Rating: 
Summary: Two hours of my life I will forget
Review: This was really boring. The premise of a film is to tell a story or entertain the viewer. This did niether. I felt as though I was lost the entire movie--ending with an unfufilled feeling of wasting two hours of my life I will never get back.
Rating: 
Summary: Not for everyone
Review: "Lost in Translation" is a brilliant movie, but it's not for everyone. In some of the reviews here it's shown as a victim of its own huge success. Thanks in part to Sofia Coppola's well-deserved screenwriting Oscar it's pulled in audiences who have neither the inclination nor movie-going equipment to handle a movie of this kind. To longtime serious-movie audiences it's probably a lot easier to deal with. It's not the kind of movie that could ever hope to appeal to the Matrix or X-Men 2 crowd. It's more in the vein of serious cinema from independent film-makers like Jim Jarmusch, or some Wayne Wang. Or European film makers like Wim Wenders. If some people found THIS slow, I hate to think what they'd say about the superb "Wings of Desire" or Visconti's "Death in Venice". All superb films. So no it's not for everyone. If it IS to your taste, you WILL be able to see why so many have raved with enthusiasm for it. And forget the idiocies about "racism". Noticing CULTURAL differences that do exist is observation not racism. There is no element of nastiness in Coppola's vision. The girl is a talent, and will - I hope - go on to even greater things.
Rating:
Summary: Slow and Boring Movie
Review: This movie is extremely slow and boring. The clip shown on the oscars is the best 1 minute of this movie. The rest of the movie is junk.
Rating: 
Summary: Probably better if you have a grasp of Japanese culture.
Review: Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003) The one thing a whole lot of reviews of this movie seemed to have in common was the word "slow." I'm not terribly sure why; I didn't find it slow at all (and I get bored easy when I've sat though two slow films in two days, as I had before turning this on). The movie is the story of two American outcasts stuck in Tokyo, a fiftysomething actor (Bill Murray) in town to do an endorsement and the twentysomething wife (Best Actress Oscar nominee Scarlett Johansson) of a fashion photographer (The Gift's Giovanni Ribisi) in town to shoot a rock band. The two of them bond. Which does, okay, sound slow. But Coppola keeps it moving by having the bonding bounce back and forth off the vagaries of Japanese culture and how incredibly different it is from American culture. Underneath all the marveling at the differences that they (and we) do, Coppola is subverting the Hollywood love story. Basically, there are two ways that people fall in love: the real way and the Hollywood way. Coppola gives us the former, and then further undermines the system as the movie progresses. Ultimately, the movie is both frustrating and fulfilling; none of the cliches one expects from a love story are at all in evidence, none of the shortcuts, none of the triggers we associate with what happens between a man and a woman in a Hollywood film. Better than her debut, The Virgin Suicides. A fine film, worthy of the attention it has attracted. ****
Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: Before I watched this film, a few people told me they "didn't get it." However, I felt like the reviews were so good, the screenplay won an Oscar, and Bill Murray was nominated for one, so they had to be missing something. To my dismay, the film was as unspectacular as I had been told. I appreciate the film for conveying the feelings of isolation and loneliness one can get when traveling overseas on business. I've experienced the same thing. However, the film was far from perfect. Where was the plot? Someone needs to acquaint Sophia Coppola with Joseph Campbell. Maybe I don't appreciate subtlety, but I don't even understand why Bill Murray was nominated for an Academy Award. I can't believe he was so noticeably shocked when he didn't get the award. He should have been shocked when he received the nomination! Some people have called the film "racist." I would not go that far, but it certainly made Tokyo seem like one boring place. I didn't appreciate the lack of respect the film showed for another culture. In fact, the film smacked of the American hegemony we're constantly criticized for by other countries. You probably will not heed this warning, because I didn't either, but trust me that this is one film you can skip.
Rating:
Summary: Aimless...boring....zzzzzzz
Review: I agree with another reviewer who pointed out that if the director had not been named Coppola, this movie would never have seen the light of day. This is, quite frankly, a movie in which nothing happens. When my wife and I saw it in a movie theater, we followed a stream of others out the exit about midway as the movie lumbered along. That the movie was nominated for Oscars says something about the "avant garde," but I don't know exactly what that would be.
Rating:
Summary: Mirrors
Review: One reviewer said it well. "Lost in Translation" is a mirror for those who see it. When I see words such as "ignorant", "racist", "boring" bandied about here they seem to me to reflect directly on the reviewer. When I see others who view it with intelligence, subtlety, passion, and interest, they seem to convey the same properties. All of these are in the movie. And the look at people's foibles (both American and Japanese) is affectionate throughout. The concept of favoritism towards the Coppola name is laughable. There's a reason why her father is concentrating on making wine and not getting the budget for movies. A LOT of people could get together a $4million budget to make a film like this. Whether they'd have the talent is another issue.
Rating:
Summary: Ignorant!
Review: I rented this movie thinking it was going to be funny and entertaining... How can a movie like this be nominated for an Oscar? It is terribly slow and the dialogues are far from intelligent. It could have been a very interesting introduction/discovery of the Asian culture. I found it stupid and a permanent demonstration that the american culture is superior to the local one (usually the attitude that ignorant people assume when they visit a foreign country!). I would have given it -5 stars if that option was available!
Sofia Coppola... pfff!!! If her name was Sofia Smith she would still be selling popcorn at the theater, not sitting at the Academy Awards ceremony.
Rating:
Summary: Visual appeal
Review: This movie had so much hype:Scarlett Johanson is being called the actresses' actress,and Bill Murray has that sarcastic humor that makes him a favorite.I was compelled to see what it was all about.It ends up there is no storyline.The vivid colors and artistic,unique film shots were all I could keep focused on.
Despite the artistic visuals,it seemed they made a mockery of Japanese culture,rather than embracing it,as some others seem to think.The movie makes it seem as though all Japanese people run around being crazy and off the wall like Japanamation characters instead of real people.
There were some morality issues.Why would it be o.k. for a married man to hang out with a younger woman and lay in her bed and not tell his wife?And if you were going to go into foreign territory wouldn't you want to do something exciting with the woman to make it worthhile?They went to a stripculb once to add some shock value to the movie but the plot was so boring that I could have even fallen asleep through that.They were so dull I wanted to turn off the movie multiple times.
At the end of the movie I ended up going:"That's it???!!That was the dumbest movie I have ever seen!"
Bill Murray is a great comic,and I would like to see Scarlet's next movie,but do yourself a favor and just skip this one.Sorry Bill and Scarlet.Better luck next time.
Rating:
Summary: funny, smart, widdy, and spectacular
Review: "Lost in Translation" is a powerful and insightful film about one of the most fundamental of personal inquiries purpose. In other words, it is a movie about soul searching. Virtually all of us, at some point in time, will ponder our place in this world asking who we are, what we are supposed to do, and with whom we are supposed to be. Most individuals likely do not have to struggle with this question, either because they do not care, or because they simply occupy themselves with the routine and mundane fascinations of daily life, ignoring the deeper and more troubling nature of their existence. For others, however, the question of purpose in life can be a haunting, even paralyzing, burden. For those individuals who have personally felt this weight, it feels as if you are lost in the world. You do not know who you are, where you are going, or what you want. You feel melancholy, listless, and numb. You are not amused by the small trappings of daily life, and you want nothing more than to break out of the routine, and find your way. But, because finding the way is so difficult, you often drown yourself in sorrow and doubt. Now, revealing these innermost thoughts is extremely difficult to do in a movie. At best, viewers are given small vignettes by a character's crying, their apathetic attitude, or, in rare instances, through dialogue where a character articulates their feelings in spoken word. "Lost in Translation" reveals the internal dilemma of the two main characters, who are both experiencing the feeling of being lost, by creating an analogy. The analogy is being in a foreign country, where the language, customs, mannerisms, and culture are vastly different from that which is familiar to you; for example, two Americans in modern-day Japan. A foreigner in such a position often does not understand where they are going, feel grossly out of place, and cannot take advantage of simple daily amusements. Stuck in such a situation, one might be tempted to simply stay in their hotel room, or lose themselves at the bar night after night. While not a perfect analogy, it is a visually intense way at revealing, albeit imperfectly, the feeling of an individual struggling with their place in the world. "Lost in Translation" avoids any deep philosophical analysis of this problem. It does not give an answer to the character's questions. It does not provide any hidden meaning of life. It does not attempt to make sense out of the confusion of life that can consume us and rightfully so. For those that struggle with the question of purpose, an answer is rarely presented. Some may have an epiphany, finding themselves in a moment of clarity. Others are not so lucky. The question of purpose is fundamental, and, as revealed by the characters in this film, is often a life long inquiry facing us at the beginning of life (Charlotte) or in the middle of well-traveled life (Bob). What hope the film does provide is that we may find someone in life with whom we can share our experiences. This, in reality, is usually the best hope of all. We may never come to grasp with our struggle to find a place in the world. But by struggling together, it makes life bearable, and even, enjoyable. This is the relationship between Bob and Charlotte. It is not sexual. And it is not simply friendly. It is a deep connection a bond that allows them to overcome their melancholy, venturing through life together. Just as it is a far better experience for a foreigner to visit a foreign country with a friend. It is not that the two individuals combined have any better sense of direction or feel any less out of place. But they share the experience of being lost together relating and empathizing with each other, and depending on each other for support. A bond between two such lost souls is often more powerful than the disposable sexual relationships that permeate our culture today. "Lost in Translation" does not attempt to answer the questions faced by the characters. It simply shows them, as best as can be done through cinema. The film may frustrate the audience, being that it is slow and meandering at times, ambiguous, and unresolved. This reveals the brilliance of its direction. The audience will feel what the characters themselves feel. This is the entire intention of the film. It highlights the frustration and disappointment that some feel in this world. It shows that even though there may be someone in this world with whom we could connect - sometimes that connection is not possible. Cinematically, this film is superb. Which is also very very funny. If you understand the purpose of the film, every aspect of direction contributes to the overall experience of sharing and understanding the sadness and confusion of the characters which is exactly what the two characters are doing for each other, sharing and understanding! Bill Murray does a fantastic portrayal of Bob. Only someone with his comedic skill could portray the sarcastic and subtle comedy of Bob's character. Scarlett Johansson is absolutely brilliant. She portrays the young, well-educated, but lost Charlotte without coming across as idealistic or portentous or philosophical-for-philosophy's sake. Her character is absolutely genuine, struggling with life even though she ostensibly has all those "traditional" indicia of happiness and success: a hansom husband, money, connection to fame, opportunities for world travel, and an Ivy League education. Bill Murry deserved the Oscar for this film though, he is hilarious. A must see film for everyone.
|
