Rating: 
Summary: waste of money
Review: All I heard were rave reviews for this movie, so I bought it. DO NOT buy this movie. Rent it if you dare. It sucks.
Rating:
Summary: AREN'T THE JAPANESE WEIRD
Review: This film presents an ill-informed, naive, even racist view of Japan. The two lead actors are great and the cinematography is lovely, but it is also full of ugly age-old stereotypes. The two short jokes -- in the elevator and in the shower -- are cheap shots. I'm Japanese and 5'11" and was insulted. And I know the adjustable shower head was purposely lowered. The filmmaker pretends that no one in Japan understands English, despite the fact that most people born after World War II know enough English to know when they were being mocked by two foreigners in a sushi bar. The film follows the tired "aren't the Japanese weird" line that first-time visitors love to mine for a few laughs. I guess that's the disappointing thing about the movie's popularity, how many educated, well-travelled, liberal thinking people love it. Several Japanese people have defended the film as well, but that's not surprising. Japanese are adverse to openly critizing others, especially when that person has been a guest in their home or country. Japanese are, for the most part, a very polite people. Apparently, that's a weakness or at least something to exploit. Sofia Coppola seems like a polite person too. But she is so sheltered by privilege, pedigree and hipness that no one dare call her a racist. Or, maybe she's not. Maybe she's just saying that the best thing to do when you don't understand something is to make fun of it.
Rating: 
Summary: Great music, Great film (for those who can appreciate style)
Review: Beautifully shot. Beautifully rendered. Beautifully told. Great music. You will sit through the silences, the pauses and wonder why this film has already taken its grip on you. You will mimic key phrases from the film and wonder why a film so poignant and tender can make your tummy ache with laughter. You will shake your head, laugh and cry all at the same time just because everything in this movie is so heartbreakingly true. Feel the love. Grab your copy today. (DVD extras aren't so great, but it's worth it just to have a good copy)
Rating:
Summary: NO!
Review: Do not watch this. I'm serious. I watched it with intensity for two hours hoping something would tie it together. No. No direction at all, no plot, nothing. Now, I have to admit that Bill Murray had his good scenes (because he's a funny guy). Also that the movie had great artistically composed scences. The composistion was amazing. You could pause the film on any frame and have an amazing peice.
Rating: 
Summary: a masterpiece
Review: what more to say ? Great American cinema isn't dead after all... Sofia Coppola follows in her father and cousin's footsteps and establishes herself as one of the most gifted moviemaker of her generation, ranking high alongside Scorsese or Tarantino.
Rating:
Summary: You will have one of 3 responses: love, hate, or huh?
Review: Sofia Coppola took a big gamble making this movie, IMO ' and I think she succeeded beyond her own expectations. But mine is not a universal opinion, as it's easy to see from scrolling through these reviews. It's a movie that kind of defies categorization: it's not really a romance, it's sure not an action thriller or a mystery or sci-fi or fantasy or horror. So what is it?
I think Lost in Translation is a visual essay on the modern condition: disconnection from self, others, and ones surroundings. Here's the setup: Bill Murray plays American middle-aged actor Bob Harris (a generic name, if ever there was one, prob standing in for Everyman), in Tokyo to film a commercial for Santori whiskey. He's bored, horribly jetlagged, at sea with Japanese language and the accented attempts of the Japanese to speak English to him, lonely, and disaffected. And here's one thing: I've never before seen a movie with Bill Murray in it that I liked to any degree whatsoever; all schlock. But he's been underrated, I see now: he's absolutely superb in Lost in Translation.
Our man Bob keeps encountering another American (Scarlett Johansson, of Girl with the Pearl Earring fame), equally out of synch with the time zones, more or less abandoned by her photographer husband, and already, in her young life, feeling colossally alone.
They strike up a relationship of sorts, and in spite of their obvious age difference, become soul mates forever ' and there's no sex.
Amazingly done. It's a beautifully understated film, sad and funny, bittersweet and gentle, subtle and forceful. I loved it. Can you tell?
Rating:
Summary: It's okay--and maybe that's just what they want me to think
Review: This movie isn't intended to be a feel-good movie. It is intended to provoke us to think about loneliness. IT IS A COMMENTARY ON THE SEPARATION THAT EXISTS IN A POST-MODERN WORLD FROM A DIRECTOR WHO IS THOROUGHLY POST-MODERN IN HER WORLD-VIEW. We've seen this before, many times, from Woody Allen. But Allen's movies, particularly his classics "Manhattan", "Annie Hall" and later works such as "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors", contain characters that are relatable. Somehow, we care about them, or are at least interested in the outcome of the plot. I REVISIT WOODY ALLEN'S BEST MOVIES EVERY FEW YEARS. I DON'T THINK THAT I'LL EVER GO BACK TO THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS WELL-DIRECTED AND WELL-ACTED. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS. While the acting performances are fine in Lost in Translation, and many of the situations are humerous, the characters are not endearing. THE CHARACTERS ARE SO LONELY THAT THEY'RE JUST BLAH. For instance, it is a thoroughly appropriate reflection of Copolla's post-modern philosophy that the characters not end up together at the end of the movie. But the characters are so boring that I didn't care one way or the other.
Rating:
Summary: short review
Review: i don't have much to say about this. i fell asleep 20 minutes through it. i'm not sure what happend in those 20 minutes, due to the fact that it was flat out UNINTERESTING. and that's it.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Bother
Review: No plot + no direction + 3 mildly funny Bill Murray scenes = 2 hours of my life I wasted. Enough said.
Rating: 
Summary: Did the critics see a different film?
Review: I just saw "Lost In Translation" last night, trying to view all the 2003 Oscar Contenders before February 29's Academy Awards. After seeing it, I'm wondering if the critics saw a completely different film. It's certainly different from its rivals for Best Picture, but different isn't always better. Critical accolades and Oscar nominations aside, "Lost In Translation" suffers from a complete lack of plot and character development. Director Sofia Coppola certainly has an eye for interesting shots, but her talents as a screenwriter need development. Coppola is astounded at what her camera finds in Japan, but will you be? Wow: Japan has karaoke! Video arcades! Obnoxious talk show hosts! What a crazy country! Billed as a romantic comedy, "Lost In Translation" takes forever to go nowhere. 70 minutes pass before lead characters Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson have a serious conversation. Up to that point, the film presents a "slice of life" view of Japan. Murray and Johansson run from one party to another, enjoying each other's company but never really developing any rapport or chemistry. Coppola falls in love with her shots, but lingers way too long on each one, utterly failing to develop any dramatic momentum. The talented Giovanni Ribisi is wasted in a nothing role. I'm certainly not put off by films with a minimum of dialogue or action (after all, my favorite film is "2001: a space odyssey"). But Coppola's talents have not developed to the point where she can find the right notes in such a subtle story. Perhaps she had a great film in Japan, but something has been "lost in translation" (sorry, couldn't resist!)
| 
