Rating: 
Summary: Funny and touching.
Review: Bill Murray is a comic genius. What you may not know is that he can actually act too. Here, Bob (Murray) is a former action star who is reduced to shilling whiskey in Japan. His marriage is on the rocks. And, he's basically miserable.Much the same can be said for Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson). Her photographer hubby is running around Japan snapping rockers while she waits in the hotel room. Bob and Charlotte happen across each other one day and suddenly their state of walking wounded has a buddy. Soon, they are spending every moment together. A friendship is bourne out of their loneliness and despiration. While the movie seems to take itself too seriously at times. Probably due to writer/director Sofia Coppola being in love with her own vision. It manages to get through to us that these are good people who just need someone to understand them. If you're expecting Bill Murray to mug for you, there is a little of it, but for the most part he is mannered and restrained as he should be given the material. One curious aspect of this film that I didn't notice until the second viewing, director Coppola seems to be in love with Japan and the culture. Yet her characters clearly are not. It's an interesting curveball in this comic drama.
Rating: 
Summary: What is all the hype?
Review: It figures, the "whatever feels good," elitist, celebrity crowd love this movie. I guess it gives them justification for their own ineptness and immoral behavior? My husband just spent 6 months in Japan and I was there as well for 2 weeks. We were looking forward to seeing the movie to reminisce a bit but the movie portrays a slice of life in Japan that is most likely embarrassing to the majority of Japanese people. The deep and philosophical reviews of this movie are laughable. It's nothing more than 2 married people who don't put any effort into their own marriages and embark on a platonic, emotional "affair." I couldn't help but feel grossed-out by the age difference and kept thinking of them as father-daughter! In bed but clothed with this girl, I mean, woman, Bill Murray's character describes how his children are the most [wonderful-or something like that] people he has ever met. Alas, he has a sexual encounter with a different woman (again, not his wife) and although we don't see it's ramifications, it could possibly lead to a divorce and complete anguish for these children that he is just so concerned about. The selfish lifestyle of these characters (regardless of their so-called crises), the director and the movie do not deserve the limelight and adoration they are receiving, in my opinion. My husband and I thought it was one of the WORST movies of the year. Go figure.
Rating: 
Summary: S.L.O.W. -- Must Be In Right Mood
Review: This is a film that you have to be in the right mood for, otherwise it is way too slow. Fortunately, I was. I was physically and mentally tired. I needed something that was easy to watch, yet could get me just a little emotionally involved. This movie fit that. It is not a tear-jerker, but it does remind you of those times when you had a short period of really feeling comfortable. For some, it may be a summer romance. For others, it may be spending a warm summer afternoon with their favorite pet. The ending leaves it unknown just enough to keep you in that mood for a while. Good movie for the right circumstances.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful
Review: Not one for those who want explosions, Hollywood formula, over-obvious schmaltz, or a special effects extravaganza. Not one for those jealous of Sofia Coppola either, who - once again - proves she earns the right to direct movies on her own merit. Just a rare human film with a gently humorous eye, and one that gives us real emotion instead of the fake. Of course some people will hate it for exactly these reasons, but it's one of the best of the year. Murray and Johannson are superb, and the cross cultural jokes far from racist but symptomatic of practically ANY cross cultural encounters.
Rating:
Summary: THE SWEET DILEMMAS OF LIFE, JETLAG, BOOZE, LOVE..
Review: "Lost in Translation" joins the rank of immemorable, semi-surreal films that depict life and emotions with such understated fluidity that they fall short of satiating typical Hollywoodesque tastes. "About Schmidt" was one. Coen brothers' "The Man Who Wasn't There" was another. There is little I can add to all the other reviews already here, but I'll focus on addressing the various misconceptions that all the encomium surrounding this minimalistic gem from Sophia Coppola (with the usual baggage of expectations) has given rise to: (1) SHOWS JAPAN IN A POOR LIGHT, OR POKES FUN AT THE CULTURE
No it doesn't. That sounds like a boorish remark from people who stopped by Tokyo for a couple of days, had Ramen at Ginza and Toro at Shimbashi, sipped a double Latte at Shibuya's Starbucks, and assumed that they had discovered Japanese culture. I still have to see a more accurate rendition of Tokyo's true day-to-day existence than this movie, apart from Tom Selleck's "Baseball" a few years back. Yes, the real Tokyo does have mispronounciations of words like "Flight" (as in, "Have a good fright".) Yes, real translators shorten a good deal of Japanese when interpreting as long as the message is communicated. Most of my Japanese friends would simply laugh along when told of such common trivia. This movie is as much a caricature of Japanese culture as "Patton" or "Sex and the City" are of American culture. (P.S. Murray's character also has a hilarious remark in the film in answer to the question, "Why do Japanese interchange their Rs and Ls?") (2) IT IS A MEANINGLESS DRAWL, PACED VERY SLOW
Sure, if you have the attention span of a rodent in a cheese store. I found the flow of the movie very pleasing, but then I am guilty of enjoying the likes of "About Schmidt" as well. It's a simple, beautiful, efficient story that is completely and utterly engrossing, with economy of cinematography. It is also just a shade over 90 minutes long, making it quite short in comparison to typical movies of today. But in that short span of time, you experience a dampening feeling of entrapment, a sense of longing (and belonging), you are privy to the story of two people who are lost spiritually, emotionally, and physically. (3) TRIES TO BE ARTSY AND FAILS
Was it artsy? I am not sure. I surely did not feel that it was pretentious. Why can film not mirror our lives and experiences without shocking or over-embelishing, and still be looked at as a remarkable and moving artform? There is a lot in the movie that perhaps may not hit a nerve with people who expect to be hit on the head with meaning. For instance, there is an overhead shot when the two protagonists were in one of their hotel rooms, in bed talking, fully clothed, he is on his back staring at the ceiling, she is on her side, eyes probably closed, the tips of her feet barely touching the side of his leg, and he moves his hand and puts it on her feet. Then the scene fades to black. It is the kind of tender, non-sexual touch that tells us how close they have become, and that theirs is a relationship of mutual trust and admiration, not one necessarily of lust. I guess this is not for everyone to appreciate. (4) NOT THE USUAL FUNNY CAMEO FROM BILL MURRAY
Negative. I found Bill Murray to be extremely hilarious in this movie, and while this may sound arrogant, he is funny in a "mature" sort of a way. Like a man who doesn't have to try too hard. In fact, one thing that hits you about Coppola's direction is the honesty in the story telling. You will feel the utter frustration that Murray's character must have felt trying to make sense of a photographer giving directions with pidgin English, for instance. (5) IT'S NOT ABOUT ROMANCE
Perhaps Titanic was then. The chemistry between the two lead characters in Lost in Translation is very moving, I'd even say it is one of the most wistful, effortless and understanding romances I have seen in a long time in film, the variety only the ilk of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thomson could evoke in an Merchant Ivory production. The very fact that these two characters find themselves groping in the middle of an alien culture brings them together and brings to the surface their similarities -- not only as people, but their simiilar station in life. (6) THERE'S NO PLOT!
Right, there isn't. That's the point. I could sit here for an hour and enlist stunning movies that did not pander to an audience that necessarily needs a "plot." It's about a life-changing week in the lives of two people, simple as that. This may or may not work for you. (7) IT'S ALL ABOUT COPPOLA / FEMALE DIRECTOR / ETC.
This one is the most inane. Let's talk of the film on its merit, leaving all the heritage behind. I didn't care much about The Virgin Suicides, but I have now come to admire Sophia's talents at synthesizing visual, spatial, and sonic impressions. Oodles for film students to learn from! I adore this glorious masterpiece, and highly recommend it -- (1) If you're not expecting a pedestrian comedy, the American Pie variety with laugh-out-loud situational goofs and gaffes (P.S. I like some of those too)
(2) If you enjoy semi-surreal movies with a fluid screenplay, like About Schmidt or The Royal Tenenbaums
(3) If you really know what Japan is like, and I don't mean people who come for a week's worth of sushi escapade with some shopping in Ginza, and believe they have uncovered the mystique of an entire nation
(4) If you relish unspoken romances, think "Remains of the Day", "A Room with a View", "One True Thing", "The Road Home" etc
(5) If you, like me, understand why the title is so wickedly clever. It's not just the meaning of language that is "lost in translation." It is a simple, pithy statement that beautifully captures the essence of everything that we struggle to "find"
Rating:
Summary: I only have one question...
Review: Why did they leave the boom mic in the shot a couple of times? You could clearly see it moving around up there. Why didn't they crop it out? ...I guess that's sort of two questions. But they're essentially the same thing.
Rating:
Summary: Only for people who have an attention span.
Review: This movie was terrific. I can't quite think of what I like about the movie most. Bill Murray was great and Scarlett Johansson did an awesome job as well. The title of this review is " Only for people who have an attention span". This goes for the many 1 or 2 star reviews people gave. Some of you say that it put you to sleep. It sounds like alls you like is movies with fast cars and ones that make you laugh so hard you pee your pants. Thats how stupid your taste is. If you don't care for this movie, thats fine. But from what I read on the review is that some people said too slow or that their was no plot. There was a plot! Wake up and pay attention. Not everything has to be spelled out to you. Anyway, see this movie. It's great.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie! One that keeps you waiting....
Review: I loved this film. Watched it twice in 24 hours. Understated acting makes this brilliantly-acted. Highly recommended. I won't go into details of what it was about since so many have already said as much. There is one sequence of nudity (at a strip club) but other than that, nothing I found offensive. And, yes, you DO keep waiting to see if their relationship gets sexual...and I am glad it didn't. The tension between them unfulfilled makes it all the more bittersweet.
Rating:
Summary: Good Performances
Review: I can't say I felt this film lived up to the hype, but that's not an unusual thing to say about any movie. In general, the acting was excellent, the photography was good, and the script was mediocre.
This is a story about two dissatisfied people who meet and can relate to one another. It's a story that's been told a million times before, most famously in its incarnation as the British classic "A Brief Encounter". "Lost in Translation" sports far better performances by its leads and will of course be more accessible to a contemporary audience, but suffers from a weaker script.
Living in (and loving) Japan myself, I found many of the stereotypes to be untrue and, occassionally, objectionable. However, "Japan" was not the theme of this movie. The characters could have been anywhere, so long as it was someplace that made them feel like "outsiders", and Tokyo, as it is presented in the West, is a modern location which most Westerners think of as distant in every sense of the word. Of course, the Tokyo presented in this film is the image we get in the States (via Hollywood, television, and any number of fringe news articles about social trends and electronic gadgets), as opposed to the real place. As an example, for those of you who have been to New York City, compare the real thing with the city presented to you in the movie "Seven", which plays to every stereotype purveyed by those who have never visited of crime, perversity and destitution. The slow speed of the film did not bother me in the least. It's a film about the characters, not their environment, past, or future. It's a study of loneliness and anger. Charlotte, an otherwise educated woman, bad-mouths everything she sees or tries, from the lunch she eats with Bob ("shabu-shabu", which is delicious, by the way), to the pronunciation of the locals' English. This shouldn't be confused with an endorsement of those sentiments on the part of the director. Rather, it is a window into the character's own youth (read: childishness) and inexperience, coupled with her deep unhappiness with her own life.
I do not agree that most people who have visited a foreign environment should relate to this. I fully endorse a number of other reviewers who have mentioned that a normal person would be interested in the adventure of Japan, of seeing new things, and of interacting with new people. But Bob and Charlotte are not normal people. If they were, there would be no movie. What makes a movie worth watching (any movie) is that it is about something out of the ordinary, whether that something occurs outside of the characters or inside.
That said, I often found Bob's jokes at the expense of the people around him to be in bad taste. Almost every Japanese person he met in this movie was going out of their way to be kind and make him feel at home, but he often made fun of them. This is the kind of behavior that is often considered "cool" in the West, but you won't find much of it in Japan, thank goodness.
I've mentioned above, you don't need to agree with everything these characters do- they're not heroes- but his actions damaged my ability to sympathize with him.
As for the dialogue itself, this is a film with less dialogue than average, so it was a pity to see so many throw-away lines. I realize that most of the acting and character-development was silent, but that's no reason not to have quality dialogue also. A small example of this is the scene in the strip-club. Nothing here is said of any imporance. In fact, the entire scene could have been lifted right out of the movie without effect.
Finally, to review the DVD itself. Please note that my rating of four stars is for the film, not the DVD, which would get two at best. This is the one and only DVD I have ever owned or rented which actually requires you to watch all of the previews. To me, this is unforgiveable, and it is enough to ensure that I will never purchase another title from Focus Features. The only option you have is to fast-forward, old-fashioned VCR-style. This is bad enough, but my own player has only 2x fast forwarding available, making the process annoying, to put it extremely mildly and expletive-free.
In short, this film is worth watching at least once, but (DVD aside) I doubt it will stand up to repeat viewings for most people.
Rating: 
Summary: long and tedious... but okay enough to keep watching
Review: Right, long and tedious and if you're a Bill Murray fan you will be disappointed. Murray here is Murray in several ways, his cynical nature comes out a lot and that's always funny. But don't expect a Murray film. This one is s-l-o-w. As long as you're ready for a s-l-o-w movie, you will probably enjoy this. Watch it after a good night's sleep because Murray's insomnia will weigh VERY heavy on you if you're tired when you see this. Not a laugh-a-minute movie but one with a FEW laughs that are more laughs out of being cynical than ha-ha. The movie was shot in less than 2 weeks I heard after I'd seen it. That is interesting. I probably would have enjoyed it more knowing that in advance because it does make the movie more interesting knowing that it was filmed with very few takes and a lot of ad libbing. Best part: Murray on the Japanese talk show.
|
