Rating: 
Summary: The uniqueness of Japan & its environs.
Review: It took only 28 days to make this movie. It was a weird opening picture, especially since it was directed by a woman who won an Academy Award -- more like a man would have chosen. The whole thing was weird, especially the naked men in the bathhouse and the aggressive Japanese call girl who asked him to lick her hose.The only thing going for it was the location. Japan was colorful, lots of light and strange-looking buildings. Such a lovely pink sunrise over the bridge! They have a really super train system, ultra modern Supersonic. Even their 'el' goes faster than that in Chicago. Here we have Bill playing 'Bob' again. This Bob, however, is over-the-hill. He is portraying an aging star who is being paid two million dollars to make commercials for a Japanese liquor. It looked like Justin Lin directing the commercial. He spends most of his time in bars when he is not laying on his bed in a depressed condition. His nonchalance is the most depressing part of this flick. It has some porn with the belly dancers undressed, this scene was obscene with the lyrics which should never have passed the censors. The young college grad goes around mostly undressed when she is not following Bob. Beside him, she looks like a teen; but, like all men, he is clearly fascinated with her youth. The only good song was at the end, "So Into You" as performed by a male singer/piano player, but he is not as good as young Ken Young. The karoke singing by the three Americans in the movie per se was sinfully bad sounding like something you'd hear in Knoxville, TN or Podunk, Ind. It brought back memories of the flop of Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman out in the desert. Actually, I liked that movie better than this one. It is hard to watch an idol age. He looks nothing like the charming Ghostbuster, is twice the width of the psychotic Bob in WHAT ABOUT BOB, one of his best movies. No wonder he is dazed by the accolates this poor production is bringing. A sample of the dialogue, "You're too tall;" "Anyone tell you, 'you're too small?'" The scene in the Buddish tent looked interesting; I missed out on it at the 1982 World's Fair because of the long lines. Everyone it seemed wanted to see the monks. The Japanese culture was showcased with the welcoming committee everywhere and the crowds in the streets (more so than in Chicago) on bikes, walking under colorful umbrellas, or riding in fancy cabs. The blonde Japanese KoJo as a t.v. talk show host in his pink and blue striped suit with white shoes was something else. There was a Don Ho imitator in the Japanese night spot with weird lighting effects as demonstrated also at the World's Fair in Knoxville. There were Japanese hippies in underground and one who looked like Bobby Darrin at a party in a building which looked like Jake Butcher's bank -- the only modern place in my hometown. I think they must have the tallest skyscrapers in the world (which we built after the war), and no surface parking lots. We saw outdoor glimpses of Japanese life. The large mountain beside the golf course was impressive. Bill Murray in the tiled hot tub was a sight, talking on his cell phone. The less said about his role is best, I think. He told an interviewer that he is not organized. Neither was his character. I understand now why Bill Murray was so lackadaisical when asked about his nomination. He does nothing special, he's not even funny. When he looks in the mirror (which is often), he appears to be at least seventy -- certainly too old to be even thinking about dallying with a young woman and definitely too old to have little kids at home. He looks like I feel when getting up in the morning. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title
Rating: 
Summary: I'm so glad I understand postmodernism now
Review: "Lost in Translation" is a solid film with a good performance from Johannson and a good performance from Murray, one that is quite a lot like other performances of his--he's terribly one-dimensional, but this movie is this movie, not others he's been in. In response to ogreadmore's pompous tirade: it's terribly patronizing to say that the only reason a person may not like a film you like is that he/she doesn't get it, even much more so because he/she doesn't understand an academic construct such as postmodernism. A person is not going to watch a film with flat characters, read that, oh, it's SUPPOSED to have flat characters (this film is SUPPOSED to be unrealistic, it's SUPPOSED to have bad special effects) and say, "oh, it's good now." People who have concern with the flatness of characters are essentially saying they don't like postmodernism (this film isn't that postmodern, btw) and this is something they can understand intuitively. People without PhD's have emotions and can understand art--they are allowed to their opinions and don't need permission from some film fascist to like something.
Rating: 
Summary: How talented is Sofia Coppola?
Review: Highly overated film. Do you think Sofia Coppola would've had any chance of making this or any other movie if her father wasn't Francis Ford Coppola? I wonder how much input old Francis gave her in both writing the script and directing the film? If Francis Ford Coppola or Nicolas Cage were related to me, I would venture to say that you'd be reading reviews of one of my produced screenplays right now. Sour grapes, you say? You betcha.
Rating:
Summary: You paid for it; now be forced to watch previews.
Review: Ever heard of DRM? It stands for "Digital Rights Management," and it's the reason you're forced to watch previews on this DVD before you get to the menu screen. No, you cannot skip them and jump to the menu. You have to fast-forward through them at best. You want to do this every time? Imagine someday when you're going to have to do this with every DVD you own. Wait until a version that's not going to waste any of your time comes out, and reject all DVD's that force you to put up with this.
Rating:
Summary: For people who aren't sure which reviews to believe...
Review: Like many excellent films, this one has received many reviews, some more eloquent than others, some more helpful than others. Also like many such films, it has received many one star and many five star reviews... How can this be, one might ask? I've decided to break it down for you. If you liked "Adaptation," "The English Patient," or "The Virgin Suicides," you will probably like this film. Why? First off, to appreciate this film fully, you need to understand something called "postmodernism." I am not just being a higher-education snob. You really need to understand this. Now, you may enjoy the film without this understanding, think it is witty, touching, etc., but you won't fully *get* it otherwise, just like you won't get Picasso if you don't know about modernism and cubism, though you may think his work looks cool. What is this so-called Postmodernism? Without getting into too much detail, postmodernism deals with issues such as problems inherent in human attempts to communicate and to assign fixed meanings to things. Words and symbols may be ambiguous, and so on. Hence, in this film, the language/cultural barrier between English-speakers and Japanese-speakers, as well as the inability of the two main characters to communicate with their spouses (or even, really, each other, except in oblique ways such as karaoke lyrics, until the very end). The movie WAS NOT RACIST and does not make fun of the Japanese. They actually do confuse R's and L's--because they DON'T HAVE the letter L. And, you know, they are a bit shorter--not bad, just different. Because of the concern with communication problems, loneliness/alienation is often a postmodern theme. Often, postmodern works are self-referential, like Adaptation (which also suffered the 1-star/5-star treatment, for the same exact reasons as this film) or even Scream--that is, it plays on the fact that it is a screenplay about a screenplay, horror movie about horror movies, etc. This one is not so much so, but there is the comparison between language barriers and other, more subtle barriers to communication. Postmodernism also centers around the idea that people are unable to create their identity (or construct others') through the people and institutions around them, although they may try to do so. Thus, fragmented identity is a prevalent theme. In postmodernism, romantic feelings are usually unrequited--this is part of the broken communications theme. I don't want to ruin this fine movie for those who haven't seen it, but I think failure to understand that point may have contributed to some negative reviews. Post-modernism is not plot-driven; it is not really all that character-driven either. It is idea- and theme-driven (see above). Characters are often flat, interchangeable, or generic--they are "types" rather than people you feel like you really know after watching the movie. Thus, people who don't understand it will say things like "the movie was slow/boring/dull, the characters were one-dimensional/flat/unpersonable--no one could possibly like it," then attribute the fact that many people do, in fact, like it to peer pressure exercised by reviewers or, better yet, "society." Saying characters in a post-modern film are undeveloped is like saying that a Rex cat isn't furry: that is, you may like furry cats yourself, and you are certainly at liberty to feel that way, but you are totally missing the point if you fail to understand that that particular type of cat isn't furry, isn't supposed to be furry, is never going to be furry--and if it is furry, it isn't a Rex cat anymore. Not all cats are furry, and not all movies are full of likable 3-D characters and action-action-action.. People don't review rockabilly records and complain that they sound too little like P.Diddy; they don't review accounting textbooks and complain about the lack of cartoon illustrations; and, if they did, you'd think, "????!" This is the same principle. For other examples of this phenomenon, see the viewer reviews of the even finer film, "The Virgin Suicides" (Sofia Coppola's adaptation of the Eugenides novel). "The characters are too flat and don't stand apart from each other." They aren't supposed to, fools! "Ending was ambiguous/unsatisfying." Well, that's the point of postmodernism--there is never one clear meaning, and all attempts to assign such meanings are ultimately unsuccessful. "Too boring/slow." See Terminator 3, for heaven's sake. Or maybe some NASCAR disaster footage. "Wasn't subtle enough." NOT SUPPOSED to be subtle!! Now, if you have read this, or if you already understand postmodernism as applied to literature/film, and you still didn't like this movie, perhaps you can offer some legitimate criticism. Suggestion: "The theme of broken communications wasn't satisfactorily explored because X, Y and Z." One reviewer actually complained that the movie wasn't enough like Groundhog Day! UM, where did you read that it was supposed to be? Is there a rule that actors can only do one type of film for the rest of time? So "Saving Private Ryan" should be just like "Splash!"? I give up. I hope "Titanic" fans find this useful (and, by the way, characters in that film were, like, so thoroughly developed and three-dimensional and stuff).
Rating:
Summary: Anything lower than 1 star???
Review: Bill Murray needs to be put out of his misery, and stop acting. This movie was not only racist, boring and horrible, it was racist boring and horrible. The only reason everyone is saying it is so awesome is because everyone else is praising it. This movie needs to be shot and put out of its misery!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: A delightful film!
Review: Sofia Coppola has truly hit her stride with this one. This movie has it all. The characters are real, involving, and sympathetic. The acting is subtle and sidesplitting. The feeling of being temporarily displaced in an unfamiliar culture is spot on. The humor is intelligently understated (and hilarious). The soundtrack perfectly adds to the mood without distracting. The cinematography is stunning, notwishstanding Sofia's transparent and charmingly self-effacing comment delivered by Scarlett Johansson: "I tried taking pictures, but they were so mediocre. I guess every girl goes through a photography phase. You know, horses... taking pictures of your feet." The pacing is genius. The love story is believable and ultimately (and surprisingly) satisfying. There's even a car chase scene (after a fashion). "Lost in Translation" mirrors life in that it has a set-up and a setting, but it's not so easy to define exactly "what it's about." Rather, it's a series of small, sweet, marvelous, intimate, and unforgettable moments that make the living/watching worth every second.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle & superb
Review: This film is a gem. Granted, there is a percentage of folks who saw this film that thought it was slow or overrarted. You are always going to find these mediocre minds, and some even like to write reviews to spare you from it. Right off hopefully you can see that any film that garners such hot and cold reactions should be seen. I am going to sum this up by saying that Sofia Coppola's vision and the actors performnces made me feel like I was let in on a wonderful idea that works extremely well. Even if I don't get to know what he whispers to her in the end.....I can imagine..
Rating:
Summary: Typical Hollywood bigotry
Review: Most of y'all just don't get it (save only a few smart posters)... this movie is reeking with racism. For me, the racism was very blatant and not subtle in the least. For those that didn't pick up on it, I feel very sorry for you, you need to escape your white coccoon and face reality... just because you don't think something's offensive doesn't mean that it's not offensive. White's are not the only race who's opinions matter.
Rating:
Summary: Is it that funny to make fun of other cultures?...
Review: It seems that everybody agrees to say that Lost in Translation is is a masterpiece worth hundreds of nominations at the Academy Awards. I still don't get it. OK, Scarlett Johansson is a good actress and she manages to "save" a bit the movie. But as for the rest of it... It's a movie about loneliness and vacuity ?... It is indeed a vacuus movie, with quite no script and I don't get what is supposed to be so subtle in this story. A story about two empty people that gets nowhere when we could have expected so much more with a story of two Americans lost in a fascinating city like Tokyo.
Bill Murray's character is meant to be a friendly and touching person since we see Tokyo and the Japanese through his eyes. He's our Westerners' eyes indeed. We are supposed to share his surprise in front of this extra-terrestrial world. And what is the 'humour' of this movie based on ? It's based on one of the most disrespectful depiction of a foreign culture that I've seen in a movie lately. All Japanese are depicted as ridiculous, like tools for the purpose of stupid gags, whereas the stupid one is Bill Murray's character who is not even able to understand that not everyone on the planet speaks his language (ex. the hospital scene). He himself doesn't even try to communicate with a single Japanese person, as if they were not human beings worth talking to.
And we should CARE for this despicable man ?.. If we don't care for him, we don't care for the movie. That's what happened to me. I like The Virgin Suicides and Sofia Coppola is a gifted director. But Lost in Translation is an movie filled with bad taste that I prefer to forget about.
| 
