Rating: 
Summary: Superb Film with Though Provoking Premise
Review: This film is amazing in almost every aspect. Its cinematography is so vivid, and captures the beauty of the Japanese countryside, Tokyo architecture, and Mount Fuji. For those who hated the film, this is their problem: They cannot grasp the concept of a movie devoid of sex, violence, death, or ultra-drama. For the low-intelligence of the average American movie-goer, this film is too deep and thought provoking to just understand and enjoy. Without ruining the ending, I will just say that they do not like it because it's not a ridiculous, unrealistic ending. This is probably the most realistic movie you will ever see, about normal human behavior, in an interesting setting, and one of the most interesting cultures in the world. The acting is great, down to the stillest of shots. It captures the loneliness of hotel living, the aspect of growing tired with your spouse, or your everyday life, and it portrays a feeling of just relaxing, and letting go for a week. It's a movie that's not to be looked at as complex, or plot-driven, but character driven. The characters are the focus, just like in real life, not ridiculous events going on with the characters lives. Now just think about if you have the depth of mind, and the intelligence, to enjoy this movie for what it portrays. If the answer is yes, rent of buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Who Knew?
Review: Who knew Bill Murray was such a terrific, nuanced actor capable of conveying feelings, thoughts, etc. without excessive dialogue and merely using finely understated body language, facial expressions, gestures and any other "tool" he can get his hands on? Ditto for Scarlett Johansson; she's pretty terrific as well. The photography is beautiful and the movie just glides along to an ending that you get to finish in your own mind - however you feel real people might respond; or, how you might want it to end up.
It takes courage in this "bash-'em-between-the-eyes" world to make a film that neither "makes" you think, nor lays everything right out in front of you - it's best to just watch and feel. Whether you "get it" or not (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Life itself is a random sequence of joys and sadnesses; as you get a little older, you figure out that it's really a journey without a destination. In this film, we are voyeurs getting to watch two very interesting, likeable and all too human people bump up against one another for a slice of time.
I haven't decided what my end will be yet. There are a lot of options. I do know, however, that this is a exceptional movie that, in a very stylish way, holds a mirror up in front of us. Highly recomended as a break from fantasyland with a couple of characters you'll like and root for.
Rating:
Summary: Many won't get it - and that's a good thing
Review: I watched this film with my family and our neighbors. I realized, again, that we are conditioned to expect a pace of input from film that "entertains" readily. Everyone else in our little audience was bored, wanting something to "happen". Complaints were frequent and the film was almost abandoned twice. The end brought amazed disappointment from some and outrage that critics liked it at all.At first, like everyone else I mistook the slow pace for just "boring". After a while, though, (trying to ignore the complaints) I found myself drawn into the characters' world, relating to their respective plights, and as a consequence their mutual attraction. Having done my fair share of business travel, I had a way to connect with the characters' plight: I've had numerous seemingly endless nights in strange hotel rooms. In the end, I found it endearing in the manner of "Snow Falling on Cedars" - a beautiful film that connects in a subtle way if you give it a chance. It's not for lots of viewers, in particular action film junkies or teenagers (unless you're a teenage boy with a yen for a strip joint scene and a beautiful woman in her underwear, pun intended). I think I'll rent it if it's available on pay-tv on my next business trip. It's a film best enjoyed quietly: alone or with a lover snuggled by a fire with a bottle of wine - it'll pleasantly stretch two hours to a well-spent somthing more...
Rating: 
Summary: Not As Bad/Great As These Reviews Say
Review: I was completely psyched to see Bill Murray as a Best Actor nominee for this year's Oscars and shamelessly rooted for him without having seen LOST IN TRANSLATION.
(Sean Penn, who'd been robbed by Nicolas Cage in LEAVING LAS VEGAS when Penn should have won for DEAD MAN WALKING, ended up winning over Murray). When I finally saw LOST recently, I had to conclude that most of my friends who'd seen it were right: it looks great but nothing really happens. Tokyo is a surreal, fascinating setting, especially when you realize that most Yanks have only seen the model version stomped by Godzilla all these years. I probably would've liked this film more if I'd seen it BEFORE all the hype.
And I really wanted to like this movie too. I personally loved Murray's first dramatic turn twenty years ago in THE RAZOR'S EDGE and I'd always felt that Sofia Coppola got a horrendously-harsh thrashing over GODFATHER III (I hated it but I also thought she was one of the few interesting things about it--come on, she LOOKED and ACTED more like Michael Corleone's daughter than Winona Ryder would have!). I'm glad to see both Sofia Coppola and Bill Murray as the toasts of the town with this movie.
But, watching it, not a lot really happens.
Rating:
Summary: Better Than You Think
Review: I think this movie is as negatively reviewed as it as, at least by the overall rating it got here, is because a lot of people DID NOT understand it.
Rating:
Summary: bogotabye
Review: OK, yes, I'm nearly 50, I admit it and more than a little fuddy duddy but... is it absolutely necessary to include such graphic strip joint scenes in a movie? It's a beautiful movie, I fell in love with both characters and their lives and friendship; it was, as one reviewer wrote, "perfume". But... is it absolutely necessary to include such graphic strip joint scenes in a movie?
Rating:
Summary: Didn't you have anyone to smother you in attention?
Review: This movie is hands down the greatest movie of 2003. Bill Murray has been in other amazing movies such as Caddyshack, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Groundhog Day, but this is my absolute favorite. His performance of a depressed, out-of-his-prime movie star is deep and believable, and Ms. Scarlett Johansson is beautiful, and a wonderful actress. Also you should definately get the soundtrack, whether you've seen the movie or not, because it has wonderful bands and artists like Peaches and the Jesus and Mary Chain (my favorite band).
Rating:
Summary: Trapped In Translation
Review: For the most part, I have always enjoyed Bill Murray's work, over the years. From his days on Saturday Night Live, as a movie star in Ghostbusters, and Caddyshack, to more offbeat roles in Wild Things and Mad Dog And Glory, he rarely disappointed-even when the films were sub par. After seeing Lost In Translation, all I can say is...wow... Bob Harris (Murray) is a washed-up TV star in America. Down on his luck, he decides to take off for Tokyo, to film a commercial for a well known brand of whiskey. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is the young wife of a photographer, who is also in Japan on business. After a chance metting at a hotel bar, the two lonely americans find they have a special connection. Not only do they spend the weekend sight seeing together, they also discover aspects of themselves, that were well hidden. After all that acclaim that surrounded the film, perhaps my expectations were raised too high, (I try to not let that stuff affect me too much but...) I just don't see what all the fuss was about. Murray and Johansson make for a watchable on screen pair, but neither performance bowled me over very much. Murray has the whole cynical-sarcasm thing down and Johansson lets the story go where it must but that's it. The Oscar winning script is pretty typical and doesn't really offer anything new. I was surprised at how average Sofia Coppola's story really was. Her previous film, THe Virgin Suicides, is a much better film. The DVD extras are an ok assortment--but nothing spectacular. A conversation with director Sofia Coppola and actor Bill Murray is the highlight here. The behind-the-scenes featurette, entitled "Lost on Location" includes exclusive footage shot by the filmmakers and gives one a sense of the Japanese culture. But the film does a better job setting the scene, and serving the city, all on its own. The deleted scenes were wisely cut from the movie--but nice to see. "Matthew's Best Hit TV" is just an extended version of the Japanese TV show depicted in the film. Still nice to see the full version. Rounding out the disc's bonus material is a Kevin Shields music video, for the song "City Girl" from the soundtrack, and the usual theatrical trailers. It's not that Lost In Translation is really a bad film per se. It's more that I may have been expecting too much....Average rather than stellar
Rating:
Summary: Sins of omission, but none of comission.
Review: "Rost in Transration" as they would say in Japan, has many things going for it. The cinematography alone justifies the movie for me. The film is understated and quiet. If you have the attention span of a squirrel, then do not rent or buy this film. If you have any sense of patience, allowing a film to organically unfold, you will be rewarded. Bill Murray is great, playing what I think is essentially himself. I think the core of the movie is his interaction with the Japanese people and culture, not the friendship/romance. The relationship with Scarlett Johanssen consists of them simply recreating together -- drinking, dancing, karaoke. Only in one scene is there any serious conversation between the two. Is there any *there* there? Not really. Johanssen doesn't have much to do, either, except mostly react to walking through Tokyo and Kyoto and staring out her hotel window. Still, the film doesn't take any wrong turns or destroy its credibility. It is just a quiet, sweet meditative little movie. Probably the great reviews and excess hype will work against it now. People will expect too much. And, I'm sorry, but the Japanese are just weird. From our point of view, inscrutable. Frankly, I think the Japanese, even if they tried, would have great difficulty explaining themselves. So we have a good-natured and affectionate chuckle at their expense. I stirr rike them a rot.
Rating: 
Summary: My love/hate relationship with Lost in Translation
Review: As far as more recent films go, Lost in Translation sparks a love/hate relationship for me like no other. Overall, I find the film rather enjoyable, but at the same time there is this duel nature surrounding it that I find to be both admirable and disdainable. For me this duel nature lies at the heart of the task undertaken by Sofia Coppola. On one hand the film is clearly something along the lines of the works of Godard, Antonioni and Kar Wai, a notion which Coppola herself didn't hide in her Oscar night acceptance speech. And on the other hand, we also have the Hollywoodized (albeit Hollywood laced with the indie-spirit) nature of the film that is also very apparent throughout. The characters, while often different from the norm, still have very stereotypical qualities, the overall image presented of Japan feels very Hollywoodized, and on top of it all there is the dry humor of Bill Murray. What we are essentially presented with is a film that is both a detached/modernest/post-modernist/art house work along the lines of the earlier mentioned artists and an "outside, yet still inside of Hollywood" Hollywood film. As a fan of the filmmakers she has been inspired by, I have a deep respect for Coppola in bringing forth that type of filmmaking to a mainstream audience. Yet, with regard to the film's artistic merits, there is also a real problem in Hollywoodizing a style of filmmaking that at its essence is anti-Hollywood. By making the film relatively mainstream, it can also be seen as going against the type of filmmaking it admires. But to be fair, this same argument can be made against any film trying to blur the lines of Art cinema and Mainstream fare. The difference with Lost in Translation (compared to say Punch-Drunk Love), is that Lost in Translation is SO influenced by such past works that it is impossible not to notice (for anyone familiar with such works going in) the mainstream/art cinema clash. Instead of having its own voice that references such past works along the way, the film ultimately becomes a distortion of what has come before it. Pop in In the Mood For Love, L' Avventura or My Life to Live after watching Lost in Translation, and you'll get the point. Again, although I'm rather critical about the overall nature of the film, I still find it very enjoyable. It is a great exercise in creating a mood of detachment. The main characters are detached from their lives, their surroundings and ultimately one another. The wonderful cinematography also plays a big role here, as the camera positioning helps further the mood of detachment a number of times throughout the film. And then obviously, there are the fabulous performances of Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. At the end of the day the film has all the ingredients of a great work, but still seems to be missing that extra-something to make it truly special. The film serves as a nice addition to the growing trend of films on the fringe of Hollywood that play on the traditional expectations of romantic comedies and romance in Hollywood film in general, right alongside Punch Drunk-Love and the recent Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. *** 1/2, (8.0/10)
|
