Rating: 
Summary: Words upon words
Review: Over a thousand reviews already. Who would expect a movie like this would excite so much commentary? And who would expect it to be so controversial? I don't see anything there that I'd expect people to get so worked up about. I am amused though to see the occasional comment about "insiders" getting rewarded ... obviously from people who have not much idea about how Hollywood works, or who have forgotten that for long chunks of his career even Francis Ford Coppola could not get films made. Money is the key. "Lost in Translation" cost small change for Hollywood. Probably less than the Lord of the Rings trilogy spent on catering. According to one English paper that 4 million dollar budget has so far brought in 44 million, NOT counting DVD (or maybe overseas markets). THAT is how and why films get money in Hollywood. And rewards. Ever known a flop win Best Picture Oscar? Even "Titanic" has never made 11 times its budget. And all the hype in the world can't do that. That gladdens my heart. I can't remember if it was P.T. Barnum or H.L. Mencken who said "No one ever lost money underestimating the (American) public". Most Hollywood films prove him right. The fact that "Lost in Translation" can make money also proves the opposite is true. That you can believe in the intelligence and insight of enough of the public (maybe - judging from what I've read here - more outside of America than in) and still make money. In London we get to see a lot of European movies, and we don't always think a movie is an "art film" just because it has subtitles. Or just because it is not middle-of-the-road. Or because it moves at its own pace. It's true "Lost in Translation" is a young person's film. But let's not forget most of Mozart's work is a young person's work too. When US movies seem to worship the young - at the expense of the mature - I don't even see why anyone complains about youth. "Jaws" was a young person's film too. So was "Star Wars" (which remains irredeemably childish). Maybe people only complain about youth when it makes a movie to which they are unable to respond. "Lost in Translation" speaks to the head and the heart. This story of an actor perhaps a little past his prime, and a young woman who is realising her marriage and life are going nowhere, is a film of rare insight and delicacy. It's beautifully judged, and walks a knife-edge where the relationship of these two adrift individuals in Tokyo is concerned. A directorial or writing mis-step either way and the whole edifice would come tumbling down. The fact that it doesn't is a superb reflection on Miss Coppola's abilities as a director. Many veteran directors could have done no better. There was a time when Hollywood made many intelligent and subtle films like this and huge audiences - even in the US - loved them. One wonders what has happened when doing so causes so much outrage in the modern world. Even "The Best Years of Our Lives" would probably infuriate the Matrix crowd today.
Rating:
Summary: A Gem
Review: A beautiful little film that focusses on a slice of life. It won't be to everyone's taste, but if it is your cup of green tea you will find it absolutely magical. I have an uncle who looks at the world very much like Bob Harris does in this film. It's always fun to be around him. That's one reason I could understand Scarlett's liking for him. In the end it's always better to be a positive person than a negative one.
Rating:
Summary: So well done you forget they're acting
Review: This is quite possibley the best movie I've ever seen. I actually saw it twice in theaters, something I've never done before.
The movie is so effortless in its story telling and the acting is so exquisite it hardly seems to be scripted at all.
People who don't appreciate this movie are simply too stupid to appreciate soemthing that isn't completely in your face all the time. If you want car chases this is not for you but if you're smart enough to appreciate it it's certainly worth owning
Rating:
Summary: A Mystery
Review: It's a complete mystery to me that so many seem unable to appreciate this movie. The same words crop up time and again. "I was bored". Well none of the five star reviewers were bored. They obviously saw something there. I wasn't bored for a second. The film has plenty going on, and for those who see it "Lost iin Translation" is unforgettable and one of the best movies of last year. "It wasn't funny". I thought it was very funny, although in a dry laconic way rather than an immature sixteen year old kind of way. Maybe some were expecting the wrong kind of funny. "It was over-hyped". Well maybe it was in the US. Not in the many other parts of the world that find it completely excellent. "It was racist". Was it hell! Having witnessed real racism in the US I must say I find the idea that Americans might be bemused by the manners and mores of a foreign country a laughable one. I guess that most of all I find it hard to understand the vitriol that such a small, personal, subtle film awakens in some people. It's as if they take it as a personal insult that a film like this even gets made. For myself I take it as a personal insult that so much of what Hollywood crams down our throats is so irredeemably stupid. I saw "Taking Lives" last week and THAT was a film that deserves this kind of anger. Why do so many people apparently not have the necessary equipment to understand or "get" this movie? It's absolutely wonderful. (I noticed - by the way - that one reviewer spoke of Charlotte "cheating" on a faithful husband. I think he walked into the wrong cinema in the multiplex or fell asleep and dreamed a different movie.) For those with eyes to see, "Lost in Translation" is a small, sensitive, beautifully written, superbly-acted, well-photographed look at what is almost a love affair, or maybe it is, but in a different way. Scarlett Johannsen is excellent in both this, and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" - which is also not for those who like more formulaic fare. And Bill Murray is not in a man IN a comedy but a man who uses humour to cope with the world. A lovely, lovely film.
Rating:
Summary: for the shallow idiots out there
Review: #1: This has got to be one of the best movies of the decade. Of course don't just take my word for it, after all, what do I know? But instead, read all of the reviews provided by yahoo. It is quite obvious that a film which received so many A ratings is rare in today's movie industry. In addition, you can check out on Roper and Ebert's webpage since this is enlisted as both of their top 10 movies of the year.
#2: For all the negativity directed at this film,well, you're the reason why Hollywood's movie is getting worse and worse. You people rather watch a film with gory violence and unnecessary nudity than to appreciate a film containing a undercurrent of humanity. What more can I say,I feel sorry for you people.
So sorry if I offended anyone in my review, but hey, that's no reason for you to keep living your superficial life styles.
Rating:
Summary: Really good
Review: This movie is really lovely - if you're expecting Bill Murray via SNL this ain't it! It's very subtle, atmospheric and lovely. Why did so many people expect a big-budget piece of garbage that THE US seems to gobble up? Maybe it's not everyone's ideal, but it's so enjoyable. The flower arranging scene, the Roxy Music moment, and especially the end. We're not supposed to know what he said to her.
Rating: 
Summary: Dull and too realistic
Review: This has to be the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. Overrated. I do like movies that delve in the human condition. But this movie was missing something. What it did was identify the problem but it did not attempt to solve the problem. That can work with some stories but not this one. Even the so called fun shots were really boring. The photography was good. The acting was on target. And the story had potential. This movie is a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: A movie about communication
Review: This is a beautiful movie about communication. How the differing history and mindset of people make it hard to understand and relate to eachother. Also, without a good way to communicate, people distance eachother and make caricatures of their environment. This is why the movie in the beginning emphasizes the problems the japanese director and Bob have without a proper interpreter. Why the young girl and Bob connected was because they were both in the same situation in life. The age difference didnt matter because they could communicate and understood eachother. I dont think the movie is boarderline racist. Coppola presents the asian people like that because that are our own prejudices. Illustrating the point even more. This is not a movie for everybody. If you are in for an emotional and thoughtful movie I would very much recommend it. It was one of the top 5 movies last year.
Rating:
Summary: Wickedly Smart
Review: The best movie I have seen in ages. Though many people found it over their heads and missed most of the humor and didn't see how truly dazzling the story is. Going beyond the cliched older man/younger woman relationship, Lost in Translation has a great father/daughter type relationship that shows how anyone can get lost.
Rating:
Summary: This is Oscar material?
Review: Wow, this movie was very boring. The whole movie was nothing but scenes put together of two boring people doing nothing in Japan. There was a scene that was about 3 or 4 minutes long that showed nothing but Bill Murray's character trying to golf. It wasn't funny, and had nothing to do with the movie. Also, this movie makes the Japanese look like they're stupid, which is definitely not true. It also portrays Japan as a boring, terrible place, which it is not. My whole family hated this movie, and said that it was one of the most boring ones that they had ever seen. I don't get why this movie was rated so high with critics, and why it got any nominations at all at any of the award shows. It was boring, unfunny, overhyped, and was lost in stupid scene after scene.
| 
