Rating: 
Summary: Bored in Translation
Review: What a pointless movie. I cannot believe they gave an Oscar to this snoozer. I agree with the reviewer that the clout of the Coppola name is the only thing that got this monotonous movie made (much less honored with an Oscar).There are a couple of times when I felt hopeful the story (such as it is) might actually take off, like the amusing exchange between the Japanese commercial director and Murray. But too quickly the scene passed, and the viewer is left watching the protagonists lying around their hotel rooms, doing nothing but stare out windows and up to ceilings. If the two main characters think they are bored in Japan, they should try watching this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie but skip the DVD
Review: This DVD is simply horrible. At the start you are forced to watch what seems like 10 minutes of previews for other movies. All controls are disabled so you can't just jump to the main menu. If you want to just replay a quick scene from the movie you still have to endure the preview before you can get to it. This is an abuse of the facilities available on DVD players - the purpose of a section at the beginning that can't be skipped is to display the copyright legalities, not to play trailers.
I was so disappointed. I bought this as a gift but didn't realise the recipient would have to pay again, repeatedly, with their own time. If ever there was an argument in support of video piracy this DVD is it.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved this movie!
Review: This is a very unique film and the Japanese theme was outstanding! It was an overall great piece of work. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson did an incredible job! Not just any common person would like this, though. This is the type of movie you really have to think deep about, not just what they present on the surface on screen....
Rating:
Summary: Not a soap opera
Review: I have to say that so many of the negative reviews here are their own best reviews. Boring, negative, trite, and pointless. At least they have the merit of being as short as they are lacking in insight or point.
The movie however is terrific. As most of its fans know, movies are about more than just a story. Those who can only look for soap-opera of cliff-hanger story here would be better off watching soap operas or cliff-hangers. Coppola made a very good movie with "The Virgin Suicides". She's made another with "Lost in Translation". They are, in most ways, not very similar, except that they do share a certain soft and likeable sensitivity. It is good to see her writing her own script, and getting much deserved awards for it, but I would like to see her do another adaptation like her first. The idea that only her father's influence got her this movie is completely laughable. Just look at how popular it is with the public, and often with people who don't even like her father's kind of movies. I know she'll do another soon. I can't wait for it to hit the screens, further annoying the "Matrix Ad Nauseam" brigade. At least someone out there is making movies for people with an IQ above 10. Not to be missed if you care about fine movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Overhyped
Review: Like millions of other fans of Bill Murray, I looked forward to his latest work, a rare dramatic performance. However, despite the widespread acclaim from the press, I felt that "Lost" was given too much credit. Frankly, this was not a great movie. The acting (even with Murray) was sub-par. The plot was weak and not believable as well as boring. I expected to be an emotional piece of cinema. Unfortunately, I sat through the entire film looking at my watch in anticipation of the conclusion. My advice, rent first.
Rating:
Summary: Hey, where's the guns?
Review: After reading a good portion of the reviews for this movie, it becomes clear that folks that like it feel so much superior to those that didn't. Any film with artistic aspirations seems to have a built-in ace in the hole: if you didn't like it, you didn't get it. Clearly, if you gave it less than 5 stars, it was over your head. According to the films' many ardent fans, those of us that didn't care for it must obviously fall into that vast, amorphous population so ruined by coarse American culture that a subtle and delicate piece of art like this is lost on us. Christ, Americans are so pedestrian in their tastes. It's rather embarrassing to be one, isn't it? I might add here that this little film did very well in America, did nicely on Oscar night, and the DVD sales aren't doing too badly either. So to say that this film can't be appreciated by the blunt, obvious taste of America is incorrect. I might also respond to those reviewers critical of American film making by saying that most of the great European directors, particularly the French New Wave, learned their craft by worshiping at the feet of the great American masters of the thirties and forties. Still, this film didn't do as well as, say, Bad Boys II. But then there is a good reason for that. I remember reading that Francois Truffaunt was a huge fan of American gangster films, and in fact remarked more than once he considered them the only kind of film that interested him. How could this be? How could the director of such a tender character study as Jules and Jim get off on James Cagney and George Raft (who were the big-budget "action" stars of their day)? The answer is simple: in an action film (yes, like Rambo, which was a very good film, by the way), the situations are heightened to an unusual level, thus characters in the film are themselves heightened and brought into sharp focus. Action films, in the most dramatic of terms, always have a very powerful conflict that needs resolution. What characters do under the extreme pressure, in action, is very interesting. Thus the experience of watching a good action film can be a very intense experience. You folks that turn up your noses at Rambo are missing plenty of great cinema. What the zealous fans of this film don't get is this: it is very possible to dislike this film while at the same time "getting" every bloody, boring second of it. I mean, c'mon, somebody make me fall down laughing and call this film "deep." Lost in Translation was a dull, pretensious, childishly obvious piece of filmmaking. It was a long student film about (what a surprise) alienation. Oooh, I bet Sofia Coppola feels alienated herself, much like the young female lead she posed in endless "lonely girl" shots, don't you think? It was not a terrible movie; just immature. It didn't have what a great film like Die Hard had: a great conflict involving great characters. Bill Murray saved the day by adding his talents, which made it worth a rental. The last scene, which was the only gripping scene in the film, was very moving. It just took way too much celluloid to get there. By the way, all you European lovers should go to Europe sometime, or anywhere in the world, for that matter. You know what they are watching? The current blockbusters from Hollywood. You know why? Because Hollywood learned long ago how to make a great movie that keeps butts in the seats. That's why. -Mykal Banta
Rating:
Summary: HORRIBLE MOVIE
Review: I managed to watch about 9/10 of the movie before I had to turn it off because I was so bored. I kept hoping that it would get better, but it didn't. There wasn't even really a plot line!
Rating:
Summary: This movie is an insult!!!
Review: This movie is boring and stupid. Don't buy this DVD or rent the movie. I can tell you right here everything that happens in the movie so save your money. Bill Murray goes to Japan to film a commercial for a local whiskey. He is bored and meets the wife of a photographer who is also bored. They go together to a few stupid places and develop some platonic relationship. In the end he leaves to the U.S. and she stays in Japan. The end. Sucks huh? I can only say that this movie was done becuse of the Coppola name behind it. If some unknown would have written this junk they would have been laughed at.
Rating:
Summary: What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?
Review: Lost in Translation is an experience that we all should have- it is surreal, loving, comfortable, sad and funny. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson give superb performances, but it is Bill who steals the movie. He is at once believable and with just a nuance or sad smile we can feel his emotions. He is so understated at times that one must remember that this is a movie. Bill Murray plays Bob, a middle aged actor in Japan to film a whiskey commercial. He is isolated from his wife emotionally and physically. We can feel his loneliness. He is in the midst of direction from a Japanese crew who understands little or no English. Bob is awakened at times by a decorating fax from his wife, so great is their distance. After the filming we see Bob as he visits the pool, the gym and the bar. It is at this bar that Bob meets Charlotte, Scarlett Johansson. Charlotte is the wife of a trendy photographer. She is trying to find motivation to do more. We see her crying as she talks on the phone to her mother in the States. Charlotte and Bob meet in the bar. Both are lost in limbo and find comfort and companionship in each other. They visit a karaoke bar with the Japanese crew. Bob sings "What's So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding" written by Nick Lowe and performed by Elvis Costello. He has a surprisingly good voice. In an off key but sad, mournful manner. Bob sings "More Than This" by Roxy. Charlottes sings "Brass in Pocket, by The Pretenders. The karaoke bar is but a symbol of what the relationship stands for- alone but together. Sofia Coppola does a credible job as director. She is on her way, and bigger and better films are sure to come her way. She won an Oscar for original screenplay for this movie, which is a tribute to her talent. "Lost in Translation" is a movie that grows on you- great performances and the story is well... about nothing. The meeting of two lost souls for a period in time. prisrob
Rating: 
Summary: A summer camp almost-romance for adults
Review: Warning: spoilers in this review! This film's lead characters are adrift in a world so removed from their understanding and immediate concern that it seems almost imaginary. With no obligations to attend to, they're suspended outside of time as well. They meet, there's attraction, they hesitate to act on it, and for most of the movie they exist in a private world made almost solely of that tension. Many of these reviews are spot-on in describing the whole experience (both for the characters and the audience) as dreamlike. When the characters have to return to their lives at the end, you'd expect a catharsis of some kind, a revelation bringing a new level of understanding as they're waken from their dream. Instead, Coppola gives the biggest cop-out, non-ending I've seen in years. The "speech the audience can't hear" isn't poignant -- it shows that director Coppola doesn't understand the characters she's created and doesn't have a clue what they actually would do in that situation. It woke me, the audience, from the dream I was in -- and like many dreams and summer camp romances, it all seems far less deep, meaningful or important afterwards. When Coppola leaves the audience to fill in whatever ending they want, that's not sublime or profound. It's the catchy jingle of a radio tune, where the lyrics give you the barest of frameworks so that you can fill the rest in from your own experiences and desires. That can be entertaining, and it can mean a lot to you personally. But that doesn't make it Great Art, and it doesn't make me shallow, unintelligent or insensitive for prefering movies with more substance and insight.
| 
