Rating: 
Summary: The most boring movie I ever had to sit through
Review: Don't waste your time. THis movie is dull, dull, dull - a perfect example of navel gazing by Sofia Coppola. Thank god for Bill Murray - he saved the movie. Scarlett JOhannsen gave her usual uninspired performance - this girl is SUCH a terrible actress that I squirmed every time she was on the television staring vacantly off into space and pursing her huge lips. Blech. don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: You'll get lost in the moment...
Review: I'll start off with a metaphor. If other movies are like diving in the pool, then Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation is like floating on your back and staring up at the sun. It's a movie that doesn't try to impress or even engage the viewer. It exists on its own lifeline, and if you're willing to tag along, you'll be rewarded with an engrossing and endearing experience. Notice I said "experience", because that's what the movie is. There are no heavy plotlines, there is not a lot of dialogue. There only exists two central characters who are lonely and isolated in a foreign country falling in love. There is no hidden message behind the lush visuals and beautiful performances by the actors. There is no knee slapping hilarity or tear jerking sad moments, there is only rich and heavy emotion...the kind of emotion that you aren't sure exactly what you're feeling. Bill Murray stars as Bob Harris, a washed up actor who has been hired to endorse a Japanese whiskey company. Arriving in Tokyo to shoot some commercials, he is tired....of his job, of his life, and everyone around him. As fate would have it, Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and her photographer husband are staying in the same hotel. Charlotte is a recent Yale graduate who is dissatisfied with her marriage and her direction in life. Meeting in the hotel bar, Bob and Charlotte slowly and gently fall in love, coming to terms with their own unhappiness with their lives. Sofia Coppola would've been a great music video director. And this time (maybe the only time), I mean that as a compliment. The visuals focus in and out of eachother, slowly panning over the amazing Japanese landscapes, both in the city and the country side. Throughout a large portion of the movie, there is virtually no dialogue. Yet you're still captivated by the way Coppola takes you from scene to scene, most notably in the beginning as Charlotte wanders her way through Tokyo into the more rural landscapes. These scenes say something about Charlotte's character, both wide eyed and aware, noticing and all encompassing, and most of all....appreciative. It builds up a kind of sympathy from the viewer on Charlotte being married to her callous and rude husband, John. Yet Coppola shows her skill in being able to switch gears quickly, as Bob's storyline involves a lot more subtle and hilarious humor, mostly from Bill Murray. We should make a note that Murray could've easily botched this role (or been the sole bad mark on the whole movie). But give him credit for never even approaching the edge of comedic shtick. He remains sad and desperate, a man whose job is to be other people that he doesn't even remember who he is. For probably one of the first times in his career, the humor comes from the movie, and not from him. I want to say one thing. Even without LOTR running against them, I doubt Lost in Translation would've even been given a second glance for Best Picture. It's just not that kind of movie. And once again, I have to stress how much credit Sofia Coppola should be given for not making it one of "those kind of movies", because she could have easily turned the star power and the fresh plot idea into a glitzy and heavier movie. But she keeps it gentle and subtle, which is obviously not for everyone. In fact, I heard the guy next to me completely doze off while watching it. And I could completely understand why. The movie is slow, it's deliberately slow. It's uninvolving, it's quiet, it's not a heart stopper in the least. But that's why it's so good. It's virtually impossible to explain much more about the movie. If you haven't already seen it, you may just wait til Tuesday and see the DVD. But I strongly suggest to you that you see it in the theaters before it's gone from it's post-nomination run....seeing it in the theater makes it more enveloping. It's thick and dense and fills the room, and you may find yourself gently smiling to yourself in parts where absolutely nothing is happening. I will leave you with this....another metaphor if you will. Lost in Translation is like the girl you're in love with, when she takes her hand and brushes your face. No kiss, no sex, nothing else. Just a small, simple touch. If you're a person who can find infinite happiness in an act like that, go run to see this movie. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, look for your money shot in any of the other movies out now. Along Came Polly maybe... ...but it's your loss.
Rating:
Summary: Another Bad Movie Gets Great Reviews
Review: Well I didn't see this coming, but maybe I should have.
Whenever a movie seems to be deep, or subtle, the critics are just beside themselves about how great a movie it is.
Because if you don't think it's good, then you must not be "deep" enough for it.
Well here comes the crap buster to the rescue!
This movie was marvelously mediocre and confused. It certainly highlights father issues, and suggests maybe things are little confused in the Cupolla household.
The most annoying thing about this movie is that it has no point. If it's about loneliness, then what about lonelines? That when you're alone and unhappy with your wife/life you should cheat with someone half your age?
No, but apparently you should kiss them. Because that makes sense.
This story doesn't resolve it's conflict at all. The movie makes it seems as if neither person is happy in their situation (but doesn't even do a good job of that - one moment they are, the next they aren't - huh??!) but both lack the power or courage to change anything.
With Bill Murray in the movie, you would expect it to be a little bit funny, but the humor consists mainly of the ol' "we-can't-understand-each-other-so-we-must-make-funny-faces" schtick, which gets old pretty fast.
This movie probably got good reviews because all you middle aged, bored-with-your-wife men like the ideas in this movie, but for the rest of us this thing is boring and flat with no catalysts or resolution.
Skip this one.
Rating: 
Summary: The Emperor has no clothes.
Review: The directing:It looks like Mrs. "Godfather 3" Coppella used a steadycam--perhaps shot digitally? Not that great--I sometimes felt like I was watching a travelog on PBS. I want to see some giraffes! Not quite Blair Witch but great...notable? Not really.
The script:Yawning during the first half hour, despite baby crying from the back row of the theatre. I get it. Bill Murray and that lady are both "lost". A better plot would be that they help each other. But they don't. The love thing never happens. (Well it couldn't really...given that it takes place in two weeks...). Some things are brushed over-like: suddenly he knows what apartment shes at! (Possible rainbow connection?) The film does not succeed as a comedy (never laughed once) nor as a serious flick. For a movie to be properly serious...there needs to be a point. Otherwise we'd all just be watching each other instead of payiing 7 bucks admission. Sure, reality TV is popular, but look at Real Cancun...that movie totally flopped! And with good reason! (My phobia about characters I can't relate to.) These characters--I don't feel like I ever got involved with them--could it be because of a lack of dialog? Characters come on and off-like the lounge singer Bill Murray sleeps with--we never get the scope of her...what made Bill choose her instead of the pretty young thing who flounts around all day half naked.
The acting: OK...this got nominated, and I think it's because they feel bad about not giving anything to Bill recently (if ever? I dont have my facts with me). Theres not a lot of range on people, the film doesn't demand it. And the long shots of Tokyo and people staring out windows only make me more standoffish. Call it art if you will, but I call it crap because it. never. wowed. me.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful and moving
Review: One of the most moving movies I have ever seen, right up there with modern classics like "Paris, Texas" and "American Beauty". A story of two people far from home in a foreign country, with a vastly different pace and way of life to what they're accustomed, and how their friendship gets them through the confusion and loneliness. A movie I intend to see many times.
Rating:
Summary: Not as I expected
Review: I've lived in "foreign" lands all my life. There is no excuse for Hollywood Romantic "interludes". I followed my wedding vows - I felt they were important, thus didn't like the whining and the " feel good " aspects of the story line. Both protagonists were despicable to me. I am a reasonable man, but dislike the tone of "rationality" which seems to permiate our culture - especially in this film, which was not funny in the least.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Movie
Review: It has been a long time that I've seen a movie that can be interpreted on so many different levels, and it is enjoyable at all of them. Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray are outstanding. At the surface level it is a story of two people stuck in downtown Tokyo who meet and find they are attracted to each other, but know their friendship can only be platonic and brief. The scenes of the city and the clash of cultures are both funny and poignant. On the next level it is a movie about what's real and not real. Be sure to keep track of images in mirrors, windows, photos, and TV screens. At another level, it is about the barriers that are errected around us - physical, cultural, emotional, and self-inflicted that keep us separated. In the end, however, you know these two people are better for having encountered one another. If you're looking for an action movie with its share of sex and violence, this isn't it, but if your looking for great entertainment that also leaves you thinking, this is the one you want.
Rating:
Summary: Uninteresting characters hurt it
Review: LIT certainly has its moments. Many of those moments are wordless, musical, dreamy, observant, and scarce. As a friend I won't reveal any of them to you. Just know that the film isn't the most interesting character study. The movie is about two American strangers who meet each other in Tokyo and find solace in their ability to communicate with each other, verbally, emotionally, and psychologically. To their chagrin, nearly all of the citizens they bump into are either incapable of speaking English, or incapable of recognizing the fact that these American looking folks do not speak their language. But the two strangers are not the only Americans here. There's a female lounge singer, a couple of male bar frequenters, a young female Hollywood star, a Hip-Hop producer, and at the last minute, a tall, blonde, 30 or 40 something beauty, who is a fan of the main male character, Bob, a middle aged actor played by Bill Murray. But those characters are all undeveloped and secondary, including their spouses. Why, I wonder, did she create these characters in the first place? Especially the husband/photographer of Charlotte, a Yale graduate and Philosophy major, played by Scarlet Johansson. The guy only has a few scenes to speak of, and when he's on screen, he's consistently unaffectionate towards his effortlessly beautiful wife. This is the part of the movie where the audience joins Coppola in a collective 'Huh?' as we try to fathom what it is this fool does not see in this walking masterpiece (during their first couple of scenes together, Scarlet walks around in her panties= Good stuff, good stuff!). We learn nothing about him, except that he's a photographer and is constantly on call. Clearly Sofia Coppola, the writer/director of the film, could have found a way to throw Charlotte into the arms of Bob without this character existing. Either that, or she could have developed him more. It is possible to create a character we love to hate, right? In regards to Bob, we never see his wife, but we do hear her whenever he calls her on the phone. Her voice doesn't rise when she says 'Bob.' Instead, it falls and crashes like a broken jaw. Apparently, their bed is cold. Apparently, if Bob and Charlotte were to be caught together, by any one of their spouses, the both of them might blow a collective sigh of relief, or say to themselves: 'Thank God, I didn't have to break it to her/him.' Because Coppola wanted to tell a love story, Bob doesn't meet his old buddy (or buddies) from college. He doesn't even meet a beautiful, intelligent Asian woman who speaks the language, or an Asian guy who speaks English. Instead, he meets a young American girl (shockingly, Scarlet, the actress, is only 18). For those of you who find the older man/younger woman relationship thing creepy and gross, you more or less need not worry your little head. If not for the film's unnecessary and brief venture into a strip club (' did I just put the words 'unnecessary' and 'strip club' into the same sentence?), the movie would have most likely received a PG-13, or a PG. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, the movie received the R-rating because of brief sexual content (i.e. the brief trip into the strip club). But as a romance, LIT lacks a very important component: chemistry between its two actors. Except for the final scenes, Bill Murray's performance comes across as disaffected as when we first met him. Sure, he smiles at Scarlet on cue, but what self-respecting heterosexual man wouldn't be capable of smiling at her lovely face, or body? Unfortunately, Scarlet Johansson, who mostly acts natural despite the limitations of her character, isn't given much to do as an actress. Her character is looking for attention and for the meaning of life. During the later scenes, she's quiet and observant. During the earlier scenes, we sense that she is internally bitching about the fact that her husband is inattentive. But she says nothing outright. As an actor, what can she do there, especially when the director's camera is busy messaging her legs, or staring out of a window, which has a spectacular view of the city? (The last bit is done too often and to little effect, sadly) So, we've got a romance without chemistry, and a character study without interesting characters. What, you ask, are the film's redeeming qualities? Why did I give it two stars instead of one? Well, as I said before, it is because of a few transcendent, music video like moments, which I care not to mention ' in case you're still interested in seeing this. ' I've almost neglected to mention the fact that LIT is also a lame fish-out water story. Often, Bill is forced to make clueless facial expressions because he doesn't understand the language, or the customs, or why the bathroom showerhead is low enough to water everything below his bellybutton. There's also a seriously unfunny scene involving the line, 'Lip my stocking.' ' Not that it'll make any difference, but Sofia Coppola could have made a damn fine documentary on neon-lit Tokyo? She could have scored it to the sounds of My Bloody Valentine, as well as every other band out their with a dreamy rock aesthetic. For an idea as to what I'm talking about, check out her video for Kevin Shields' 'City Girl.' It mostly focuses on Charlotte acting like a tourist.
Rating:
Summary: crowded, surrounded and utterly lonely
Review: Bill Murray masterfully plays Bob Harris, an actor more famous for his car chase scenes in the 1970s than any current endeavor. Harris is jetlagged and bewildered in the eastern city of lights - Tokyo. He is being paid $2million to endorse a Japanese whiskey for print and TV media. His wife is back home in sunny California with their kids, treating her life as a housewife more as a career that's going nowhere rather than a relationship. She is obsessed with redecorating Bob's office and faxes him shelf plans in the middle of the night, sends him carpet samples via FedEx, and berades him on the phone, never once saying she misses or loves him. Scarlett Johansson plays Charlotte, only married for 2 years to a successful photographer on assignment in Japan. Her husband John (Giovanni Ribisi) is always telling Charlotte how much he loves her, but doesn't show it, He never makes time for her or even acknowledges how lonely she must be. He is surrounded by English-speaking celebrities all day long during his photo-shoots, and Charlotte is utterly isolated in the bustling city of Tokyo, elbow to elbow with people who look different and don't speak her language. Like two tiny light bulbs in a dark room, Bob & Charlotte make eye contact in the hotel's bar. Bob has been perched on the same bar stool for so many hours each evening, his butt print is almost a permanent addition to the bar's decor. Bob & Charlotte instantly connect - truly strangers in a strange land. Both in places they don't want to be without anyone else to talk to. Bob tries connecting with his wife on the phone, but she is more concerned with her kids' eating habits than to listen to her husband who is on the other side of the world. Charlotte tries calling friends in the states, but they don't hear the utter loneliness in her voice and tell her to "have fun! I've got to go now!" Bob and Charlotte never have to explain their lonliness to one another, they experience it and know it when they see it. Whether they are the only two people in the bar that seem to be thinking instead of just nodding heads, or when they are the two slow-moving people in a speedy river of locals on their way to work, school or an arcade. The unspoken is obvious - in many ways, despite their backgrounds and age difference, they are soul mates. They connect at a level that neither of them has been able to do with their own spouses. No sexual interludes happen between them, just a very subtle touch here and there that is much like the non-sexual touch of friendship couples have when they have been together many years and are very close. The angst between them is the most binding force they have. Many lonely scenes penetrate the viewer. Bob goes to the swimming pool at the hotel. On one occasion, a water aerobics class is taking place on the other half of the pool, while Bob is solitary on the other side, swimming laps. In another scene, he is literally the only one there in this gigantic Olympic-size pool - almost like the room was constructed solely for his benefit. Charlotte bounces from sitting in her messy hotel room, staring out the window at the crowded city, filled with millions of people, to taking a train to Kyoto to see the Buddhist monestary, just anything to connect with someone, anyone. Murray is stuck in one insulting photo shoot after another. His Japanese assistant does a less than complete job of translating for him, which makes the assignments that much more miserable. He is cornered into appearing on a Japanese talk show, whose host is referred to as "the Johnny Carson of Japan." He finally caves in and agrees to do the show, to find out that the host is more a combinaiton of Elton John and Benny Hill - with a stage set like "Laugh In." The only thing making his stay in Japan bearable is Charlotte, who takes him out on the town with friends to eat, sing Karaoke or just hang out and smoke. Even when they are out with Charlotte's friends, they are still alone - it is only when they are alone together that the lonliness subsides. The two of them sharing their lonliness is enough to give the illusion that they are no longer lonely. Interwoven with the stark scenes of lonliness and human apathy are hilarious cross-cultural scenes, mostly stemming from the language barrier. The city is a city of contrasts. Everyone is so polite, they bow, give gifts and smile a lot, but they are always in a hurry and anxious to make you rush along as well. Lest you oversleep, the blinds automatically open at dawn to accost the hotel guest with the morning sun. This is a great film, but not one to see when you're sleepy or depressed. If you are already feeling lonely, alone, sad or depressed, this movie will be the antithesis of a "pick-me-up" and should be avoided. The long, quiet scenes can lull the very tired into a coma, but this film is a class act. Coppola and Murray have definitely earned their Oscar® nominations.
Rating:
Summary: A very refreshing piece of work
Review: Lost in translation is a very different and refreshing piece of work, when compared with all the other mainstream movies around at the moment. Bill Murray as the middle age crisis star Bob Harris had given up a career building play to star in an ad in which he has no idea what he was supposed to do. Even worse, his stay in the jetlagged Tokyo was lengthened out of business consideration and now he had to face more lonely sleepless nights. Similarly a university graduate wife of a photographer on business trip in Tokyo was having the same problem. She was having the "expatriate wife syndrome" that apart from insomnia, she felt lonely and helpless. She attempted to cure this infinite loneliness by going around the city to look for interesting stuff to do. However, to her surprise, what interested her was another lonely man in the bar of the same hotel. Their encounter sparked off a very interesting relationship and friendship between the pair. They do stuff together, trying new healthy Jap food of which some required them to cook by themselves (a shock for them). The cultural shock was blended into the support that they have for each other in this alien city that they don't want to be in. Lost in Tranlsation deals with the topic of unwillingness, cultural shock and mutual support. Who would foresee a Yale graduate wife of a photographer will develop an interesting friendship with a megastar in his mid-age crisis? The topic was dealt with with delicate care and tenderness mixed with a slim sense of saddness. The director managed to balance all these aspects tactfully. From how she tried to show the audience with how Tokyo life looks like in the 2 hours, we can see that it was well researched as the movie didn't show stereotypical Japanese culture only. The movie gave the Japanese culture a very fair portrayal which is very well done for an American movie. The actors are brilliant. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson gave an excellent performance for the two characters. Bill as an experienced actor in and alien culture doing things he had been doing all his life, but still had no idea how to do it was just fabulous. Scarlett Johansson as a wife longing for care and love in an alien city was also very well done. Her struggle against loneliness by site seeing and hanging out with this mid-age actor was well crafted. The movie portrayed some of the beautiful sceneries from Tokyo and Kyoto and the cinematography is very well done. It is not a typical mainstream movie type of story that you would expect but it does give you a feeling of difference. The gags are very well done and keep the movie interesting. Nonetheless, there are certain parts of the movie that pace slowed down immensely, this could lose a bit of audience attention. No matter what, Lost in Translation is still a movie of choice if you are looking for a movie with a touch of freshness.
|
