither the national customs nor the language, for all concerned. But, no audience need be "Lost" in this particular "Translation". However, should you be led astray, just follow the primrose path to your local cinema, and learn the language of cultural innuendo, love (and unbridled passion) at your local cinema this holiday season!
Rating:
Summary: One Impressive Performance. One Under-Written Character.
Review: Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an aging American movie star who is in Tokyo to film a whisky commercial. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is a young wife left mostly alone while her photographer husband is on assignment in Japan. Both of these people feel adrift from their families and alone in a strange city, and both are insomniac. So it's not surprising that they run into each other in the middle of the night in the lounge at the hotel where they are both staying, and they immediately recognize their shared state of mind. Drawn to each other by empathy and mutual mild but persistent dissatisfaction with their lives, Bob and Charlotte spend time together and develop a unique friendship in spite of their differences in age and background."Lost in Translation" is writer/ director Sofia Coppola's second feature film. And contrary to the critical acclaim, it isn't as good as her first film, "The Virgin Suicides". "The Virgin Suicides" was an acclaimed novel which Coppola skillfully adapted for the screen. Her beautiful and enigmatic interpretation rightfully established Sofia Coppola as an up-and-coming directing talent. She's a good director, but "Lost in Translation" shows that her original writing needs work. "Lost in Translation" starts out well enough. We are introduced to two characters who seem like they will be interesting. And several scenes that cleverly play cultural idiosyncrasies for laughs give us the impression that this will be a comedy, or at least a "dramedy". Unfortunately, "Lost in Translation" doesn't maintain its comic charm into the second half. And the relationship that is at the center of the film isn't quite credible. The film's biggest problem by far is that Charlotte's character is severely under-written. She is presented as a clever and literate person, but she barely speaks. She doesn't articulate enough about herself to make herself interesting -to the audience or, it seems to me, to Bob either. There isn't much action or other characters that could be used to elucidate Charlotte or Bob's characters. This is a relationship film, a character drama. The relationship and the characterizations rely on what the characters say to each other and about themselves. Bill Murray makes Bob interesting and convincing, and Murray's performance essentially carries the film. But there is so little of Charlotte to wrap one's mind around that her relationship with Bob doesn't seem at all likely. And much of the dialogue between them is unnatural and absurdly clichéd. Most puzzling about all of this is that Charlotte appears to be a semi-autobiographical character. Her mannerisms and way of dress are like Sofia Coppola's. They both dabbled in photography. They had both been married two years at the time this film was written. I get the impression that Charlotte is Coppola's younger self. So it is difficult to comprehend why the character is so under-written. Coppola should know her in and out. Does she know Charlotte so well that she didn't realize that the audience would need more clues in order to get a clear picture of the character? I'm just guessing here. "Lost in Translation" takes place in Tokyo, but it could take place anywhere. The Japanese city provides a colorful backdrop and the opportunity for some comic relief. The fact that the two characters are somewhat stranded in a foreign land and therefore perhaps more emotionally isolated than they would be at home makes it easier to bring them together. But melancholy insomniacs meet in bars in the United States just as well. Setting the film in Tokyo could easily be interpreted as laziness or an attempt to compensate for a weak script. I don't usually give films that are so flawed 4 stars, but Bill Murray's performance and the comic culture clashing of the film's first half make "Lost in Translation" worth seeing. Sofia Coppola has plenty of directing talent, but if she's going to write original screenplays, she needs to make sure that her characters are well-drawn and that the tone and freshness of her writing carry throughout the entire film.
Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful surprise!
Review: When I heard about this movie winning a whole bunch of critics award, I was trying to find out what the big deal was. I remember liking S. Coppola's Virgin Suicides, but it wasn't great so I thought her second effort wouldn't be that much of an improvement. I checked the movie out last night and realized how wrong I was. This is the most unique and well done love story I've ever seen. It doesn't cheapen itself with the usual fare that pops up in every movie that tries to pull your heart-strings. And the ending is one of the best endings I've ever seen. So anyway I hope this movie gets nominated for a ton of Oscars (Best Pic., Dir., Actor, Supp. Actress, Orig. Screen, Cinema., editing) bescause I think this will always be pointed to as the most beautiful and unique love story of this decade. It's become a classic in my eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Just a quick thought on the "racism" in this movie...
Review: No. I'm sorry, but no. I am quite curious to know if any of the individuals below whose gripe is an inaccurate portrayal of Japan or the Japanese people have any firsthand experience with the place. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I do have a fair amount of experience with Japan, and for me the movie was a wonderfully nostalgic trip back to a land I enjoyed living and working in. Granted, my excursions to Tokyo were occasional at best, since I was employed in the countryside, but I spent enough weekends in the concrete jungle to see a lot of truth in "Lost in Translation." Is it a sea of neon and crowded sidewalks? Oh, yes. Are there innumerable little hole-in-the-wall bars and karaoke clubs, especially in Shibuya and Roppongi? Oh, yes. One tiny 2nd floor bar, Sugar High, was a favorite among my friends and I. Is much of Japanese TV ridiculous and over the top? Again, the answer is yes...and many of my Japanese co-workers and friends would agree. And there are prostitutes and strange pornographic offerings as well as huge temples in the middle of a sprawling metropolis. Essentially, everything in the movie rings true. Is it missing the normalcy of Japanese life, an insightful look into the lives of any Japanese people? Yes, but that isn't a problem. After all, the 2 main characters here are foreigners who are merely there for a short while...not long enough to feel at home or truly get to know the place. Therefore, the movie shouldn't attempt to make the viewer more savvy or in tune with the "true" Japan than Murray and Johansson...after all, if that were the case, it would be harder to relate to their bewilderment and confusion in a foreign land. Similarly, Coppola wisely avoided subtitling the Japanese dialogue (a technique her father made good use of in "The Godfather," albeit for a different purpose)...we shouldn't understand it (although I think it's perhaps funnier to one who does speak Japanese) since neither main character does.
Rating:
Summary: best movie i saw in 03
Review: Brilliant. Captures a few days in the lives of a middle-aged actor and a beautiful young philosophy student who connect in Japan. The stream-of-life direction, the subtle and natural dialogue, the beautiful and haunting cinematography of Japan and the wonderful music make this like watching a dream. The movie, it's sweetness, bittersweet joy and subtle characters, stayed with me for days like a great novel. Bill Murray gives maybe his best performance ever, nuanced, expressed, understated. Joyous, uplifting, honest. Makes you glad to be alive.
Rating:
Summary: Minus one star for a little cultural chauvinism ...
Review: It sounds like a fifties-style stock plot: stranded in a strange land whose culture baffles the hell out of them, two lost American souls find solace in each other. Their respective spouses don't understand them-natch-and the foreign world around them has better things to do than to coddle their poor alienated selves.
But writer and director Sofia Coppola's story goes wonderfully right.
Bob Harris (Bill Murray at his leathery best) is a middle-aged actor, lodged at a luxury hotel in Tokyo for a week to shoot commercials (make a trip to japander.com and see if your favorite actors have done the same). Drowning his insomnia and his cultural befuddlement at the hotel bar, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johanson), a woman so young you can practically feel the peach fuzz on her smooth cheeks. While Bob is jaded at best with his dutiful calls to wife and kids and his nightly whiskey binges, Charlotte is downright unhappy. Spending day after day alone in a luxury suite while her photog hubby John (Giovanni Ribisi) is out shooting rock bands, she is as mystified by her marriage as by the Japanese.
The way Bob and Charlotte's tender relationship unfolds is easily one of the most thoughtfully crafted and believable love stories that has flickered across the screen in years. Told in beautifully understated tones, it has the viewer wondering at every turn where this romance can or should rightly go. In the end, we find that the characters knew the answer all along, and it is their ultimate sagacity that allows us to relate to the bittersweet story from start to finish: there is no disbelief to suspend.
Still, the movie is not entirely free of problems. No one is going to dispute that modern Japanese pop culture is a riot-Tokyo is William Gibson's muse for good reasons-and it's OK to say so. But as Murray's typically wry comments (verbally and otherwise) on the seeming madness surrounding the foreign traveler pile up, the unpleasant image of the smug American looking down on the rest of the world may take shape in some viewers' eyes. I've heard it argued that it really isn't unjustified to shake one's head at Japanese idiosyncrasies. But the fact that we're even talking about this mars what could otherwise have been an utterly enchanting picture.
Rating: 
Summary: Super scary look into the head of a Princess.
Review: This is a story told from the point of view of a shockingly self-obsessed girl who finds her poor li'l ol' self stranded in Tokyo Japan. Her hatred for women is shown to us (through her first-person eyes) as a parade of moderately retarded bimbos and an occasional prostitute, punctuated by a sweetheart of a man who is, of course, the victim of yet another bitchy woman. Even this sweetheart (played by Bill Murray) is portrayed as virtuous in precisely only those instances where his interests intersect with the interests of our neglected Princess. Our poor protagonist has a husband who, like the other women in the movie, is written to be stupid, cardboard, insensitive and prone to inexplicable fits of protracted misunderstanding. Our Princess is also written to have a degree in philosophy and a penchant for knitting - both tokens of *depth* as prop-ish as the hotel wallpaper only more contrived and not as pretty. The racist elements of the movie are shown against the backdrop of a hip soundtrack. The soundtrack wins, giving the audience the moral permission to laugh without feeling boorish. Long, tedious shots of the winsome girl staring out her hotel window at the sprawling city - which to her is merely a mosaic painted on the window of her hotel/prison - mean to give us a sense of her emotional despair. The cure, Gobs of Attention, is disguised in more palatable forms for ticketholders. Even a trip to the Buddhist temple doesn't move her. Hadn't anyone warned her that monks don't fawn? But the requisite Gobs of Attention eventually come from Murray and this almost makes Princess happy. Of course this dismal story is told from the perspective of the dismal Princess - consequently, the retarded bimbo, cardboard boyfriend, me-so-hoe-nee prostitute, bucktoothed Japanese folk and all the rest of her projections are submitted as "givens" in the screenplay. Her self-obsession is absent from her self-awareness and is therefore absent from the surface of the script, and so forth. What we get is a view of the world from "behind the eyes" of a Spoiled Snot who doesn't realize that's what she's letting us see. The view? Pretty damned lonely. We're supposed to blame this on her various projections. Some moviegoers actually do. They're the ones who click "NO" on Was-This-Review-Helpful? By the time Princess receives her panacea, the audience has been bludgeoned into submission and says "Thank you sir" for a spoonful of some mighty thin gruel. Tears and cheers are finally milked from the teenage girls. Then the credits roll. Bill Murray is outstanding, nonetheless. Ms. Copolla uses this movie to show us how she would like us to see her - which is different from how she sees herself - which is also different from how she actually IS.
Rating:
Summary: Welcome Back, Orientalism
Review: It's not often that you come across a film that can out-stereotype Sayonara (1957) and The Bad News Bears Go to Japan (1978) and be very cool and successfully "postmodern" at the same time, but here it is. The acting is great, the cinematography is a bit clich'Ebut good, editing is nice, music is OK (but old--the "alternative" 90s are over). I don't think the movie was boring. However the whole point of the film is in taking a set of remarkably old, already well-criticized stereotypes and somehow revitalizing them to be funny, fresh, and very easy to watch. (Much wittier critics than I will excuse the film by claiming that nobody in the audience thinks this exotic movie-Japan is supposed to be real, but since when was racism made out of something real?) The setting seems totally arbitrary, which makes this crippled picture of untranslatable "reality" [I borrowed the quotes from Barthes] in Tokyo look deliberate and quite offensive. It could have been Spain, but then we'd have Morvern Callar. It could have been set in Las Vegas, but Nicholas Cage already won an Oscar for that. And of course, what would Lost in Translation be without the spectacle of Johansson's body, enjoyed and appreciated by the aging Murry who, like us in the audience, can look but cannot touch? Why is this setting, situation and story "Japan"? In fact why is Hollywood producing so many films about our "satellite" Japan at a time of such international political tension? Healthy cross-cultural curiosity? I recommend that you go to the cinema, watch the whole film, enjoy the parts that are enjoyable, and then count how many times you notice yourself or your co-viewers laughing at those silly Japanese and their odd little linguistic/(...)/social habits. Wonder to yourself if We Americans are so secure and positive (and "Free"!) in the Birthday Seat of the world that we can brush off these "untranslatable" little people as immature, confusing, silly and supplementary without even a hint of self-reflection. Wander through the theater lobby afterwards and eavesdrop on people debating the "reality" of this scene or that; where the temple "really" is, where that bar "really" is, and "Oh, I *so* want to go visit Tokyo now!" In Lost in Translation, Japan's supposed inferiority and obscurity somehow offers Us in the Homeland a feeling (a Treaty?) of security and reassurance that allows the characters, and possibly viewers, to come to terms with their own hang-ups. If this isn't a "mid-life crisis" America's experiencing, I don't know what it is. And wow, look at how many negative votes the less than positive reviews of the film are getting on this site! What is it about this film that--like the U.S.'s "little brother" Japan, like pretty, inexperienced young women in Hollywood movies--needs to be defended so valiantly? Maybe Tom-Cruise-the-Samurai can come to the rescue and tell us... As someone who does "know" "Japan" (of course, not this "Japan") quite well, I hope my two-star review will only frustrate folks who are looking for those with trans-national experience to justify the "real" quality of this picture. At least Sayonara lets us see the context of our Orientalism more clearly.
Rating:
Summary: This film speaks for itself!!!
Review: This movie was magical. Most movies show the story, but this film is made in such a manor that you feel the story. The confusion of being in a land where people don't speak or write your language, where the culture and customs are strange, and being thousands of miles away from your family would make anyone grab on to anything familiar, which is what Bill Murray's character does. He finds an American girl who is struggling with the same issues, and they find sanity in each other. The way this movie is written and filmed makes you live the experience with the characters instead of just seeing it happen to them. Brilliantly done.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Ever
Review: This movie left a mark on my heart. If you are sick of "Hollywood" movies, then get this movie. Lost in Translation is like art. It moves you in so many ways. It covers every emotion of being a human on the planet. It is the best movie ever made, period.
|
