Rating: 
Summary: "Art" is not a dirty word!
Review: I'm kind of shocked at the level of disgust this film was afforded by almost half of its reviewers here on Amazon. (For those who thought THIS was difficult, try watching a John Cassavetes film like "Husbands" and you'll have a heart attack!) But what I really don't understand about the bulk of the negative reviews is this constant refrain that the movie was "pretentious" or "intellectual". For me, I felt that a lot of the ambiguities placed in the film were completely emotional rather than intellectual. The deepest thing going on here is a growing attraction between a very improbable couple. It's the impossibility of their situation that makes this so innocent and fresh. I thought this was one of the sweetest and most genuine romance stories I've seen in a film (and I love Tracy and Hepburn too!). It succeeds because it so perfectly emulates the yearning and awkwardness of what it feels like to have a crush on someone. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson play this beautifully. Murray brings his usual charming quick wit along but, at other times, he is remarkably unguarded (watch him mouth the chorus to Johansson as she sings Karaoke). The rest of the cast is also wonderful; from Charlotte's loopy, clueless husband to the ditzy, self absorbed, Hollywood actress they meet at the hotel (her dialogue is priceless!), to the achingly tacky lounge singer. The Japanese cast is also great, particularly the whiskey commercial directors trying to communicate their artistic vision to a completely dumbstruck Bill Murray. What's sad to me about these negative reviews is how mistrustful and resistant (and downright resentful) we've become to anything that doesn't feel comfortably familiar. For those who wrote that a film should be entertaining first, I completely disagree! That's comfort food not art (and I'm not talking about experimental art-films which this is NOT), I'm talking about making anything that challenges the viewer to maybe see the world differently for a few minutes or maybe doesn't spell everything out for them. This film is not that difficult to follow, it's just quieter and less manipulative than most. I don't think it was Coppola's intention to make a "feel-good" romantic comedy but, if that's what you're looking for, there's always "The Prince & Me" and good luck with that...
Rating: 
Summary: Bill Murray Was Robbed
Review: Although I do not normally watch movies like these -- overhyped ones, that is -- I rented this film and was surprised that I made it all the way through it. The best thing about this film is Bill Murray. He is one of the most underrated actors out there today and the fact that he didn't get the Oscar for his performance just shows how effortless he made his performance look. I thought he was funny and poignant and I'm not sure this film could have worked without him. The other character -- the young woman -- was also very good, very lost on her own, trying to find her place in a flailing marriage as she learns that the man she married suddenly isn't there anymore, that he's become some sort of poseur while working with the subjects of his shoots. Now with all that being said, this is not a film for everyone. Fans of action films, fans of films with a standard story arc will not enjoy this film because basically nothing happens. There is no great crisis, no huge drama, not pivotal moment in the story where the viewers can say, "Oh, okay...now let's see where it goes from here." The story meanders along, lost, like the characters in the film. At 1 hour and 45 minutes, it was a little long and despite the humor in the karaoke scene, I think that scene should have been cut out -- why Sofia Coppola lingered so long on that part of the story is beyond me. Maybe she needed to make it a certain length for distribution? Aside from that portion which nearly lost my attention, the film was very good and well worth watching if you're a fan of Bill Murray and character studies. The look on Bill's face when he wakes up after a night with the jazz singer is worth the price of the rental alone. Overall, a good film, but definitely not for everyone!! Certainly not worth the Best Film Oscar nod, but still pretty good.
Rating: 
Summary: Over-rated pretentious art film! Just like many others say!
Review: I don't understand why so many people are addicted to these types of movies. I wish people would really say what they really thought about this film just to stop impressing their friends and convincing people of how "deep" they are to understand a film like this. Even as one who enjoys abstract thought and film, I totally hated this movie. There wasn't a plot and it reminds me of those types of movies that those people who were just hurt in a relationship want to make to express their undying sadness and make their ex's seem like total uncaring arschlocher. I also don't understand why every premis to a movie or story has to be based on love. It's not a very intersting subject, and it's not that I can't relate, I just find it a boring subject. I would give this film two stars, because the colors and the the cinemetography weren't bad at all, but someone else said it best first "Good frames won't save bad paintings."
Rating:
Summary: Grossly Overrated
Review: In Short: It does not measure up to all the hoopla. If you have seen the movie and were not impressed by it, do not feel bad. There's nothing wrong with you. A lot of people around you, suffering from Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome (see the review by gregy55902), will try to make you feel stupid. You are not. You were able to see the movie for what it is: not much. If you have not seen the movie, try to see if you can find a copy in a library, like I did. The less you spend, the better you will feel. A lot of reviews claim that those of us who didn't like it, essentially didn't get it. For those who 'got it', it was several things: real, with unique plot, idea that is like poetry, introspective genius and what not. The reality is that the movie is pretty unreal and shoddy. What has worked: cinematography, music, Bill Murray's acting. What hasn't worked: the rest. A lot of priases of Sophia Coppola have been sung. Unfortunately, the film fails miserably in the departments she was responsible for. The two main characters are supposed to be in Tokyo just for a week. Those who have traveled to any big city in the world know that despite language problems it's hard to feel 'trapped' if you are there only for a week. If the claim is that they are feeling trapped in their current lives, then much more would have happened between them. It didn't. About Charlotte being 'lost'. Looks like Yale's admission standards have really fallen. Their philosophy graduate is listening to popular "You are ok. I'm ok" type audio tape for resolving her existential doubts, does not read a single book, looks perpetually bored, instead of being excited, in a place full of culture that she has never visited before. There is no deep meaning to the the shallow development of Charlotte's character. Is it a reflection of Coppola's own life that lacks real experiences? Those close to her can answer that better. Charlotte's "walks" around the city with the 'lost' expression of her face seemed like a naive way of trying to link the title of the film to its content. The 'friends' of Charlotte that they spend the kareoke night with were relatively underdeveloped. And what was the point of nudie bar? All cities have them. They didn't spend much time in there anyway, so how did it help the story. The local culture has been captured only in the form of stereotypes. The reason all the favorable reviews are asking you to go beyond this and that in order to appreciate the movie is because the lack of substance and obvious flaws in the movie. Claiming that less favorable reviews are necessarily from the people who are otherwise interested in car chases, slap-stick comedies or run-of-the-mill romances is patronizing and ignorant. The real take-home message is that this movie has been grossly overrated. Some of the professional reviewers might have had vested interests in promoting Coppola's daughter. But the movie-goers don't owe anyone anything. There are good,well-rounded AND intriguing movies out there; this ain't one of them. But if you are looking for a movie that you want to call cool because everyone else does, this is the one for you.
Rating: 
Summary: The opening scene says it all
Review: (...)It stays at that level of interest for the entire movie. The Plot: Two people go to Tokyo without really wanting to - one for a pile of money and the other because she is married. They feel sorry for themselves and each other. Rather than make the best of a bad situation while stranded in one of the largest cities in the world, they mire in a 'poor us' mentality for two hours in places that could be located anywhere else in the world. Despite the title, there is very little interaction with the Japanese. Its just two hours of the same two people. I don't just watch action movies. I like the occasional quiet movie with depth of character; however character driven movies generally show some kind of transformation of character - neither of these people changed - I suspect they both went home and continued to be unhappy because it was easy. The movie gets 2 stars for pretty good cinematography - I enjoyed seeing some of the sights and sounds of Japan when camera wandered (all too briefly).
Rating:
Summary: Have you ever really been in love??
Review: The title of this review is the key question to keep in mind while reading the one-, two-, or even three-star reviews others have written. The majestic cinematography, sparse, smart dialogue (not a word is wasted), and perfect performances by Johansson and Murray, make this an essential movie for anyone with a tender heart. Kudos to Ms. Coppola. And to those who couldn't see, hear or feel what this movie was saying, you have my deepest sympathy.
Rating:
Summary: A 30 minute short dragged out to nearly 2 hours
Review: I enjoy the offbeat, interesting and non-mainstream but sorry...this movie is just a bore from beginning to end. There's one central "joke" which wears thin after 5 minutes (Bill and Scarlett are the recipients of a constant barrage of Japanese which, of course, they don't understand and so simply mimic back as best they can in an effort to communicate...such scenes go on forever and made me yell "All right...I GOT IT!") There's about 10 minutes of plot (will Bill and Scarlett make a love connection?) , 40 minutes of Bill looking bored and/or confused, and an hour of pulsating Japanese night life. Which is fine if you're looking for a travelogue. Someone else here referenced "The Emperor's New Clothes" which were our exact words as we turned off the DVD player without bothering to check the extra features. Our eyes were already too glazed over. This was at best a 30 minute short dragged out into nearly 2 hours.
Rating:
Summary: Not Interesting Enough despite Bill Murray
Review: Let me admit that I took film classes in college and that I usually prefer non-mainstream, independent or foreign films (that includes ones from Great Britain). I think I get the whole title thing, I really do. I mean it's based on the director's experience - about feeling lost in a totally foreign culture. There were flashes of greatness (Bill Murray's wife Fed-Exing decorating decisions, the whole has-been actor scenes, etc.) and the feeling of isolation was beautifully done (the young wife feeling alone even when with her husband, phone conversations were compelling, and so on) but it's just like that story you and your friends tell and laugh hysterically about but either you REALLY had to be there to find it funny or you have to be ______(drunk, sleep deprived or you fill in the blank here) to understand. I mean, these are things you only retell in certain personal circles so what made the director think a general audience would appreciate this piece of work? Maybe it's pure genuis and just like her characters who don't "get" what's going on around them - the viewer isn't meant to like it either. In that case, this film is too student-art-house for me and even if it is as brillant as most declare.......put me down for an emphatic "NO". Sophie Coppola scored high with me for her previous film "Virgin Suicides" but maybe that was because her style of deliberate unclarity fit that particular story which was based on a great novel by the same name. For some reason, this attempt got much more acclaim.
Rating:
Summary: oh no
Review: I saw this movie on a whim because it was playing on my college campus and the ticket was two bucks. When it was over, I started thinking about what I could have done with that two hours instead of watch this crap. Shockingly, I've encountered many people who thought that this movie was "brilliant," and that if I didn't like it that I just "didn't understand it." What's to understand? This movie has no plot, the humor is weak...it's basically as bad as a student art film. I've since come to realize that this movie suffers from the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome (ENCS). In the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, a vain emperor employs two con artists to tailor a new set of clothes for him. According to the con men, the clothing is so fine that it can only be seen by those of high intelligence. So the con men start weaving nothing, and everyone who goes to examine the "clothing" pretends that they can see it simply because they don't want people to think that they are too dumb to see it. The emperor goes so far as to "wearing" the "clothes" (so basically he's naked) because he's afraid that people will think he is dumb if he admits that he cannot see the fibers. This movie reminded me of that. It's a film with a meandering plot and terrible characters disguised as a "brilliant, intellectual film." I think most of the people who thought it was brilliant are simply too pompous to admit that the movie was garbage. Instead, they like to think that they are intelligent enough to understand the "hidden meanings." What hidden meanings? A movie's principal purpose should be to entertain. Everything else comes second. So what if this film is considered to have hidden meanings and symbolism? It failed to entertain me, so in essence it failed as a film.
Rating:
Summary: boring!
Review: This was the most boring film I have ever seen!
| 
