Rating: 
Summary: The Most Boring Movie Ever
Review: I saw this film in the theater. There were only two other people there. It was boring, slow-moving and had no plot. It was about two people being bored in Tokyo.
Rating: 
Summary: it outgrows its expectations
Review: At first I didnt think it was a good movie, dont know why, you know this is just one of those feelings you get before trying out things. Well indeed it turned out to be one of my favorites. Probably because the story line is much similar to one of my life stories. If you want to know how it feels when two complete strangers, with completely different backgrounds, in different stages of life (one just married, one married from 25 years) have the most complete understanding of each other, without necessarily physically penetrating into each-other, in a land of strangers and total non-understanding, then buy this movie and watch it over and over again. Arent we indeed lost in translation in our everyday life, whether in our most familiar neighborhood or in the most outlandish place on earth, and isnt this non-appropriative communication the two main characters have in the movie the best way to get to understand each-other? I'd had given it 5 stars hadnt it been for that final kiss in the movie, we didnt need that final complacency with cliches.
Rating: 
Summary: "Hyuk hyuk. Hey Bob! Thems Japanese sure is quirky!"
Review: My review title kind of sums up some of the obnoxious feeling that pervades this film. "Wow, those Japanese sure are strange and quirky! Look at how different they are from us! It's amazing!" This kind of attitude reminds me an agape-mouthed tourist whose never left Iowa abroad for the first time. The jokes that come from this may be funny for the Mad TV crowd, but left me with a sour feeling. "Wow! It takes Bill Murray five minutes to figure out the hooker is saying 'Rip my stockings' because her 'r' sounds like an 'l.' Hilarious!" Ugh. This movie also trades heavily (I would say shamelessly) on the North American fascination with Tokyo and many things Japanese - the glaring light show of a Ginza, Shinjuku, or Roppongi, the vending machines that dispense panties advertised as "used by schoolgirls" for fetishists, the rapid transit rails that are a wonder to behold, the anime, manga, and video game culture, etc. The problem is, this movie views Tokyo, in my view, with the same kind of slack-jawed provincialism as a 14 year old who just finished watching Evangelion. Not good, especially when you're appealing to a crowd with a bit more select tastes. Through this, we see a manipulation of Tokyo as fabulous backdrop that fills a gaping void in the movie - you can imagine this movie would completely fall flat in another locale. While setting is important, I personally don't feel it should overshadow the characters, *particularly* in a (should be) character-driven movie such as this. Okay, we've been treated to the Frommer's Guide to Tokyo onscreen. This is not why I came to see the movie. And certainly not for the type of humor all too prevalent throughout the movie. I half-expected Bill Murray to start stretching out his eyes and murmuring "Me so solly!" like some 50s comic. Now, that said, once you get past all this, we come to an interesting character study, and this *is* worthwhile. But I'm not enthralled with the acting as our others, here's why. I felt Scarlett Johanssen was unconvincing in her role (casting an 18 year old, as she was at the time, in this role, was a bad idea in retrospect), and too many of her lines rang false. Bill Murray, on the other hand, delivered a fine performance. Replace Johanssen, you still have a movie. Replace Bill Murray, you have nothing. If I have a fault with Murray here, it's that he may not be stretching himself that much in this role - this sardonic, humorously self-depricating man he plays is not that far off from many of his previous roles. Now, with that said, the writing, while a bit sparse at times (coming from the school that's it is better to say too little than too much) is quite good, some of the best of 2003. Much of it does ring true, and it's nicely bittersweet without veering off too much into mawkishness. But as I stated above, some of the other grating elements of this film prevent me from rating it higher than three stars.
Rating: 
Summary: lost trip
Review: so i just finished watching 'lost in translation' & for me, this movie can only be described as strange. i guess the point of the movie was to kind of show you what it's like to be in a foreign place and not understand anything. none of the Japanese spoken in the movie is subtitled. so the viewer is just as 'lost' as the characters. unfortunately, i have been to Japan so all of the things that were 'weird' to the characters were just Japanese to me. Though I don't speak much Japanese, I understood a few things here and there.
I think this movie portrays Americans pretty well tho in a way. Before I went to Japan (I went with a group in high school) we were warned about 'culture shock', I never felt this the entire time I was there. There were things that were different or unexpected and difficult at times with my weak Japanese, but at the same time I am a very accepting person and adaptable.
I have many different nationalities in my family including Black, Mexican, Japanese, and Filipino..so I kinda have to be accepting in order to get along with my family. ***if you haven't seen the movie, maybe don't read this****
The thing that kinda bugged me about the characters, was that they never even really tried to learn about the culture. I never saw them getting any books or trying to arrange a tour guide...all which would have been easy to do in a big city such as Tokyo. Bill Murray's character was a famous actor, he could have easily had a translator accompany him. I guess really now I think the movie wasn't about being lost in translation it was about being lost in life. These two people were lonely and lost and their connection was not only being White-Americans, it was also that they had problems in their marriages and weren't sure about their jobs. This movie is about two depressed people wallowing in their dispair.
****************************************************
Rating: 
Summary: Open-minded
Review: Just like to say, in response to one reviewer, that it's perfectly possible to love Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson AND love "Lost in Translation". I thought "Zoolander" was great and eagerly await "Starsky and Hutch". Also we have Wilson to thank in part for the terrific "The Royal Tenenbaums" which also provided a great but all too short role for Bill Murray. Yes, both have been in their share of rubbish, but they've had their good moments. "Lost in Translation" is just a different, more evocative and poetic kind of movie. I'm happy that all these kinds of movies are being made. I don't see the point in knocking one kind of movie to boost another. I don't want to see the same thing every time I go to the cinema. And "Lost in Translation" is a refreshing change. A brilliant film.
Rating:
Summary: Missing the point
Review: I see so many of the comments on "Lost in Translation" miss the point completely. It is not an "adolescent" exercise in "alienation". The fact that some think it is solely about alienation is just more evidence of not "getting" it. The distance that comes from being in a different culture is secondary. It's about two people facing the possibility of change in their lives who could take one path but instead opt for giving each other strength and support and non-judgemental (unconditional)love. And there's nothing adolescent about that insight, or the beauty with which Miss Coppola puts it on screen. There's much more adolescent about what some people would have preferred to happen. Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an older actor in a marriage that's breaking down. He's earning 2 million dollars for his family by doing an ad that goes against his basic principles as an actor, but still his wife is accusatory, just pragmatic, or cold. At one point he tries to speak to her on the phone, and she cannot really reciprocate. Maybe everyday life has taken the spark out of their marriage. Sometimes people just stop trying. In meeting Charlotte (Scarlett Johannson) he encounters someone at a much earlier stage in her life, but who is also facing disillusionment with her marriage. In Bob's case, perhaps his marriage can be saved, but it is unlikely that Charlotte's will, because she is not part of the problem. Her husband (Giovanni Ribisi) is too glamor-struck to be a good bet for long. Maybe she hasn't come to terms with this yet, but she is aware of it. So the story, no less "mature" than "Brief Encounter" is about what will happen to these two. How far will they go? Is shared sadness a solid grounding for a life? Both of them see possibility here, in a situation where they are isolated from home. Romantically, Bob could fall further for Charlotte, but he'd prefer a meaningless fling, because ultimately it will be less of a life-devastating change. There's a beautiful scene on a bed where many men would have lied, played down the value of their other life, to build up romantic possibility, but Bob settles for truth. Both of them give each other some strength to face what they must face. We don't HAVE to hear what Bob says. We know it is aimed at that. And in a way, whatever we heard would seem a disappointment when we know the emotion behind what is said. One person might love it, another might hate it. But it only needs to mean something to Charlotte. And many viewers here have shown only too clearly they would not get that point whatever they heard. I don't see how people see no plot or no point in any of this unless they define plot solely as conventional Hollywood story-telling. There is plenty of plot, plenty of point for the intelligent viewer, and a hundred times as much characterisation as in most commercial films I've seen in the past decade. Plot, from the Greek Tragedies on down, is characters facing conflict who encounter it and grow. These characters do. The fact that the conflict is internal and not an alien or terrorist or murderer seems to give some people problems. Coppola's judgement in all aspects, from a script with lots of spaces for mood to her handling of actors, is assured and mature. No one but Bill Murray could have played Bob Harris, unless it were maybe a deadpan English actor like Michael Caine. And Scarlett Johansson is both vulnerable and likeable. The film is beautiful to look at too. And yes, it does not race pell mell through Tokyo. It takes time to let you look at things and figure out what people are feeling and thinking. For feeling and thinking viewers it's a rare and beautiful godsend. The reason so many critics voted this a terrific movie is simple. It is.
Rating:
Summary: Am I missing something?
Review: I can't say anything really bad about this film, but I can say I was certainly expecting to be more impressed after hearing and reading all the hype surrounding it! Huh? Did I miss something?! I mean it was very well acted and I do love both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannsen, yet, this movie left me feeling very unfulfilled. Perhaps I was let down due to all the hype, and that of course has everything to do with who the director is and hollywood politics, and nothing to do with the quality of the film itself. Not a bad movie, just not nearly as good as I expected. I anticipated being blown away, I was not, to say the least! If this type of movie is one that appeals to your taste, I won't say don't see it, I suspect you won't hate this movie, but I'll bet you've seen better!
Rating:
Summary: 1 star may be a little high
Review: A boring movie about two boring people married to more boring spouses. Whats up with Japan's nightlife?! Couldn't finish this stinker!
Rating:
Summary: The acting held up a storyline which was a bit meh
Review: 3.5 stars more like...I saw this movie in the theatre first with a Japanese friend (incidently he did not find this movie racist in the least, a lot of the "stereotypes" are true--arcade scene/"Johnny Carson" talk show; conversely there are a lot of American "stereotypes" throughout the movie as well that are mocked). And there are several parts throughout it which are hilarious (anything involving the whiskey commercials--especially the Roger Moore bit). There were occasional parts in the movie that were slow and tedious, but frequently the acting smoothed over some of these slow parts. Character development appears to be a strong point in Coppola's writing. She did an incredible job with the two main characters, of course. But even some of the side characters were well developed (e.g., the stereotypical ditz--based on Cameron Diaz, Scarlett Johannson character's husband, even Bob Harris' wife--who didn't show up at all on screen were well put-together). Overall a decent movie, I've watched it a couple times, and it does get better. Not for people who don't like movies carried by character dialog...
Rating:
Summary: A lovely tale of love and companionship
Review: For those of you who consider this little gem of a movie to be "boring", you have no heart. This is possibly one of the sweetest, loveliest films I've ever seen. It's also fresh and unique, something that can't be said for much coming out Hollywood these days. Murray's subtle performance is both tragic and gently funny--a brillant turn on his part, even more so than "Rushmore," where I felt he was much more cynical and dark. Johannsen is wise beyond her years, and I can't wait to see what she does next--great things are coming to this young woman. The two of them, along with Miss Coppola, succeed in creating an atmosphere of almost tangible loneliness and melancholy, while at the same time carefully piecing together a simple story about two souls finding each other in the most unlikely of settings. This movie isn't just worth watching--it's worth owning and experiencing on a regular basis. As for all you close-minded people who refuse to sit through this wonderful film, you're the reason Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson still have careers.
| 
