Rating: 
Summary: Good - but doesn't live up to the hype
Review: I was drawn to Lost in Translation because: a.) The media pundits wouldn't stop gushing about it, and even though I know better than to trust them, they eventually wore me down, and... b.) Movies set in Japan are a draw for me. (Hollywood ordinarily seems unable to create a movie about Japan that doesn't involve WWII, the samurai, or Japanese gangsters.) I also figured that if Bill Murray was involved, the film would be good for a laugh or two. (It also turns out that Scarlet Johansson is a gifted actress, but I didn't know that until I watched the movie.) From a plot perspective, Lost in Translation is a cinematic attempt at an F.Scott Fitzgerald story: rich people with too much time on their hands agonize about petty problems and explore the depths of their angst. Bill Murray's character, Bob Harris, is a middle-aged actor who has been paid some $2 million to do a series of television commercials for Suntory whiskey. He spends most of his time making sarcastic jabs at his employers, taking potshots at Japanese culture in general, and moping in a hotel bar. His main complaint seems to be the fact that his wife is overly concerned with the welfare of their children. He is distressed when she faxes him from the United States about details such as his daughter's ballet recital, and a tile selection for a new addition to their house. In the opening scene, he receives a fax from his wife indicating that he has forgotten his son's birthday. Bob is visibly unconcerned. Scarlett Johansson portrays Charlotte, a recent Yale graduate who has moved to Japan with her husband. While he rushes around the country on business trips, she sleeps until mid-afternoon, sits around the hotel room in her underwear listening to self-help tapes, and undertakes a platonic seduction of Bill Murray's character. We never find out exactly what her problems are (except for the fact that she has been unable to find productive work despite her Yale diploma). There are also hints that she has become disillusioned with her marriage. Yet her husband comes across as a nice guy. Her only concrete complaint against him concerns some silly transgression involving hair care products. A number of Amazon.com reviewers skewered this movie for the shallowness of the characters, and the lack of any real action or drama. It's hard to argue with them on those points. But this movie isn't trying to be Braveheart or Schindler's List. Lost in Translation is an artsy character study that explores the ennui of the privileged classes. You won't find any heroes here, and nor are there are any real villains--just a parade of annoying but basically harmless people (like the Japanese talk show host who interviews Bob). Was Lost in Translation over-hyped? Without a doubt: yes. The media reviews suggested that this movie would be a GROUND-BREAKING CREATIVE WORK FROM AN INDEPENDENT STUDIO. The movie didn't quite live up to that promise. But it's still better entertainment than many of the titles churned out by the Hollywood mainstream. Despite the exasperating, whining characters, Lost in Translation does succeed on several points. There are some legitimately funny moments in the film; and the director uses the neon-lit scenery of the Japanese capitol to create a convincing "other world" atmosphere. A movie can be less than a masterpiece and still be worth ninety minutes of your time. But there is a limit to my generosity here. I didn't mind sitting through this one, but I've made a note to pass on Lost in Translation II. Review by Edward Trimnell, author of "Why You Need a Foreign Language and How to Learn One" (2003)
Rating: 
Summary: Remake of brief encounter
Review: This is really a funny sort of film. The dialogue is sparse and the portrayal of Japan is at times close to racism. Yet it is strangely effective and gets you in. Probably the reason for that is that the subject matter of the film is treated with a subtly unusual in American films. It is not about the easy resolution of longings by a happy ending. It is more like the 1930's British film Brief Encounter which was about two people who meet on a train station and develop a deep affection for each other. An affection which can never go anywhere as they are both committed to their families. In this film Scarlett Johanson plays a young woman who is coming to the realisation that she has married an idiot. Bill Murray plays an actor who has passed the peak of his career and faces the part of his life which is all downhill. Their brief friendship develops as a result of their alienation from the strange world of contemporary Japan they find themselves in. The film is funny but in a less frantic way than Murray's usual films. Some of the gags are close to objectionable with some ancient routines about Japanese being short, obsessed with business cards and the like. However others simply work. The attraction of the film however is more the affection that you feel for the characters. One feels for Johanson trapped in her relationship, not working dependant on a jerk. Murray also plays an attractive character. A person deeply committed to his children, a bit on auto pilot but who is able to handle Johanson's character without crudeness or the sort of resolution which occurs in Hollywood movies.
Rating: 
Summary: remarkable movie, weird reviews
Review: This is one of the best and most enjoyable movies I have seen in many years. It is, however, very different from the average American movie and it does assume the viewer is intelligent and not just a 'Bill Murray fan'. My husband, a devotee of many of Murray's goofier movies [and whose favorite movie is probably 'Dumb and Dumber'], nonetheless loved this movie and watched it with me twice. Anyone who is a real fan of Bill Murray cannot help but love this movie. It is written as a tribute to his craft and to his humor. It allows an appreciation of his talent to become a vehicle for the revelation of the depth of his skill. That is for those who 'get' it. This film stretches Murray's acting skills to the limit and he delivers 150%. For actual sophmoric goofs who THINK they are Bill Murray fans, but in fact are really just sophmoric goofs, this movie will be a real bore. For anyone who has ever found themselves in a foreign or alien environment or situation, the movie is profound and beautiful. That could be anyone, not just someone who has traveled to a foreign country. It speaks of communication and 'talking without speaking', 'hearing without listening'. It speaks of the distances between people, whether perceived, built, or intended, and of the ways we find to expand or reduce those distances--successful and unsuccessful. What could be more important? How could something more meaningful 'happen'?...
Rating: 
Summary: Great for Insomniacs
Review: I cannot understand the glowing reviews of this exceedingly boring film. I fell asleep on the three separate occasions I tried to see the movie all the way through. I do not know anyone who liked it, not even a little. Why is the Industry slobbering all over Sophia Coppola? Except for some brilliant photography, the film is amateurish, plotless, and really dumb. Bill Murray's so-called "performance" is so bland and dull, it's difficult to remember how good he can be. If Murray wins the Oscar for this movie, it will be solely due to the fact that he is much loved by everyone in the business. If Ms Coppola wins, it will be because it's the only way to keep her behind the camera instead of in front of it.
Rating:
Summary: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Review: I am such a sucker for "buzz" and "critically acclaimed". Bill Murray's performance is quirky at best (a reviewer's word was "understated") and the plot, such as it was, took nearly an hour to develope enough so you could see kinda where things were going. Meander is what this film does. The Murray character's life is disintegrating and Scarlett Johansson's character, Charlotte, has been ditched by her photographer husband. They meet in the hotel bar and it's all down hill from there--which wasn't far to go. This is a pretentious piece of crap that only got recognition because Sofia's father is Frances Ford Coppola.
Rating:
Summary: I want my money back!!
Review: Definitely one of the worst movies I have seen, what is the storyline, really boring from beginning to end, what a big dissapointment, I would not recommend it at all. How did they get to nominate this movie for an award, I should have read the users review first before I have spent my money and waste it. Im really sorry for my comments here but I know which is good and which is bad movies. They don't have 0 out of 5 stars that's why I have to put 1 star!!
Rating:
Summary: Just Plain Lost
Review: I like bill murray, but this movie was aweful. Charlotte is a pretentious little snot and you can just see coppola living vicariously through her. This is basically a movie about a self-absorbed little girl who has the hots for an over-the-hill but presumably very rich actor. murray plays the sleasball well, the only thing worth watching in this movie. The plot, what there is of it, is weak -- Poor charlotte has to suffer lonliness in her 5-star hotel room for a week while her hobby go plays photographer. They're in the bar, their in their rooms, they're in a nightclub. blah. no story, no imagination, pretentious, insufferable, adolescent. basically, what you'd expect from a pampered little b--ch like sofia coppola.
Rating:
Summary: WOW
Review: This was one of the three best movies I saw last year. I cannot say enough good things about the performance of Bill Murray. Sofia Coppola may not have been a great actress, but she certainly is a great director. What a wonderful film.
Rating:
Summary: Gives a bad rep to indie movies, too hyped
Review: I totally agree with all the other reviewers who gave this movie a one-star review.
Besides the beautiful, atmospheric tone, this movie was completely boring. Consider just watching the first 10 minutes and then shutting it off. You won't be missing a thing. There is barely any plot, and the ending was a waste. I usually don't give bad reviews to movies, but this movie is an exception.
I was very angry after watching it, because all the critics had said it was wonderful and enchanting, but like one reviewer already wrote, the critics have to love it because it's "artsy". Yeah, it has wonderful camerawork, but no interesting storyline to keep your attention. There is not really any music either, and that really upset me, because when a movie starts to get boring, I can usually count on the music to spark my mood. Another factor in the movie that makes me furious is Bill Murray's so-called "greatest performance of his life". It does not take much talent to sit around like a vegetable the whole movie, not showing any emotion. He had no energy at all, and isn't the whole point of acting to transfer your energy to the audience and make your performance believable? Yes, I know that was his character's personality in the movie, but who would write up such a mind-numbing character for the big screen in the first place?
There are so many good "artsy" movies out there that are much more interesting to watch. I suggest highly, as a sane person, not to waste your time on this movie, which puts indie movies to shame. I do suggest that you see these real indie movies: THIRTEEN(2003), TAMPOPO,and DEAD MAN.
Rating:
Summary: One of the worst films of 2003...
Review: and I'll never understand how it got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. All I can say is that American critics are being paid off--how else can you explain their over-rated reviews?! As Shakespeare said, "There's something rotten in the state of Denmark." In this case, Hollywood. There are a lot more deserving movies than "Lost in Translation" for the Best Picture Oscar nomination, such as "The Station Agent," "Shattered Glass," "L'Auberge Espagnole," "In America," "Big Fish"--even "Cold Mountain" is better than this movie. What is this movie really about? Nothing. It reminded me of "Before Sunrise"--another pretentious, over-rated and boring movie!
| 
