Rating: 
Summary: Terrible movie
Review: Slow moving, unfunny, bad plot, bad movie. Do not waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: wonderful!
Review: Sofia Coppala's best to date! i think the critics have had it in for Sofia Coppola for a while.she was a fine actress in my opinion.she is a wonderful writer and her directing is superb.Scarlett Johansson is excellent as is Bill Murray.i found this to be a sweet wistful romance with a bittersweet ending.
Rating:
Summary: If you don't like this movie...
Review: You are stupid. Sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you!
Rating: 
Summary: Good film, interesting, but not great
Review: I was disappointed in my first viewing of this film. I watched it on the same day as Whale Rider and Secondhand Lions, and frankly both are much better films.However, after reading some of the wildly raving reviews, I went back and watched it again to see if I had somehow missed something. It did improve on the second viewing. I think I was put off by the pacing and general tone of the film on first viewing. I caught more of the subtle points the second time around, but still found that many important things passed too quickly (text of faxes, for example), while other things, such as the endless boredom scenes of Charlotte in her hotel room, went on way longer than needed to make the point. I have to wonder if the film wasn't specifically designed to be vague in order to be some kind of Rorschach test for the person viewing it. It seems to me that we are actually told and shown very little about the two characters, and I think people are projecting a great deal when I read the reviews. For example, I didn't find the elevator scene where he was so much taller than everyone else to be racist so much as pointing out how he stood out as very different from everyone around him. It seemed to me to be about his isolation, not racism. (Maybe I'm projecting.........) We know that the young woman, Charlotte, is in a marriage that no longer excites her. She hasn't "found herself" yet in life, and has reached a point of angst mixed with ennui that is not uncommon for someone her age as the hype fades and the bubble bursts. She is numb, bored, and in her own words, "stuck." Life isn't fun or easy any more. The aging actor, Bob, is portrayed as probably having a drinking problem, although that isn't completely clear. We do know that he is feeling burned out, his marriage is no longer supportive or comfortable, and that he is no longer getting the film roles that made him popular. It is strongly hinted that he is past his prime and on the way down, but still big enough to get 2 million dollars for an ad campaign. He also is numb and withdrawn from life. The thing I realized on the second viewing is that these are not extraordinary people. They are not witty Neil Simon intellectuals gamely facing the trials and tribulations of life in an endlessly entertaining manner. They are painfully ordinary and caught in the doldrums of life. She turns to him for wisdom about her situation, but only gets things like, "I'm not worried about you," or "You'll figure it out." He has no wise words to make her life all better again. He turns to her for some touch of youth and energy, and that doesn't work either. Both these people are stuck behind barriers of pain and boredom, and are neither secure nor open to honest emotional exchange. Their meetings are frequently awkward, and their conversations are usually halting and shallow. They do manage to grow because of each other, and that is good. This movie isn't "Harold and Maude," "Same Time Next Year," or "Razor's Edge," nor does it try to be. All the discussion about politics and Hollywood is neither here nor there. Did it deserve an Oscar? I don't honestly know. Oscars aren't exactly objective awards, and Sofia does have a famous Hollywood name. On the other hand, for a first movie, I don't think it is all that bad. It is different, gets its point across, and does tell a story, whether it is a story you want to hear or not. Making a movie is not at all easy, and I say Sofia did okay. As far as the acting goes, it is easy to attack Johansson because her character is so ordinary, but have you considered how difficult it is to play "ordinary?" The actress who played the Hollywood starlet had a much easier job because her character was such a caricature. I think they all did okay. It was worth spending the time to see it twice and pick up what I missed. I doubt I would watch it a third time, though. I think all the hype did it more harm than good. The thing that impressed me most was how well the film did at making me feel like an outsider in Japanese culture. I really got a sense of isolation and confusion with all the Japanese signs and no English words for reference, and the constant barrage of rapidly spoken Japanese. The film did a great job there. Watch it for that at least.
Rating:
Summary: Oh My God
Review: I've just come back from watching "Taking Lives", as awful a piece of Hollywood trash as it's been my misfortune to see in a long time. Movies like that make you wonder why you ever liked movies in the first place. Thankfully the memory of "Lost in Translation" is there to remind me that films can be illuminating and sensitive and contain real human beings that we might actually encounter. I'm heartily weary of movies that have simple-minded bad guys and good guys, and murders, and no sense of believable characterisation for either. "Lost in Translation" is more like a superbly realised short story. Think of the stories of Richard Ford, Andre Dubus, and Graham Greene. The Dubus connection reminds me. If you liked "In the Bedroom" for its avoidance of movie cliches and its honest look at fallible characters in a sad situation you might well get a lot from "Lost in Translation".
Rating:
Summary: Truly Lost in Translation
Review: This movie has the correct title. I tried to watched this movie for 45 minutes and just couldn't take any more. With all the good reviews and nominations/awards that it received, was I the one that was "Lost in Translation"?
Rating:
Summary: Michelangelo or Leonardo?
Review: Bach or Mozart? Proust or Tolstoy? When a work of art managed to do what it sets out to do, when it means so much to some of its readers/listeners/viewers it clearly functions well as a piece of art. Clearly its creator is in control of his or her material. "Lost in Translation" is not perhaps in the league of the artists I mention. But then how many movies are? But above and beyond the artist's ability, and Coppola's is prodigious, it becomes a matter of which means more to me? Michelangelo or Leonardo? Proust or Tolstoy? Those who truly love art for art's sake can appreciate them all, even while being more moved by one than another. But a lot of people are going to tell you the "Mona Lisa" sucks because they'd rather have a nude painted on black velvet. At this level of creation, it's not about how good or bad the work is. It's clearly a terrific work. It's just about taste. If you have any idea that "Lost in Translation" might be to your taste - and many of the five star reviews here (very very few of the one star ones) are detailed enough to let you ascertain this - then you really owe it to yourself to try it. I think it is a stunning and beautiful movie, and recommend it completely to anyone with the soul for it.
Rating:
Summary: Completely deserves the praise
Review: Not excellent perhaps, but at least very very good. Far from finding it slow I wanted it to go on for at least another half hour. Who wants to walk away from people you have come to care for so much?
Rating:
Summary: Translating
Review: Fantastic flick. Saw it three times back to back on a flight to Europe. Great to see it again on video. Murray rules. The guy next to me on the trip turned it off to play video games. Not surprised. It's not for the video game mentality. Read somewhere that the average length of shot in a mainstream movie these days was about 2- 3 seconds. In "Lost in Translation" they're longer. Our characters reflect. We have time to see em do so. Obviously that tells on the attention spans of some people. Saw someone describe a thirty second title shot of Johansson's bottom - and who'd complain - as lasting 15 minutes. And the much vaunted long window shots take less than a minute IN TOTAL. If you have time for any kind of emotional sense at all you can take that. Maybe it's worth considering what you're looking at, or what people are thinking, rather than wanting to rush to the next car crash or explosion. Funny to see the guy before me saying that the movie was "lost in translation" (ha ha ha). He's not the first to coin that gem even in these reviews, but what does it mean? What it means is someone actually said something meaningful and you didn't understand it out of your own limitations (i.e. not understanding the language). That's not something to boast about.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie was Lost in Translation
Review: I can't believe this movie was up for a nomination. Hard to follow and was extremely boring. Not good enough for a made for TV movie. Has to be one of the worst movies I have seen. Don't waste your time or money.
| 
