Rating: 
Summary: hmm..it's ok, not as great as they made out to be.
Review: Shots of Tokyo is beautiful. It's refreshing for a hollywood movie to shoot film of modern day Tokyo in realistic terms. Scarlett Johannson is beautiful, sexy, cute and sweet - I luv her. I like how nothing is forced. Nothing gratuitous at all. Is it slow? Perhaps but I'd say it's ok and was pretty funny and not boring. The subject of lonliness. Well aren't most of us. I certainly can relate to that. So this movie is nothing too introspective. Bill Murray is funny. Just don't expect anything great that's all...unless you can psychoanaalyse it more than I was trying to.
Rating: 
Summary: Deep, poignant story. Very funny and also sad.
Review: A beautiful romantic comedy but not in the normal sense. It's hilarious at times and sad at times. It's about two lonely people visiting Japan who develop a very special friendship and personally grow as people as a result of their friendship. Bill Murray should win an Academy Award for his amazing understated, brilliant acting performance. He's also very funny at times. The movie's plot does not play it safe, like many other movies. This pays off. This film is an incredible achievement for the director/writer. It's a deep, meaningful movie.
Rating: 
Summary: DONT' EVEN BOTHER !!!!
Review: This was the most uneventful film I have ever seen. It is like a bad reality show about a man on an uneventful business trip. I cannot believe this movie got any attention at all. I think what was lost in translation was the point to the viewer. There was no point. If I had to tell you about the movie I would say it was about a man on a business trip who met a girl whos husband was on a business trip. They exchanged words now and again. He went home. The end.
Rating:
Summary: Please stop the Pain!!!
Review: Simply awful!!!
After seeing the glorious Hollywood ads eulogizing the theatrical masterpiece, "Lost in Translation", I was determined not to miss another supposedly great movie. But, little did I know the emotional pain and mental anguish this movie would dragged me through. 102 long excruciating minutes of pure boredom. Anyone who can establish a plot or even a worthwhile excuse to sit through the foreign dialogue and lack of entertainment this movie presents deserves a medal. I wish someone would have gave me forewarning before sitting through this absolutely mindless torture. Any central storyline or theme this movie tries to convey is certainly "lost" in pointless bull. Ultimately, this gargantuan snooze-fest can easily be summed up into one word--"lost in translation" = MEANINGLESS
Rating:
Summary: Zero stars if possible
Review: What a terrible movie. The worst I have seen. The reviews on the pack use words like "hilarious" no way. This movie is ridiculous. Terrible plot terrible acting. The only thing that's funny about it is if you can stay awake. Like having your brain turned to sushi. Reviews on the package quote "Two thumbs up!" - Guess where their thumbs are? Don't waste your time or money.
Rating: 
Summary: To jmaehre, and other academics...
Review: First, I reiterate that this is a good, borderline great, film. Not perfect, but admirable. Next, I am not a film fascist, nor do I have a PhD. If I did, it would not be in Film. I don't even really care for film that much. You "respond" to allegations I never make--what we refer to as the "strawman" here in the academic community. 1. Of course non-PhD's can understand art and have reactions to it. I have never said you had to have a PhD, or in your case, an MA from UC-Irvine, a fine school for literary theory, to understand art. I said you had to understand a particular concept, one in which few people are educated either formally or informally, in order FULLY to GET the film. 2. I did not say that "the only reason" to dislike the movie would be failure to understand it. One may dislike the movie without failing to understand it, as I specifically pointed out in my review, in the part where I was wishing more such reviewers would offer what I consider helpful criticism of the film. None of this means that it is impossible to dislike something *because* you don't understand it. Lack of understanding, then, may be a sufficient condition without being a necessary one, to butcher the art of logic a bit. 2. Nor am I pompous. There is nothing wrong with not understanding postmodernism, not understanding academic concepts, or not understanding literature at all. However, if you don't, AND you hated this film with a flaming, one-star passion, there may be a connection. 3. People who do not understand postmodernism, which is indeed an academic concept and NOT something you understand intuitively, contrary to your assertion, are not going to understand why the characters are flat. Some people may intuitively enjoy the film anyway, as I think I would have before learning these things, as I enjoyed the Virgin Suicides when that film came out (although I admit freely that I didn't really, fully "get" it until years later). Some people may see the supposed requirement of fast-moving action and three-dimensional characters as shallow, based on intuition. Those who don't may simply believe that they are applying a calculus that is relevant to all movies (e.g., characters should not be flat or generic or whatever) without realizing the authorial/directorial intent behind it. 4. Comparing flat characters with "bad" special effects is silly and misleading, as the term "bad" makes evident. "Flat" characters are not, in this case, "bad." They may not be to an individual's taste, which is fine, but they don't constitute an actor's or director's failure in all cases. People who say "the characters were flat" act as though they are pointing out a flaw, not something intentional. Some movies are not meant to be effects-driven or are meant to have stylized scene-design or effects rather than realistic ones, but "bad" special effects usually refers to those of low-budget films that are trying but can't do any better. Again with the strawman. 5. The film is extremely postmodern in certain key regards. What are you talking about?! It is less postmodern than Coppola's earlier film, The Virgin Suicides, and doesn't deal with every important postmodern theme, but the centrality of communication problems (see also: the title) and of characters seeking to construct their identities around others and others' reflections of them should suffice. Since you teach writing, as I have, I'm sure it is frustrating for you when students reject concepts or rules because they don't understand them, or at least without regard to understanding them--from paragraph structure to split infinitives to postmodernism or whatever else. Many, many people, at least judging by Amazon reviewers, simply don't seem to get that not everything is supposed to fit into what we academics (nudge, nudge) term "realism." Realism is something that anyone can "get" as well as enjoy and something that non-academic types seem to prefer. People often say, "Such and such film wasn't realistic," regardless of whether it aimed for realism or not. This bothers me. That's all I was saying, neighbor.
Rating:
Summary: Only time will tell whether this is a good film.
Review: Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation SUCKS! Scarlett Johansson's character as a philosophy graduate is hard to believe--I do not think a philosopher would be listening to a CD. I think a philosopher would be reading a Nietzsche, Sartre, Hegel, etc. or writing down thoughts or ideas. Also Johansson's character lacked any articulation and did not talk much intellectually about anything other than her obvious dissatisfaction of her current situation. I had a tough time trying to believe that she studied philosophy. Obviously, the girl's character is Sofia Coppola who likes to think she is smart and profound so she ambitiously creates a philosopher that is not a philosopher. Sofia did not do any research for this character and she still has a lot to learn. Bill Murray is the saviour of this film. In his Golden Globe speech, Murray states that: "it could have been anyone up here." Then he gave full credit to Sofia Coppola. Obviously, he was being modest because this film would not have worked if it was played by anyone else. The scenes with Murray doing a commercial shoot and him in the hotel room with a Japanese callgirl were really funny because of Murray's comedic skill and mannerism of the funny, the serious, and the tired. The same can be said about Sofia Coppola. I have seen this type of film over and over--better ones--by unknown independent filmmakers and they have all been ignored. Only Sofia's work is noticed because of her name. Any unknown filmmaker makes this kind of film and it would go straight to the forgotten file. Sofia's Lost in Translation is not a great film and should not have been nominated by the Academy Awards.
Lost in Translation will be one of those pieces of art that will only be appreciated in the present moment and then forgotten as time passes. I think it is a film that will make you ask when you see it again in the distant future: "Why did this film get so much recognition and why did I fall for the herd mentality of appreciating it because you are suppose to?"
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Beautiful. Just plain beautiful is all I can say. First let me address the crazy reviews I've read saying that this film is somehow racist. Ridiculous. First off, I am Japanese and have lived there many years, and I was only charmed by the movie. The protrayal of the Japanese in this film is entirely accurate. They don't rely on stupid stereotypes (like all Japanese people are submissive and against individuality), as shown by "Charlie Brown" and his friends. Sure, a lot of them bow for no reason, but THAT IS JAPAN. Sure, they can't pronounce "r"'s, but THAT IS JAPAN. In no way does the movie make fun of these oddities. With that NONSENSE aside, this is the most beautiful movie I've ever seen. I found myself lost in the beautifully shot scenes, and still frames from the movie could probably be put in museums. It is that great. This movie is not for hyper-active kids on ridilin who want action. It is for people who can lose themselves in paintings or pictures and can appreciate true beauty.
Rating: 
Summary: SNORE
Review: This was a "none" movie for me. I could not relate to either of the characters, and as much as I like Bill Murry......no Oscar from me. The pathos of the two characters was a non relationship, only a bump, that did not ever register. Sorry
Rating:
Summary: I feel sorry for Dian & co
Review: Everyone from Diane whoever to the last person rating it one star only - I feel so sorry for you - you are obviously missing the meaning of life searching for 'something to happen' or some kind of typical americanized action in the plot... Try to remember that some human beings have feelings that develop them as haracters and as personalities, and they really search for something more than action in their lifes, obviously very differently than you...
Sofia Copola has established herself with this movie as a great director that is changing for better the american cinematography in a very valuable way! Great visuals, Sofia! Incredible job!
| 
