Rating: 
Summary: Professionals lost in exotic globalized environments
Review: This film is surprising, surprisingly slow, surprisingly uneventful. Nothing happens, or rather no action whatsoever happens in the whole film. Don't be a middle-aged or advanced middle-aged man staying in Japan for a few professional days. This will lead to some boring experience. The poor man is taken care of by his boss and is provided with some female entertainment who titillates him and tries to make him rape her : phantasms are the target and tool of the « professional » woman. But then that poor man enables us to review the fate of this type of men : they are travelling for their professions, they are away from their families most of the time, they are the distant husbands - which satisfies the wife who retreated into motherhood -, they frustrate their children and develop with them a relation based on absence and estrangement, etc. They happen here and there to let themselves get involved in the hunt of some women (the women are the hunters), in this case an American singer in the hotel. They are also moved by some younger women who are also estranged from their husbands who are around but working on location as photographers or anything else. And that's the main interest of the film. The age gap is so important that there will be no passionate sexual exploration, but rather a highly sophisticated even cultured exploration of emotions and nothing but emotions. Ms Coppola goes against the grain that considers that these older men are predators and that these younger women are willing explorers of the human jungle. The passion, if indeed it is a passion, that develops here is purely platonic and shows that the man, as well as the woman, are looking for companionship and soul or spiritual exchange. The depth of this relation is shown in the accidental final goodbye scene. The man is playing father more than lover to the woman, and incest, remember, is rejected by all sane men and women. Temptation maybe, but a fruit that will never be plucked. This vision is definitely feminine and it shows that the younger woman might be led into yielding, maybe. She might not resist if the man were insistant. But Ms Coppola imagines a man who is not insistant and projects her desire or her knowledge, who knows which, to meet such older men, father figures that would not be insistant and try to become lovers. A fine film both about the real world and about the world Ms Coppola would like to meet. A crisscrossing patchwork of reality and dream, and you will never find out where each one starts and each one ends.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Rating:
Summary: Coppola's Foray Into Existentialism
Review: I usually aviod movie reviews, but thought I might add to the discourse on this one. Sofia Coppola just took a shot at trying to capture some themes of Existentialism in this movie (at first it is implicit, but Johansson noting that she is a recent graduate of Yale, majoring in philosophy, is a dead giveaway). The movie is quite intentionally meaningless, silly, and quite absurd. The absurdity of existence is precisely why Coppola selects a foreign nation (Japan) for Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson to wander, taking in how meaningless everything seems to them (because its all so foreign). The movie having no real plot is intended to parallel life's having no real plot. Much like a novel of Sartre or Camus, which seem at times to drone on and on with no apparent direction or point, this movie pretty much does the same thing, but if you're not concentrating on the characters' lives and emotions, you're not going to notice the forest through the trees. Concentrate on each character's search for meaning and the sense of dispair and futility each one exhibits. Notice how each finds a little bit of hope in finding someone who is, at the very least, thinking about these things. I don't want anyone to read this review and think I'm being all artsy-fartsy with it. To the contrary, I typically dislike movies like this one where, I think, the director is trying to do a bit too much with the medium (e.g., I disliked Mystic River, even though one has to admit that it was very well done and powerful). Lost In Translation, however, I enjoyed quite a bit. If you let go during the movie and let yourself laugh out loud at the absurdity throughout, you'll appreciate the film a whole lot more than if you scrutinize every scene looking for "the point" or "moral" to be told. The point is that there isn't one.
Rating: 
Summary: At War with Expectations
Review: Unlike some here I'm not surprised that a lot of people don't like this movie. Sofia Coppola puts a challenge in front of us from the very first frame. The shot of Scarlett Johansson's behind encourages you to see her sexually. The rest of the film is about a relationship that's more mature than the feelings that shot awoke in you (particularly for those members of the audience who are annoyed they didn't make out). So many images in the film work like this. They have a meaning that goes beyond their immediate impression. Then, as some have noticed, there's Bob's crooning of "More than this, you know there's nothing." At first it just seems like a jokey karaoke moment, but it is the thought in his head. The more times you watch "Lost in Translation" the more such moments you will see. If you look at Coppola's treatment of the "actress" in the movie. who - like Keanu Reeves - is entirely insincere about the culture and who thinks she "knows" kung fu after a most superficial acquantaince, you can see that Coppola is at war with much of the mindless drivel that we get fed by Hollywood. There's a sensibility at work here that is standing against mainstream entertainment. Does that mean this is a manifesto movie? No. But it does mean that it manifests a sensibility you rarely see on the screen. I don't even think of it as an art movie. Just another take on life, of the kind we might see from Louis Malle, or Claude Sautet, or Wim Wenders. It is a sensibility to be cherished by all true movie lovers. Given that Ms. Coppola is set against mainstream commercial superficiality it is not surprising that those who like more mainstream fare hate her film. They should. She is criticising (albeit gently) their mentality. Even if you don't see this consciously, it seeps through. The division between those who love it and those who hate it is sharp. One of the best of 2003. If it speaks to you, and it won't speak to everyone, at least not in a way they'll like, it speaks to you strongly. Ms. Coppola. More please. And kudos to whoever put up the money for this one. You should have done well out of it, and you deserve to.
Rating:
Summary: State of the nation?
Review: I agree to the earlier reviewer who asked what so many low marks for "Lost in Translation" says about the current state of US society. When I look at Amazon web sites elsewhere in the world I find it very much appreciated, as - I think - it deserves to be. It seems only in America that people are so intolerant of something that is not to their taste, even though it is so meaningful to the others. I see people using words like "art", "subtlety", "vision", and "slowness" like they are dirty words. This is a movie for people who do not find them dirty words. To me, "Dinner With Andre" was more exciting than many movies about car crashes, because it was about exciting ideas. "Lost in Translation" is more exciting because it is about exciting emotions. Love. Friendship. Loss. It is important to know that "Lost in Translation" is not so much a comedy. Like life, it is funny at times, poignant at others. The scriptwriting is excellent. It is an art to know when not to make people talk and let them tell the story with their face. This isn't an expensive film. It is a small film that - if you love it - speaks to you very honestly and openly. It's not about production values. It is about people. Sometimes in a desert you come upon an oasis, where you are refreshed and find exactly what you need. "Lost in Translation" is such an oasis from a film industry that is often more like the sand.
Rating: 
Summary: I might not know "art," but I know what I HATE
Review: This movie has no plot, no point, no real comedy (even the subtle, ironic or dark comedy falls short), no moral, no message, no warmth, no sense of direction, no sense of prudent editing, and certainly has no business being nominated for an Oscar. The only "comedy-category" movie I can think of that was as boring and unwatchable as this one was "Where Does It Hurt?" with Peter Sellers, back in '72. I think "Lost" just broke that record, though. This is far worse. A non-movie, only considered to be "good" by people that apparently get a rise out of watching losers meander aimlessly through their lives in a slow-as-molasses film that is about as exciting and meaningful as watching dust collect on furniture. Just awful. Horrible. Stupid. Pointless. And a hundred other negative adjectives. I hear talk from the 5-star reviewers about "subtlety" and "vison", about how we're all stupid for panning a movie "just because it doesn't have special effects and action, and isn't a comedy in the traditional sense," and about how we must not have the necessary attention spans to enjoy this movie. For example, witness the new review directly *after* mine, whining and lamenting that all of the one-star reviews represent the "sad state of today's society", as if THIS piece of crap is some kind of important barometer of "class" and "vision" -- or as if we all suffer from ADD if we don't like the movie. Please. Give me a break, and don't insult my intelligence. I am anything but a "flash/bang" sort of movie buff that demands special effects or broad, overt comedy in every movie. I have seen plenty of quirky independent films from small studios and actually prefer those over the big Hollywood movies that many times do offer nothing more than flash over substance. And I had read enough about "Lost In Translation" to know that it was supposed to be a kindred spirit to these types of films -- a subtle film, a character study, not an overt comedy. But I sure didn't expect that it wouldn't have ANYTHING AT ALL to offer. This was a dud from start to finish -- and worse yet, as I mentioned before, for a character study, it really didn't study its characters all that much, and it is ultimately plotless and pointless. Talk about insulting my intelligence -- the fact that this movie was nominated for an Oscar, now THAT insults my intelligence. I you need help falling asleep, take some valerian or melatonin, or drink a cup of warm milk. It will be far more enjoyable than realizing you spent money on this movie which ends up serving the same purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Not for limited attention spans
Review: I was dreading seeing "Lost in Translation". I'd heard a lot about it, and had somehow got the impression it was a very "worthy" movie, something you felt you ought to see. To my huge surprise and delight I loved it. I wanted it to be longer. I wanted to spend a day with these people. It's true it's an idiosyncratic movie, and that's great for those of us who are sick of seeing the same movie in different clothes a thousand times. Or who are sick of movies only about special effects. I missed Coppola's "Virgin Suicides" but after seeing this will certainly search it out. She has a wonderful fresh vision. And the strength of mind to put it on film. In terms of character, although not of career, Bill Murray seems to be playing himself, a man who uses humor as a way to make the world more amenable. That's just what Charlotte - Scarlett Johansson - needs. Her husband is a star-struck dork and the outlook for their marriage isn't good. Beautifully filmed, sensitively put together. With such a strong individual vision that you'll either love it or hate it. Not many come down in the middle. And don't listen TOO much to the complaints about the previews on the DVD. Granted, it's a bit annoying, but they DO superimpose a sign saying you can fast-forward through the previews. It took all of two seconds on my machine. If you miss "Lost in Translation" you'll be the loser.
Rating:
Summary: This movie deserves a 0
Review: This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I would give it a 0 if possible. It is about two bored people who get together and then bore those who are watching the movie.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would like this movie. I have not yet found one single person who says they have seen it and liked it.
One section of the movie was the longest 20 minutes I have ever spent in my life.
I would have rather been in a dentist chair.
Rating:
Summary: never felt so good
Review: This movie was so great. And getting lost in translation never felt so good.
Rating:
Summary: ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES EVER MADE
Review: It's just bad. No amount of good reviews could save this dreadful movie. I wan't to cry, because so many people had to suffer though it like I did. The Academy should be embarrassed that they voted for this racist garbage. The critics that gave this high marks need to consider getting a new occupation. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY. YOU WILL REGRET IT!!!
Rating:
Summary: Is the movie that bad
Review: Yes i was wondering why alot of people are giving this movie one star. I mean the movie ain't that bad. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson does pretty good in the movie.
| 
