Rating: 
Summary: How to GET this movie
Review: Unlike what many reviewers are saying, this could be a movie that anyone can enjoy. It's all in the approach. The story is minimal; the humor is understated, and the dialogue is sparse, so it is not a movie for the head, but for the heart. If you have ever felt confused about life, or if you ever felt alienation and yearned for connection, or if you ever wondered about your place in this world, then GAURANTEED you will indentify with one or both of the main characters. It's all in the mindset. Watch it alone if necessary. Give this movie a chance, and you will be rewarded. That final encounter is one of the greatest moments in recent film.
Rating:
Summary: a welcome change...
Review: People looking for the typical passive movie-watching experience - to simply laugh and be entertained while mindlessly sitting on your couch with popcorn kernels clinging to your shirt - should definitely look elsewhere. The strength of this movie is in its ability to stimulate thought, much like a very good book. Those more into Dan Brown / "movie of the week" type stories will find this movie pointless. Those looking for something different from Hollywood, something more intelligent and engaging, will embrace this film. We all have undoubtedly found ourselves in places and situations where we felt we didn't belong, where we question the decisions and circumstances that brought us there. This movie gives a very honest portrayal of two individuals in that situation, at a common time, in a common place, and reminds us that we are never alone in feeling alone. If you are looking to be dazzled, watch "Lord of the Rings." If you're looking to fall off the couch in laughter, watch "Old School." But if it's one of those nights when you're just not sure what you're looking for, you might find it in "Lost in Translation."
Rating: 
Summary: Great View of Japan Culture Clash with U.S.
Review: The opening shot of this film during the titles pretty much sets the direction of this 'little film'; the camera lens aimed squarely on Scarlet Johansson's backside. Sofia Coppola is positively in love with this actresses' body, as becomes rather apparent in the course of the film. In between times, we have Johansson's character, a philsophy major graduated from Yale who nevers cracks a book in the film, embroiled in an inexplicably improbable marriage with an impossibly shallow character. Bill Murray, playing himself (something he's become really good at doing with advancing age and experience), is in a similarly mismatched marriage. These two Americans in temporary residence at a posh hotel in Japan wind up having a bit of a fling, albeit Platonic, but with a cryptically intimate ending. Is there a story in this? Hard to say. It's mostly episodic with glimpses at Japanese society on several different levels: religious ceremony, the hotel/bar/lounge scene (with evidence of America's intrusion), the youth party scene and other nighttime activities (including a great moment with Karaoke, with again evidence of U.S. intrusion), the advertising world, talk show moments, and overall manners. But the camera is all too often on Johansson's body as if this were the sole motivation for the film. Notwithstanding Sofia's chief interest in this film, it's worth seeing at least once, for Murray's straight man to Japan's parade of clowns. Great fun! This alone saves the film from itself.
Rating: 
Summary: lost in deep slumber
Review: This is my first review on this site, i chose this movie because i heard it was a masterpeice. and i have to say wow, it sure is a peice of something. this is movie is like watching fungus grow. it is so boring. i like movies that spark interest and i am not dumb. i just found this pointless. Bill Murray was good playing Bill Murray. I was so happy he did not win the Oscar. I respect Bill Murray for Caddyshack, Groundhog's Day, and Rushmore, but this movie did not do it for me. The whole time while watching this i was thinking about "what would i get with my refund?" The girl opposite of bill was very attractive. i am sorry i dont know her name but this is not one movie that people should become famous for
Rating: 
Summary: Blah.
Review: I can see why this film won so many Oscars. You can tell what it's trying to be, a film about the banality of life in general, and for people who have gone through a mid-life crisis and know what it's like to feel that way, then it's probably an amazing movie. I, personally, found it insanely boring. The plot is the Bob, an old 70s movie star, goes to Tokyo to film a commercial. There he meets Charlotte, the young wife of a photographer. They hang out at bars. Bob looks weary a lot. Charlotte spends most of her time moping in her hotel room or silently observing Japanese culture. And we mean silently. At least half of the movie is in Japanese, because the main characters are silent. We know that Bob is having a mid-life crisis (that's not a good reason to me that he's so unhappy) Charlotte is lonely (again, no sense, because she could easily join her husband in photography or try and learn Japanese and not be so aliented-she's been in the country for at least a year now, for goodness sake, is there NOTHING to do in Tokyo?) and they're both sort of alientnated but do nothing about it but sigh and look sad. Nothing happens except for some moments that are supposed to be soooooo laden with subtext if you bother to look, but you don't bother to look because you're so bored. Then the movie ends, leaving me feeling,"What happened? Where is the climax?" The jokes are funny, but there are very few jokes and some people (though not me) have said they're racist to Japanese. Sometimes totally random things happen and then people forget about them and they have no impact (like-major spoiler-Bob has sex with a lounge singer, we're forced to assume he was drunk, and then no one talks about it again and we don't even learn that lady's name!) so you barely can tell those scene from others. Bottom line: a huge bore, but some people will no doubt find it so enlightening and "real." I didn't.
Rating:
Summary: Slow Start and goes Nowhere
Review: After almost falling over mountains of "rave" reviews for this move, including the High Impact "Over 80 4 Star Reviews" on the DVD sleeve, I was more than a little disappointed with this movie. An Oscar nod for Sofia Copola had also led me to believe that this would be something special, but even as a fan of Bill Murray I find it hard to recommend. A very slow beginning finds Bill Murray out of his depth in Tokyo as a flagging actor promoting a brand of whiskey. Anyone who has ever been to Tokyo will know it is NOT a very visitor friendly place, from the point of view of little, or no maps, tourist information, direction signs, assistance, or even menu's printed in English (or any other language except Japanese for that matter) and Ms Copola tries hard to portray this, and the quirky Japanese culture on screen at every given moment. Sadly though, this, and the gentle, if unlikely romantic chemistry between this lost actor in a failing marriage, and young newlywed unsure of her decision or life in general, that could be full of hilarious nuances just doesn't come across. I found myself skipping forward just to see if ANYTHING was going to happen, but was left feeling like a waste of just over 1hr 40 mins. I'm sorry to be arguing with so many critics praising this as a GREAT MOVIE, but perhaps like the title says, the comedy, story and enjoyment, was a least for me - Lost in the Translation.
Rating:
Summary: Hey sophia... nice movie - PSYCHE!
Review: Serioulsy - I'm the daughter of a big time guy who made some sweet ass movies so give me an academy award. Academy: Okay. C'mon this movie sucked all kinds of nuts. I was all into Scarlett Johansen too until this movie came out and showed me her fat ass one hundred times sitting in a window. Dude, you're a bigtime famous actress now, get in the damned gym. But mainly I like movies that have stories and not just stupid crap made by someone who thinks Tokyo is cool but doesn't really know how to make a movie. I think tokyo is cool (who doesn't? lots of yakuza and crap like that) can I have an oscar?
Rating:
Summary: Sticky Rice
Review: Japanese sticky rice is an art. It can go either way. On the one hand, you have plump little puffs clinging to each other, and one taste makes your cheeks feel sweet. On the other hand, you have glop. It's a question of water and time. This movie spends a lot of time establishing itself. The shots are long and lingering and repetitive. Scarlett Johansen huddles up against the window of a hotel, behind which you see the vast, unintelligible city -- a great shot. A great shot that lasts forever each time you see it, and it is recycled several times. Why? I acknowledge it was a good idea, and yes, it does work, and yes, it furthers the plot, but why so long and so often? Or how about Bob Murray's interactions with his wife over the phone? It only takes several lines of dialogue to make the point that his wife has nothing to say and Bill Murray is bored by it. Nevertheless, the calls are interminable and seem to happen over and over. My guess is that Coppola wants to make us experience the boredom and frustration which the characters feel. That is a very risky technique. You would need something really remarkable to happen once the action kicks in. All I ask for is a little chemistry between the principals. There isn't any. Bill Murray plugs right into his mournful socket, and it works. Scarlett Johansen is beautiful and riveting. But the conjunction was nothing to marvel at. I love the shots in this movie (cunning and pretty, though tedious). I love the idea of culture shock (smartly shown in Murray's Japanese TV appearances). I love the idea of two people finding something special with another person with whom their connection is bound to be cut for technical reasons (it happens all the time). And again, Scarlett Johansen is beautiful and riveting. But without a tangible current between the leads, there is no movie. And my, how it drags. So -- overcooked scenes and watery romance ends up as glutinous glop, no matter how tantalizing the bonito that is sprinkled on top.
Rating: 
Summary: A mindless pauper's review(sarcasm).
Review: I watched. I waited. I thought. I "get it." I was still left thinking, "Why did this win at the Indy Awards again?" This film, left on its own, is a good movie. Murray isn't great and certainly wasn't up to par with Penn's or Robbins' performance in Mystic River, but he was good. I can't, however, understand all the hype. Yes, many have said how "real" this film is but realism often equals boredom and I caught myself being bored about halfway through this film. In my opinion, there was not that much substance in this film. It was basically a pseudo-intellectual film about a young lady and an old guy who become friends and the needs they have and momentarily fufill with each other. Look a bit further and you'll see the "real, courageous" portion of the film: how life is basically very simple and redundant - no matter the age or dreams(shattered or wished) - and how quickly we all can become bored with it. That's it. Case closed. There's nothing else. No secret answers to life. No hidden codes or messages. I'm all about Indy films (Jesus' Son, Requiem For a Dream, The Good Girl, About Schmidt, etc.), but this isn't any better than most other Indy films. It's just okay, even if you do "get it". Plain and simple.
Rating:
Summary: Lost in transfer
Review: This movie is one of my very few all time favorites. It is beautiful, period. Tokyo is beautiful. Charlotte is beautiful. The soundtrack is beautiful. It's funny and touching. However, I have to say that I was extremely disappointed by the very mediocre picture transfer and the lack of bonuses. I know that this is not a big blockbuster, but LIT definitely deserved more than that sorry treatment that I am more used to see with niche, arthouse, foreign DVD releases. I'm hoping for a future edition, maybe a Criterion, that I would be happy to trade this one for one day.
| 
