Rating: 
Summary: I hated it
Review: but then I found out it was a spoof to fool all the wannabe intellectuals. They have identified themselves here with their 5 star reviews.
Rating:
Summary: woof this one's a dog.
Review: Nothing more to add other than to gloat over my very clever subject heading.
Rating:
Summary: terrible times 2
Review: simply writing this to add to the one star reviews and offset a lengthy 5 star review. the sky is very pretty tonight.
Rating:
Summary: terrible
Review: simply writing this to add to the one star reviews and offset a lengthy 5 star review. I like videogames, expecially Zelda games.
Rating:
Summary: Overhyped Movie
Review: I, like many others, rented this film on its release hoping to see a brilliant, emotionally moving film that lived up to the high ratings it received. Unfortunately, what I was left with was a film that is based on too many cliches, lack of emotion, and racial stereotypes.
Regarding the cinematography, the direction is very nice and the settings used in each scene are beautiful and well-put together. But that is the only good thing about the film.There is absolutely no emotional connection between the protagonists and the viewers. Mainly because Coppola was trying too hard to make the movie imitate those beautiful French and Japanese films where scenery/setting brings out the emotions and symbolism plays a large part. As a result, it appears she completely forgot about human emotions and interaction and we're left with nothing; no chemistry, no happiness, nothing. The film is made up of cliches and it's not very hard to figure out the ending. Cliche: Bob, an aging man with a distant wife and child, is left with a wilting career and has no choice but shoot whiskey commericals. He's out in Tokyo, a completely different country, and is lonely and bored. Charlotte, a young wife of a photographer, is left with an unsatisfying relationship (distant as well) and is also lonely and bored. So, what else can you do but put these two together and have them explore Tokyo and apparently "connect" and develop an understanding relationship? Before the film even ends, it's obvious that Bob would never sleep with Charlotte and that these two would never end up together because their relationship is built on lonliness and understanding, not real love. There are others cliches in the film that are pretty obvious (Charlotte's husband knows a brainless girl who just so happens to be blonde, Bob sleeps with the red-headed stage singer and regrets it after seeing Charlotte, etc.) Very boring indeed. The racial stereotype and tones would have to be what disgusted me to no end. I'm not exactly sure what Coppola was trying to achieve by doing this, but the outcome is typical narrow-minded Western behavior and views on other cultures. With the whole "R" and "L" humor (which, by the way, I don't find so humorous...the Japanese can't shift their tongue to make the "R" sound like an "R", so it ends up sounding like "L" Loger Moore, Lip my stocking, Lat Pack, etc. What's so funny about mockery?) throughout the film, the man named Charlie Brown, the guy who "surfs", the chef with the black toe...it got old fast and it left me feeling more enraged than delighted. Not to mention the fact that Coppola's scenes of typical "Japanese life" were only a percent of what real Japanese do and act/behave. Maybe Coppola should've done some more research instead of spending a few months there and instantly proclaiming herself an expert on Japanese culture. It distressed me to see the "Lost in Translation" win for "Best Film" and Coppola win for "Best Screenplay" during the Independent Film Awards. Sophia Coppola reaching the same potential as her father? I don't think so.
Rating: 
Summary: some people love it, some people despise it.
Review: kind of depends who you are, what you're interests are, where you are at in life and what you are open to. i THOROUGHLY enjoyed this film. For me it brought up all the feelings and emotions of what it is to be the lost american in a society they don't fully understand or blend into. Aside from that is all that goes into a relationship and the definitions of love, friendship, companionship. Some think it's almost racist, I think it's more culture clash. I think it's done in that way to show HOW different cultures can be. I really enjoyed this film, but I also know people who TRULY HATED it, and I can also understand why they hated it. It's definitely not for everyone. I think it's all about the perspective, interests and level of expectations you have when you go in... and whether you're willing to let go and get lost in the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Burgundy ...
Review: Just as he's asked by his wife back home to rhetorically choose carpet colors, (any color providing it's burgundy), Copola's family should perhaps stick to making wine.* This film is an embarrasment to all; Bill Murray for accepting the role, Sophia for using her political clout to be "noticed", Francis Ford for bankrolling it, Hollywood for racially stereotyping (again), the "Academy" for further self-ridicule; interesting to note how many "reviewers" here have to hurl personal insults at those who rate it low, rather than further hype the film? *Copola's wine making skills are even questionable ... at a local Oscar party, not only were they pouring his wines, but a rep of his was there, and serving "champagne" in cans. Where does commercializm end? And why didn't Murray's character pitch his wines rather than Whisky ... :) Sorry, if you want cinematography see the classic Days of Heaven.
Rating:
Summary: No Good, Two Thumbs Down Down Down!
Review: This movie is a waste of good money.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Plot
Review: I read in a review that this movie was a cinematic tribute to Tokyo, compliments of the producer/director. Certainly there is some fine and clever filming going on in this movie, providing us with glimpses of bustling, neon-lit Tokyo. There are also quiet spots within the city - a burbling little brook with walking stones set in it and one absolutely tender scene showing a man and his bride, newly wedded or perhaps about to be, walking through a park. The bride ever so hesitantly and shyly puts her hand in that of her husband's.
Maybe it's symbolism. Because that is about the best you're going to see of relationships in this film.
A good movie, like a good book, should not only entertain but leave you with food for thought, hopefully something positive or at least moving. Not in this film.
Quite simply, the plot is icky. Also a sordidly familar one that Hollywood can't seem to get enough of, that of the December-May relationship: the old-guy-meets-young-girl kind -need you ask? Bill's character is Harris, an old guy (sorry, Bill!) acting in a whiskey commercial filmed on location in Tokyo. If he'd just kept to the funny parts (there are several great comedic scenes where Bill has not lost his touch), I'd be viewing this movie over and over again. But instead, Harris meets this young girl-child named Charlotte, played well by Ms. Johansson. Charlotte is unhappily married but has come to Tokyo with her husband anyway and spends lot of her time moodily lounging about in a hotel room, half-dressed, staring out the hotel window. This is the same hotel where Harris is staying and the two meet, first on the elevator and later in a club and so on until they are actively seeking one another out.
Destiny? Soul-mates? An unblemished chemistry between these two? Nope. Any biologist would recognize this kind of attraction. Most of the time, Harris behaves like a hebephile smoothly playing on a frustrated and lonely bride who in, her turn, fantasizes that this father-figure will be the experienced lover her shallow husband isn't.
The reason this kind of script leaves me cold is it's flimsy contrivances. In order to justify this kind of infidility and pretty it up, the movie attempts to wring empathy from the viewer for these two so-called protagonists by ladening them with one-dimensional 'bad-guy' spouses. Charlotte's husband is conveniently neglectful and insensitive, fascinated by a old flame whose valley-doll performances are to make Charlotte appear deep and mature in comparison. Harris's wife is nothing more than a fax appearance and phone-voice, depicted as laconic and harsh at the same time. We are never allowed to know more of her, except that Harris spent 25 years with the biddy. Depressed and resigned as he seems to be about it, he still musters up enough energy to woo a young girl and sleep with a nightclub singer, all in the same week. Of course, we're given to understand that it's really Charlotte he wants to sleep with, but even so. He takes to this situation of criss-crossed attractions the way a fish takes to water.
Close to the end of the movie, we view these two persons lying platonically in bed side by side, portraying themselves as deep-thinking individuals sharing a sweet loneliness, when really we know they just want to be doing the wild thing like bunnies. Fortunately, and in an unsurprising twist, the affair remains unsullied by the final act (due to possible legal complications, perhaps?. One last cloying goodbye scene on a busy Tokyo street and then thank god, it's over!
To sum up, Lost in Translation had good photography going on with some great actors doing their best in it. But if you're looking for a less contrived story of passion along with cinematic splendor, watch a National Geographic documentary instead.
Rating: 
Summary: Not for everyone's taste for sure :-p
Review: I am almost sorry for those who dislike this film--what bigoted mentality do you have, in which small-minded environment do you live not to realize the charm and wit of this film and its protagonists?? Orange County or the like? Bah!!!
|
