Rating: 
Summary: Lame
Review: Oscar? People actually think this deserves an OSCAR??????? I admit, there are some fun moments in this movie, but for the most part i found it boring. I also happen to like movies that make you think (Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive), and this is just boring straight through. The acting is decent, but the plot falls short of capturing the attention of the audience. Interesting to see once, but never again.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Movie
Review: THE STORY
The movie follows Bob Harris (Murray) who flies to Tokyo for a whisky advertisement shoot and during his week stay there, where he meets, in the hotel Charlotte (Scarlett). Within a week, they bond and form a close relationship, because both feel lost and lonely in this foreign place (we should all know this by now having read so many reviews on what this movie is about). Don't expect to find a roller coaster ride of action, drama or plot. This movie is subdued, restrained but SO REAL. We, as humans, try to avoid huge confrontations and big problems as much as possible, and live our lives peacefully and quietly. Likewise here. All this happened within a week or so - note that Charlotte's last name isn't even known here! THE ACTING
One word: Brilliant. Once again, Sofia has captured the REAL-LIFE actions and reactions, hesitation and courage, happiness and gloom. Bill Murray was excellent, in being restrained, he was outstanding. Scarlett is excellent too - and we see great chemistry. THE MOVIE
People (usually) live very ordinary lives. If you had a look back at your past week, you'd probably not find anything very interesting about it. Yet, there may be things that you did, which would make you feel good, such as meeting a new friend at work, or bad, such as having an argument with someone. You will very (rarely) find yourself involved with say, a murder, or a high-speed car chase etc. This is what Lost In Translation is all about. Being ordinary. Being common. Being human. Yet it is all these usual, normal things, which one would ignore, that would define your live the most. The story (writing which is witty and simple) and the acting aside, the movie has great cinematography - with the neon lights of Tokyo and the very, very classy hotel the movie was shot in. This itself is a feast to the eyes. I read somewhere which says there is a tinge of racism in this movie. Not really. I would deem this cultural difference, which acts to amplify the fact that the characters are in a totally alien place. The height joke, the director joke, the chef joke -there is always two sides to it. Height wise, it could mean that Japanese are short, but it could also mean that Bill Murray, being so much taller, is an abnormality in Japan. There isn't any racism here - there is no discrimination or ill-treatment of anyone. In fact - the Japanese treated the characters with great respect and admiration. Anyhow, this does not matter - as it does not affect LIT's position as a great movie. The extras are great too. I laughed myself to tears at the antics of Matthew's show. That was great. THE EFFECT
I follow awards shows very keenly - Oscars, BAFTA, SAG, Golden Globes (movies) and Grammy (music). I must admit that from the moment Lost In Translation scored a Best Picture nomination at BAFTA, and then the Oscars, I started to pay attention to the progress of this movie. Sure enough, it picked up awards everywhere, and these were awards which usually showed whether the movie was good or not (namely, acting, writing, directing). Although whether or not I would watch a movie does not depend entirely on whether it won any awards, but arguably, many people would not have known about this movie had it not been for its critical acclaim and recognition. I bought the DVD a day after Sofia Coppola won Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. It was also from the Oscars introduction of "Lost In Translation" that I first caught a glimpse of the movie - a scene where the Japanese director was speaking to Bill Murray about an advert shoot. I laughed at that scene. I think I now know why there was such hype over Lost In Translation. It's because in comparison to the majestic grandness of Return of the King, Last Samurai, Master and Commander, Cold Mountain (ALL GREAT MOVIES) - this was so simple and straightforward (some have argued it as being overly simple and boring - well, those who do, human life is simple and boring). The hype was not over its dramatic or action scenes, but the hypnotic cinematography, the intelligent screenplay and "REALness" of the movie. The best part is, the movie introduces Bob and Charlotte to you and you get absorbed into their world - you take a trip to Japan with them, you suffer their loneliness, you enjoy their company, and then you feel the melancholy of separation. In the last scene, Bob whispers something into Charlotte's ears and that makes her nod her head and smile. Even though you don't know what Bob said - you get a sense of closure (credit to Sofia). After the show has ended, you don't see it as that. You REALLY believe that Bob is leaving Japan and Charlotte is still there. You think that someday, they might meet again. In fact, you begin to miss those characters - and start to care for them a little. A week after watching Lost In Translation, I found myself thinking of the movie. That's where this movie scores. It's so normal that it becomes a part of your life itself - perhaps something like you taking a trip to Tokyo last week, and during that week, you met two people called Bob and Charlotte. Buy this DVD, it's worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: Over-hyped!
Review: I REALLY do like Bill Murray a great deal but, to paraphrase one clever critic of old, his performance in this movie went the whole gamut of A to B. The problem probably lay in the immature direction of Coppola and a creeping, boring script that perhaps tried to be subtle and "sophisticated" in defining characters, but failed miserably. I think the reasons why this movie got so many nominations and Oscars were, one, the name Coppola, and two, HAD TO award a woman director.
Rating:
Summary: It's Not "Entertainment"... But You Should See It Anyway
Review: You will love or hate this film - it's not one likely to produce lukewarm impression. Maybe it should come with a sticker "WARNING: THIS IS NOT AN "ENTERTAINMENT" FLICK", because the negative reviews here complain 'nothing happens' in the movie. That's true - in the car-chase -> hot-sex -> happy ending sense. Instead, this quiet film relies on beautiful cinematography (not special effects) and the actors' ability to communicate with out speaking, to create a story. It's not "Titanic", and wasn't intended to be. It's more "Kundun", or "Girl with a Pearl Earring" - it gives a sense of place, and a visual depiction of the isolation someone can feel, even when they're surrounded by people. And if you are hesitating because it's "another 20 year old girl with 50 year old guy" - don't. It's much better than that. If you are a traveler, I think you'll be hard-pressed not to enjoy it. And for your information, I love Caddy Shack, Stripes, and Rushmore, but this is Bill Murray's absolute finest performance. In any other year, he would have won the Oscar.
Rating: 
Summary: Blah
Review: I love Bill Murray, particularly in one of my all-time favorites "Groundhog Day" (quoted approvingly by Roger Ebert as one of the "most spiritual films of our times"). He does a great job, as does his opposite, Scarlett Johansson. And Sophie Coppola's direction was oustanding. But the movie didn't *do* enough to capture the attention of my MTV-trained mind. Yes, the characters were well-drawn and extremely believable -- but to what end?
Rating:
Summary: Mediocre At Best
Review: The thing that I found ho-hum was that most of the movie had this feeling as if Coppola told Bill Murray to just get in front of the camera and try to act bored while being funny. They even admitted in the DVD extras that alot of the non-core dialogue was unscripted for Bill Murray. AND that was exactly why I felt the movie seemed so drawn out and senseless. Some great things about the movie though,(and this is why I cannot give it a 1 star) is the great, expressive film work. The photography really captured Japan through the eyes of a Foreign American. It is very reminiscent of Wong Kar Wai's film work...who incidently helped in making this film. Coppola wants us to feel the boredom experienced by the two characters in the movie...unfortunately, we did. If you love independent films and want a brilliant story that shows the ins and outs of an industrial asian city...PLEASE GO WATCH Wong Kar Wai's CHUNGKING EXPRESS. It is the film that influenced Lost In Translation, but all in all a much better movie!
Rating:
Summary: Too little mood, too little story
Review: There were times during the movie when I felt I was watching a travel show sponsored by the Japanese tourism board. The "wowing" Japanese urban background, elegant hotel sets and the overall exotic environs surely feel fresh. Together with little presence of American actors (besides of course the male and female leads), they also effortlessly transport the audience to the foreign territory and switch our mindset from one of an, well, audience to that of a tourist. To complete the picture, the movie also lets the audience experience the cultural shocks, but in a rather derisive manner to the Japanese: A doctor who keeps speaking nothing but Japanese to an American patient; a translator who doesn't know enough English to translate to Bob (Bill Murray) properly; a prostitute who loses all her sex appeal by mis-pronouncing the word "rip." (...)P>To be fair, all those depictions are not exaggerated in the movie as they do happen the same way in real-life Japan. But like the movie's exotic photography, the amusement derived from those jokes wears thin. Too thin to warrant their repeated usage in the movie. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson deliver a great performance. Their characters show their subtle appreciation of each other's company while one can feel their mutual feelings are ever closer to the boiling point. Sometimes it seems a mere touch or a lingering stare is what it needs to bring the feelings to the boil. However, the over-reliance on the two actors and the set location renders the movie lacking its core support. This movie is mood-driven, which itself I have no problem with. In order to create the mood, the movie relies on a lot of short scenes. With little story, longer scenes might easily bore the audience, especially if the director lacks confidence. But also partly because of little story, the short scenes sometimes feel incoherent and they are linked together only by a weak thread of mood. This thread is weak in this movie because the mood often hinges on and is brought out by the location-specific factors such as the exotic scenery and foreign faces. As just mentioned, however, these things wear thin. (If you like mood pieces set in Japan, I'd recommend some really good Japanese made TV series in the mid 1990's (e.g., Long Vacation).) Although I really like the ending scene - touching without sentimentality, the movie in the end feels empty and forgettable. One good thing is the director utilizes very well the location to craft the mood; one bad thing is the location is relied on much too heavily for the good of the film.
Rating:
Summary: The best non-event I've ever seen.
Review: Bill Murray plays an ennui-stricken actor in the twilight of his career in his most subtle, nuanced, and engaging, ever: Nothing at all happens. He's in a bizzaro-world, filming a whiskey commercial for a Japanese director in Tokyo. His charcter, Bob Harris, is going through the motions, doing what he needs to do to get his multi-million dollar paycheck, but he's phoning it in. Every day, he goes to the set, does his 'thing' for a director he can't understand, then goes out and wanders about the city, bemused and detatched. Later, he calls home in the wee hours of the morning, to talk to his equally jaded and exhausted wife. It seems their relationship is rolling along on inertia - They obviously once cared for each other, but there's no energy or spark left, and their relationship is also being phoned in, figuratively as well as literally. Every day, the same routine. Then, one evening, Bob Harris meets Scarlett Johansson, the lonely and neglected wife of a high-market photographer lost in the city and at her wits-end. The two tired, bored, worn-out souls connect in a solid but low-voltage bond, and they proceed to entertain each other in a platonic and detatched way. They share intimate confessions in the most superficial manner, and give each other cheap drunken laughs as they stumble through the alien backdrop of the city. Neither charcater is so much interested in each other, as they are in finding relief from their psychic pain. There's no passion in their relationship, no flare or future either. They simply stumble through their days together each propping up the other. While this non-event, as described above, should be depressing and boring, it isn't. Instead, we get an intimate look into the lives of two people trapped by their choices, and without the strength or will to break away from their ruts. It's seductive in a PG-13 train-wreck sort of way: You can't look away, but at least you're spared the gore of a messy self-destruction. Instead, you kind of dream your way through the movie, entranced, but not quite sure why. I'd give thie movie one more star, if I didn't feel so... exhausted after watching it.
Rating:
Summary: TERRIBLE MOVIE
Review: This movie was so boring I ended up turning it off before it ended. I have NO idea how it won so many awards. There was definitely better movies made this year then this. Don't waste your money purchasing it! If you for some odd reason still want to see it, rent it. You will end up thanking me that you only wasted $3 and not $17.
Rating:
Summary: Still waiting...
Review: I watched this movie two weeks ago and I am still waiting for something to happen. It stumbles and bumbles along with no real point. I guess critics like that kind of thing; I found it a complete waste of an evening.
|
