Rating: 
Summary: pretty good if you didn't fall sleep due to its slow motions
Review: well, boredom is a very difficult thing to portray and performed. it sometimes won't hold down the viewers too strongly to sit out the whole nine yards. this movie is wonderfully done by bill murray who usually was too over-acting as a comic person. there's nothing you would and could find in tokyo except the day-in and day-out neon signes. a simple script but a very good one, if you don't mind a snail-like paced progress (or, is there any progress?) the slow moving forward scenes were only trying to give you what a boring daily life that some of the westerners might encounter in tokyo, a stranger is a strange land. the young woman could be bill's daughter and he did sometimes showed a fatherly emotion to her, and that's good.
Rating: 
Summary: brilliant, deeply moving, and unforgettable................
Review: IT'S REALLY SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO TYPE HERE WHAT EMOTIONS I FELT THRU OUT THE FILM, ESPECIALLY THE CLIMAX! IT IS FILLED WITH SUCH WONDERFUL HUMOR, SENSITIVITY, AND DEEP LONGING THAT YOU ARE SO MESMERIZED BY IT THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY DIFFICULT TO GET UP WHEN IT WAS OVER. THE ACTING BY IT'S TWO WONDERFUL STARS IS MARVELOUS, AND MS. COPPOLA'S UNCANNY DIRECTION LEAVES ONE BREATHLESS! THE GORGEOUS CINEMATOGRAPHY IS WONDERFUL AS WELL. ON DVD THE DTS AUDIO AND PICTURE QUALITY REALLY DO THE FILM A GREAT JUSTICE AS WELL. I HOPE IT WALKS OFF WITH A FEW OF IT'S NOMINATED OSCARS, BUT I STILL WANT LOTR THE RETURN OF THE KING TO GET BEST PICTURE AND DIRECTOR. LOST IN TRANSLATION IS A BENCHMARK OF HOW A REALLY GREAT FILM SHOULD BE MADE.
Rating: 
Summary: The longest 90 minutes I ever spent in a movie theatre
Review: I love Bill Murray and his deadpan delivery and he is terrific in this film. And Scarlett is very good, too. However I don't understand all the fuss about this film. Yes, I know the characters were bored and lonely and I guess the director wanted us to feel their boredom, too. Well, she did a great job of conveying that feeling because I was bored to tears. The photography was ugly (for some strange reason the photography looked better on TV ads. But in the theatre on a big screen the film looked under exposured with flat colors). You would think since these characters were so bored and lonely they would go out and find something interesting to do. Nope. I kept waiting and waiting and waiting. Is Bill and Scarlett attracted to each other or not? It's not that I wanted them to have some predictable affair I just wanted to understand what was it they found so appealing in each other. Sorry, I wanted to like this film.
Rating:
Summary: I LOVE this film!
Review: The only other film released in 2003 that gained more of my adoration is Return of the King. Strange enough because they are both very different films. I must mention first that when critics gush over movies I do get a little skeptical (For example "Far From Heaven" and "Adaptation" are good films but calling them the best most worthy film of 2002 when you had "Chicago", "The Pianist", and "The Two Towers" is a little too far from the treaded path for me) But this year they seem to have gotten it right. This is more of a intimate film where you can go see it with your friends but you each walk away with your own interpretation of Bob and Charlotte's relationship. Was it just a fun seven days away from home? Is there a possibilty that they will see each other again? There is no concrete answer to these questions. The film leaves it to the viewer. I must applause Sofia Coppola who didn't take the easy way out with the ending and made the film leave a more powerful mark on the viewer that it would have with a cliched ending. *sigh*I can't wait until this comes out on DVD Feburary 3.
Rating: 
Summary: Compared with this movie all other movies get 5 stars
Review: I can't believe anyone gave this movie 5 stars. Why? The story is so absolutely boring. It goes no where. I have a $15,000 home theater, and I love good and bad movies. My friends got so excited after I told them about the reviews, the golden globe awards, and the oscar nominations. One hour through the movie we were all crying out loud, "stop the movie." What's shocking is not that it's a bad movie. I would have tolerated it if the reviews said that it was, but critics were flipping A's and B's all over the place for this movie. I can't understand it.Don't believe them. It's horrible. It'slow. And finally, the movie's trailer was mostly taken from the first few mintues of the movie. There were a couple of laughes in the first 20 minutes. Then, nothing.
Rating: 
Summary: Yes, best of 2003... but that's not saying much
Review: It is true that 2003 was a pretty lame year both in movies and music. To call "Lost in Translation" the best film of 2003 is not hard to do. Overall, it was a good movie. GOOD. Bill Murray, basically reprising his role from the superior "Rushmore" (1998), gives yet another great performance as a middle-aged guy who has charisma but is trapped in a depressing situation. I am glad that Bill is finally getting the critical recognition he deserves, but he has been in better movies (i.e. Rushmore, Groundhog Day, etc.) Scarlett Johannsen also does a good job in this movie as a confused 25 year old who is unhappy with her new marriage. Her husband, played by Giovanni Ribisi, is a photographer who is more interested in his job than his beautiful wife. There are some great scenes in the movie that avoid Hollywood cliche... for one thing, Bill and Scarlett don't sleep together (well at least not in the sexual sense). Also, the final scene is something you don't see everyday in modern film. Plus, there are plenty of funny moments... I mean, Bill Murray is the star! Although funny in moments and artistically non-conforming, "Lost In Translation" is overall a depressing movie that depicts two failing marriages with slim hope of success. The actors shine, but the film will leave you empty just like the characters. Worth watching at least once just for Bill.
Rating:
Summary: Mood
Review: Largely a plotless story of time, place, impression and acquaintance, a strong mood is built of subtle images, a stellar and fitting soundtrack and superb cast. Sofia Coppola has created a film which is visually appealing, bringing to life the overwhelming nature of Tokyo as well as the stark contrast of cultures (culture shock). Unlike something culturally insensitive and disrespectful, like Mr. Baseball, which pokes fun at Japanese culture and way of life in an ugly effort to garner laughs, Coppola illustrates the differences without taking anything away from either culture. Two lonely Americans stuck in a Tokyo hotel, both contemplating their own lives, trying to make efforts in their interpersonal relationships, find each other and somehow find friendship and solace in their acquaintance. This, too, is something many films have tried to do (older man, younger woman), but they degenerate into lurid and unrealistic love affairs or somehow seem too familial (father-daughter, mentor-protege) in their portrayal. With excellent writing from Coppola and excellent performances from Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray, the relationship is both believable and refreshing. Lines are not crossed, though there is tension between the two. Overall, I left the cinema feeling carried away by a mood, nostalgic for that sense of tension, nostalgic for Tokyo (or at least for that sense of being an outsider but finding acceptance with someone as uncomfortable or alone as I felt).
Rating:
Summary: It was a good movie but it is far from great
Review: More like 3.75 stars really ...P>Lost in Translation was an exceptional movie. The setting is cool because I am pretty sure most people haven't been to Japan, or if they have haven't probably experienced in quite the jet set way the characters experienced it in the movie. Bill Murray gives his most likeable performance since Rushmore. Scarlett Johansson was hot. The sound track was pretty good. It has that whole "outside of hollywood" appeal going on, and depending on who you are that is a big selling point (probably the biggest selling point.) I guess the big problem is that it all seemed so luke warm. Scarlett Johansson's character could have used some more development, all we know about her is that she was a philosophy major and apparently her husband thinks she is sort of snotty. Bill Murray's character was wonderful in contrast, you can see how he could enjoy Also on top of all that Scarlett Johansson didn't seem to fit her role well at all. I suspect the only reason she got her part in the movie was because she co-starred in "Ghost World" and that fact adds to the "outside hollywood" (aka indie/arthouse) flavor this movie was going out of it's way to achieve. Maybe that is another problem in of itself, the fact the movies seems to be patronizing the arthouse crowd with those long winded shots of Scarlett Johansson observing Japanese culture in a conundrum. Definitely an interesting film. Don't buy the hype though.
Rating:
Summary: uuuhhhh....Travel video?
Review: You can see the power that's supposed to exist, but it never actually gets there. There's too much focus on the surroundings to emaphasize the situations. The situations should've been the source. Bill murray rocks, but nothing else really does, at least not the way in which this movie's promoted. Too bad.
Rating:
Summary: Get lost in "Lost in Translation"
Review: Nothing prepares you for the jolt to the heart this film gives you! Bill Murray in this film is where comedians like Jim Carrey aspire to be but just don't have the years of life behind them to make such a role work. Murray does and this movie is his. Scarlett Johansson is a revelation, too. She presents a complicated woman trapped in a world much like Alice in Wonderland; she's trying to find her way out of the rabbit hole. Along comes Bill Murray's Bob and together they plot a joint escape. This movie stays in your heart long after the credits roll. Sophia Coppola if THE writer/director to watch!
| 
