Rating: 
Summary: One of the most under-rated films ever
Review: ...P>A few years ago one of Britain's veteran movie critics quit the job for good. It wasn't - he said - that he needed to retire, but he felt that with most of the big movies from Hollywood that year being either based on comic books, or being sequels, or being utterly adolescent, it seemed that Hollywood just was not interested in making movies for people like him.He should have waited. If he had seen "Lost in Translation" he would have realized that someone at least is still interested in making mature intelligent movies for mature intelligent people (no matter how much it infuriates others). In fact some have been doing so for a long time, but they've been doing so in Europe (and even Korea) rather than the United States. "Lost in Translation" has been compared to David Lean's film of Noel Coward's "Brief Encounter" more than a few times, and it's a good comparison. If you are a knowledgeable enough movie-goer to know what that film is, and to like it, there is a good chance you will like this one, even though it modernises the whole issue. I sincerely doubt that most of those marking this movie down either know or truly appreciate more thoughtful cinema like David Lean's early romance. Like "Brief Encounter" "Lost in Translation" is about two people in indifferent marriages who meet, and who form a bond. Unlike "Brief Encounter" we're not immediately sure that it is a romantic bond. Also unlike "Brief Encounter" both characters are jet-lagged and generally not quite sure of the direction of their lives. There is an age difference. And it takes place in a land that is strange to both people. One of the great advantages of that is that the marriages are shown more obliquely, often by telephone calls or fax messages, and we're left to focus on the main characters Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and Bob (Bill Murray). Scarlett Johansson gives a subtle and mature performance as Charlotte. She's been around in movies since 1994, and was terrific when the role allowed, in "The Horse Whisperer", "Ghost World", "The Man Who Wasn't There", and - more recently in "Girl with a Pearl Earring". She is excellent here as a young woman who is discovering that her husband is a rather more shallow (and fame blinded) individual that she once thought. Witness the scene where he criticises her for pointing out that Evelyn Waugh was a man. Bill Murray as the aging actor Bob, in Tokyo for a Suntory TV ad and photo shoot, gives one of his best performances ever. I can't say it surprises me as much as it surprised some. He already showed his ability to go further than mindless comedy in several movies, including "Tootsie", "The Razor's Edge", "Groundhog Day", "Mad Dog and Glory" , "Ed Wood", "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums". I have long loved him even in his more comedic roles, such as "Scrooged" too, and he was the ONLY thing that made "Ghostbusters" worth sitting through. Expect to see him here in the more serious of those roles. So these two meet. And they begin to warm to one another against the backdrop of a country whose rules and customs and language are strange to them. And, both facing crises, they find in one another some hope, some indication of how to come to terms with or change their lives. They also have to face the question of what they can mean to one another, and the movie resolves that in a particularly grown-up way that seems to annoy the heck out of some viewers. Sofia Coppola has made a very different film here from "The Virgin Suicides". Her script is perhaps a little slight, but that works well for the material. If you have much intelligence many things do not need to be put into words. In fact, that's the hallmark of a film that works, as film, rather than as visualised writing. And she's magnificently aided and abetted, who - if the DVD is to be believed - achieved spectacularly beautiful results in a very short filming time. It looks almost unlit, but it IS lit subtly. I guess that stands for the whole movie. It looks like a slice of life, but it is pointed up, subtly. For those with the ability to recognise this, and the emotional maturity to identify with, or understand the characters, it is well worth every single ounce of the praise it has been receiving.
Rating: 
Summary: WORST Movie I have seen in a LONG Time
Review: This movie is way down there with "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." At least AKT knew it was stupid D movie and played that to the hilt. Lost in Translation is just bad, bad, bad but it thinks it's a legitimate movie. The Oooonly reason this script has ever seen the light of day is that it was directed by Ms. Coppola. Her direction is OK, I guess, but most of the sceens are so lame, it is virtually impossible to rate the director. Ditto with Bill Murray except he is the sole saving grace of this film. Now I know Ms. Coppola also wrote it. Were I she, I would not have advertised this too loudly because this is where the fault of this film CLEARY lies. Everything the writer is responsible for in a movie (dialogue, sceen transition, whether the movie makes sense) SUCKS! If anybody else wrote this movie, it would never have been financed and, if by some fluke it were, they would have been run out of Hollywood on a rail. Ms. Coppola, of course, has a promising DIRECTING career because of her name but I believe that this movie has eliminated any possibility of her working as a writer (even in Hollywood, a name will only get you so far). OK, if I have not been clear enough, DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY on this film. If you must watch it, rent it -- I assure you (even if you are the biggest Bill Murray fan who ever lived), you will NEVER want to watch the movie a second time. (In fact, I challenge anyone to stay awake and actually make it through one showing.)
Rating:
Summary: Get me some of what Hollywood is smoking !!!!
Review: What was the Academy thinking? Yawn....Big big yawn !
Rating:
Summary: The most overrated film ever.......................!!
Review: Do you want to watch a film that goes nowhere? If so, "Lost in Translation" is for you. I rarely ever write negative reviews but I couldn't resist doing so for this one since I can honestly say that I have not been disappointed in a movie in a very long time as I have been with this film. With all the hype and hoopla surrounding this film, I was expecting to see something decent and entertaining when I finally got around to renting it. Thank goodness I only rented it. I pity those who actually bought the dvd and found out what a bore it really is. I saw this film around Oscar time and actually got to watch 4 of the 5 nominated Best Picture films. Of the 4, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" was by far the best and most brilliant, followed by "Master & Commander," then "Seabiscuit." I could barely sit through "Lost in Translation." I talked to a handful of other people who have seen this and we all said the same thing: "what a piece of overrated mush" (except some of them were less kind than I was). It truly is a film that goes nowhere. Scarlett Johansson's character spends half the movie looking out the window in her Tokyo hotel smoking a cigarette. Bill Murray is either lying on his bed in the same Tokyo hotel or sitting in the bar and drinking himself silly. They meet, hang out a few times then Bill Murray goes home. That's about it. Goodness knows Sofia Coppola wouldn't have won that Best Original Screenplay Oscar if not for her family name and Hollywood connections. Her work with "The Virgin Suicides" was much better. If you want a great Bill Murray movie, rent or buy "Groundhog Day" or "Rushmore" instead. These films are entertaining and feature Bill Murray at his best. And anyone, I mean 'anyone,' could have played Scarlett Johansson's role. There was barely any acting involved there. Though I am not a big fan of "Cold Mountain," I think that film deserved the 5th spot for Best Picture much more than this movie. In short, "Cold Mountain" was robbed. My verdict? "Lost in Translation" = a complete waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Why do people love it?
Review: Just an observation: ENTHUSIASM DOES NOT BECOME HYPE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT SHARE IT. I might not want to bungee jump, but those who praise it having tried it are not hyping it. They are just showing how much they love it. What "Lost in Translation" has received from critics and fans is not hype but praise. And the praise is deserved, no matter how many weird conspiracy-theories people have to make up to justify their own lack of awareness or response. Sometimes when a film confuses some members of the audience, it's because the director has failed to get a point or a mood across. But Sofia Coppola obviously reached enough people - who have then become wildly enthusiastic (no need to "bend over backwards" to show that the failure is not hers. I asked myself what she could have done to satisfy those who found it boring. All she could have done was make an entirely different movie. And nothing can make you like a movie that just is not YOUR kind of movie. There are a lot of films like this. Sometimes you don't like them because their politics aren't yours (I'd even bet right-wingers hate this movie more than left-wingers incidentally, because it blurs lines it discomforts them to see blurred.) Sometimes you don't like them because their worldview is inimical to yours, (like all those movies that let the "hero" ride roughshod over legal process because "the laws" let crooks get away). I don't think very many big fans of the "Lethal Weapon" tripe will like "Lost in Translation". Coppola, Murray, Johansson, Accord, Ribisi, Farris, and the excellent Japanese cast made their movie well. As for those who don't go for it, well maybe the fault lies not in the stars (or director) but in your selves.
Rating:
Summary: Buy it, own it, watch it more than once
Review: I got a lot from "Lost in Translation" on a first viewing, but I got even more from it on later viewings and with later thought. Often when you look at a movie for the first time you spend all your effort trying to figure out where it is going. It's only later that you can concentrate on the details and not on the over-riding desire for the forward impetus of conventional narrative. "Master and Commander" worked in a very similar way, and also benefits from more than one viewing. One earlier reviewer said it well, that it's about two people facing disappointment and possible change in their lives who give one another a little strength, or at least act as catalysts for hope. Not everyone understands this or at least wants to see a movie about it. For those that are willing to do so, "Lost in Translation" is a beautifully crafted miniature in which not one shot, not one word, not one piece of casting, not one gesture, not one piece of music, is out of place. Also, if you liked this you might also like Antonioni's "Beyond the Clouds". The dumb will think nothing happens in that one too. Those with a little more discernment will love it.
Rating:
Summary: A horrible movie with great cinematography.
Review: Pretty pictures do not a good movie make. I was left wondering who to sue to get the 2 hours of my life back. Bill Murray is Bill Murray starring in a boring movie that everyone seems to be bending over backward to praise that I personally can't stand. If you want a great drama with insiteful human observations, rent/buy Tim Burton's Big Fish or go out and see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and you'll see two movies you will enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Could take some time
Review: My Bloody Valentine is on the soundtrack. MBV is in a movie with Bill Murray. All the generic hipster boys and girls flocked to see this movie. The first time I saw it, I mean, I too was excited to listen to the splendor of MBV during a cinematic experience considering their videos were so, so-so. Sofia's pretenciousness is obviously slandering other cute hipster girls with anti-horse talk, and "every girl takes awkward pictures of her feet" type of comments. She tries to come off cool to the scenester crowd, this movie is supposed to be about her and obviously she wants hipster credit. It took me a few times of watching this movie to get over the above. This movie is just purely enjoyable, it's a relaxing foreign voyage. It's definitely more cute than it is funny. Lost in Translation is reminiscent of movies with heart of a classier time period when people really were more geniune in their roles, but it is only a day dream of that and whisps by like all songs on MBV's Loveless.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful movie
Review: I think this movie deserved every bit of hype it received. Last year's abundance of comic book movies and Matrix sequels really turned me off. This movie brought together two characters with much in common though at different stages of their lives/marriages and avoided all unhappy marriage/lonely character clichés. The beauty of this movie lies in what doesn't happen. Most people I know who didn't like this movie were expecting a Bill Murray "comedy". It is, but not in the obvious ways. It is so much more. Murray and Scarlett Johansen were perfectly cast - I could not imagine any other actors playing these parts.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best movies I have seen
Review: I am not certain how to put it -- sure, there's not much of a "plot" if plot is what you are looking for, and sure, you are bound to be offended by some jokes if you are so PC you don't have any sense of humor left in you (and if you can't see that right next to the funny things ANY westerner would notice and comment on -- let's not be hypocritical here -- there are plenty of parts in the movie that evoke the beauty of the country and its inhabitants). If what you are looking for is something that feels like life, that's both hilarious and touching, and makes you think about relationships, and choices in life; if what you are interested in is a movie with perfect actors that have unbelievable chemistry between them, and a director who makes you feel as if YOU are the one in Japan, then this is the movie for you. Clearly, one of the best films I have seen in a long time.
| 
