Rating: 
Summary: Don't Believe the Hype!
Review: I gave this film two stars because firstly amazon requires one star and secondly the acting or lack of is, to use the cliched term, 'real'. Kudos to Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray! And also for cutie Anna Faris for adding a few funny moments.This film is no way a "masterpiece". For starters it is NOT original. It's the basic 'fish out of water' story minus any comedy or social commentary or character devlopment or anything else common to similar themed films. The film is plotless and pointless, which I can easily forgive if it had atmoshphere, emotion, action, humor, substance, eroticism or anything, this film has nothing! This is NOT an artistic film either. The neon colored street-scapes of Tokyo would look just as impressive if this was a porno. Really, this film's only redeaming attribute is that of the actors performances, when one considers that they adlibbed most of their lines, Sofia Coppola's writing and directing deserve no praise. Really 90 minutes of Sofia's death scene from her virtuoso performance in "Godfather III" looped over and over again would be a more rewarding veiwing experience. Don't beleive the hype, there is no more substance in this film than of the other shallow garbage curned out in Hollywood!
Rating: 
Summary: Critics don't review movies correctly...
Review: The critics don't have a clue what they are talking about. What is this? The Coppola girl got an Academy Award for this I think. I believe it was.... WRITING??!?!?!?! Yes... Sofia Coppola got a writing academy award for this movie. There was no plot. There was nothing original and nothing that took any effort. Seriously, they just took some cameras and filmed shots of Japan. That's art? Don't be fooled by the Writing award, I could of written this movie in 3 seconds. Sofia isn't a genius or anything, she probably didn't even use a script. This movie goes nowhere really. I don't watch movies to see the scenery. I don't come out of movies turning to people saying, "Did you see that scenery, that was so f'in brilliant!" This movie is bad and you can't cover that fact up.
Rating:
Summary: Quite Possibly the Worst Movie Ever
Review: The praise and attention this movie was recieving in theaters and the Oscars drove me to check this movie out. I have never been more disgusted at a movie. The movie was so incredibly boring that I found myself drowsing during most of the film. Although labled as a comedy, I did not even get a slight smile out of the film. The acting was shameful, esecially for such icons as Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansen and the storyline itself was so basic and boring the whole point of the movie could have been conveyed in five minutes rather than dragging it out into a whole movie. This movie was a waste of time...don't bother wasting your time or money to see it.
Rating:
Summary: Not really a comedy
Review: I hadn't seen this movie in theatres and heard a lot of good things about it. So when i saw it at the store it became an automatic purchase. As i watched the film i kept waiting for something funny to happen, which didn't. There were some parts that would make you smirk but otherwise this was a boring film. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone for purchase or even rental. Wait until it comes on cable and then you will also wonder why such a talented actor like Bill Murray would waste his time with this movie. It received great reviews but those people must like watching boring, bland movies. Not really a comedy.
Rating: 
Summary: Subtle, charming and lyrical
Review: With Lost In Translation, Sofia Coppola has definitively proven that her film Virgin Suicides was no fluke. She is a profoundly gifted film maker. Both films move at a different pace from much of what passes for cinema these days. Nothing explodes; the lead actors don't hop into bed; and there are no hyper dramatic scenes. Instead, each film unfolds at its own pace. Yet there is nothing boring or stagnant in Lost In Translation. There is an easy naturalism to the plot line and the performances. Of course, achieving this almost serene passage through the story is kind of like a perfect swing of a bat. What appears as effortless is the end result of focus, inspiration and lots of hard work. As I get older ( I'm pushing 50 ). I find that I am constantly amazed by the great poise and skill that so many young actors bring to their work. Scarlett Johanssen is one of these people. My, God, she's a baby! Where does this depth and richness of portrayal come from? When I was her age the two big issues in my life were praying not to end up in Vietnam and seeing to it that my parents didn't know about my partying. When Johanssen is on screen she is mesmerizing, even when she is doing nothing. But what makes this film a cause for celebration to my mind is Bill Murray. I'd pay money to watch him mow his lawn. He has a comic ( or maybe bemused is a better term ) approach to the world that can't be taught in drama school. He is a wonderfully unique actor whose particular skills where used to perfection in this film. His understated but hilarious reactions to Japanese culture are a treat to behold. Murray, like Johannsen, seemingly doesn't have to break a sweat in order to delivery fantastic performances. This film might have been much less successfully absent it's magnificent casting and Coppola's subtle mastery. The plot is almost secondary to the story, because it is the intricate , unique and beautiful relationship that develops between Murray and Johanssen that drives this tale. This is a very special film. It is masterfully framed and filmed. The subtle color palette employed by the cinematography is visually lovely and lyrically incorporates itself into the specific feel of the story as well as its.physical environment. Coppola has truly distinguished herself and has left me very much looking forward to her next project.
Rating:
Summary: A microcosm, but rings true in every aspect
Review: I found this movie to deserve most of the critical hype it's received. This is unusual; critical raves usually leave me cold. Perhaps the finest touch in Coppola's screenplay and direction is that her characters don't emote at each other. I think a lot of viewers here are put off by that; for my part, I found her dialogue and her characters' reactions to various things going on in their lives to be absolutely accurate. Reactions, expressions and the gradual warming to each other of the two unlikely main characters are completely plausible (unlike, for example, the revolting characters in The Hours, another critical fave). If you're looking for excitement, this is not the place to go.
Bill Murray's character is a man who clearly enjoyed earlier parts of his life but is gripped by tremendous late-middle-age ennui. The source of this appears to be his marriage, to a wife whom he once loved but whom he now apparently and somewhat harshly sees as a materialistic scrub. He does not have a lot of juice left. Scarlett's character is nothing BUT juice; her problem is twofold. First, her husband doesn't pay enough attention to her. Second, she does not play ball with her husband's business contacts, which is not a particularly good practice and results in her spending a lot of miserable days in a sterile Japanese hotel room. The bulk of the movie consists of these two flawed characters' efforts to work around their respective mismatched relationships to find something truer and finer, while locked in the surreal environment of the Tokyo Ginza.
Perhaps the finest moment comes at the end, when Murray realizes that there is no way he could ever maintain a relationship with this girl, but also appreciates the way in which she gave him a spark of energy that he thought he had lost forever. Again, no hysterics or melodrama; his final statement to her is whispered into her ear and you cannot know what it was he said unless you're practiced as a lip-reader. A very good touch to conclude this film which never insults the viewers' intelligence.
Rating: 
Summary: Great acting, but then there's the movie...
Review: No doubt, this movie is the defining accomplishment of Bill Murrary's long career. Scarlet Johansson gives another fantastic performance (as in "Girl with the Pearl Earing"). What's more, their chemistry on screen is the best I've seen this year. Certainly these are some of the tasty ingredients needed to cook up a great film, but as Sophia Coppola will learn in what figures to be a long and decorated directing career, you need something more. At times while watching "Lost in Translation", I felt just that - lost. The relationship between Scarlett's character (the exact name eludes me) and her husband is not given enough time on screen for the audience to find out exactly why she is so unhappy with him, especially if her discontent is such that she is willing to persue a relationship with someone twice her age. This is my main problem with the film among others, but I did rate the movie a three which, in my book, means it was good, not great, and not quite worthy of an Oscar (sorry Miss Copola). Like I said, the chemistry is definatley there, and that in itself makes the movie quite an enjoyable experience. Although this film fails to really get off the ground in terms of the plot (or lack thereof) and leaves much to be desired , it succeeds in capturing the beautiful simplicity of needing someone - if only for a single, vulnerable moment.
Rating:
Summary: Underwhelmed
Review: I came away from this movie feeling very underwhelmed. Far from being the tour-de-force that many critics made it out to be, "Lost in Translation" was, in my view, a pastiche of sappy cliches, banal dialogue, and unfunny attempts at humor. Although there was a certain degree of tenderness and poignancy in the relationship between Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson, that could not conceal the fact that something important and quintessential in their relationship was missing, rendering it less than convincing. To be fair, the film started out well. As the two protagonists exchanged pleasantries late one night over drinks, their budding friendship seemed genuine and entirely believable. But, alas, that quality faded as their romance further evolved. Murray appeared increasingly wooden and lethargic, while Johanssen became annoyingly predictable, smiling and chuckling as if on cue. In the penultimate scene, when the two were locked in a farewell embrace, their feelings for each other seemed artificial and, in a sense, unfounded. Small wonder, then, that I was left with the inescapable impression that I had fallen victim to a beguiling swindle.
Rating:
Summary: Masterpiece
Review: What are masterpieces and why are there so few of them? Maybe it's because American filmmakers have lost all semblance of subtlety. If it doesn't have explicit sex, explosions, dogmatic moralizing messages, or a plot that leaves nothing to the imagination it isn't accepted as a "good" movie these days. Lost in Translation is a subtle movie, and an emotional one. I've never felt so satisfied with my experience watching a movie as I did after I left the theatre. Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray are excellent, and their relationship develops beautifully throughout the film. Coppala had done a great job of creating a film that doesn't follow the traditional Hollywood requirements for a "good" movie and instead has given us a masterpiece. She treats Tokyo with a great deal of care, the city itself becomes one of the characters in the movie as Johansson and Murray find themselves lost (and not happily touring) the place. Truly excellent, and in my top 5 movies list.
Rating:
Summary: An exquisite little jewel of a film from Sofia Coppola
Review: After watching "Lost in Translation" the thought that most stuck out in my mind was that this was Sofia Coppola's film. A lot of the talk about the film before the Oscars was about Bill Murray's performance, especially after he won the Golden Globe, but I did not think it was his best work. I would still insist that it was "Groundhog Day" where he displayed the greatest range and had his most heartfelt moments (i.e., the last night with Rita). As for Scarlett Johansson, "Lost in Translation" was not even her best performance of 2003. That would be her role as Griet in "Girl with a Pearl Earring." This is not to say that the performances by Murray and Johansson in this film are not excellent, but simply that both have done better. However, I do not think you can say the same for Coppola, since "Lost in Translation" is the second major film she has written and directed, the first being 1999's "The Virgin Suicide." The key difference is that this time Coppola is doing an original story and not an adaptation. The story is about two lost souls who meet in a Tokyo hotel and spend the night together, but not in the convention meaning of the phrase. Murray is Bob Harris, a movie star who has come to Japan to make a series of commercials for Suntory whiskey for big bucks, and while this keeps him far away from his wife and kids his phone calls home suggest his marriage is as much an obligation as this gig. Johansson is Charlotte, who has been dragged by her photographer husband, John (Giovanni Ribisi) on an assignment and is left to entertain herself while he is running around taking photographs of some minor Hollywood starlet (Anna Faris), and perhaps doing more. Our expectation is that Bob and Charlotte are going to end up in bed together, but Copolla is playing with our expectations. After all, two people can cling to each other through psychological intimacy as well as the physical. These two people are also in the middle of a neon colored alien environment with the late night Tokyo of karaoke bars and pachinko parlors. The dark hotel bar becomes a sort of womb that these two characters have reentered and are going to emerge from at the end of the film changed in some way that Coppola, in a masterstroke, decides not to share with the audience. Bob and Charlotte have their own lessons learned from this experience and Coppola leaves it to the audience you draw their own conclusions. "Lost in Translation" is a meditation, and for those who have not been married or who have never been a stranger in a strange land the realities of this fictional tale may well be lost. One of the reasons it stand out so prominently compared to the other films nominated for Best Picture Oscars in 2003 is that it is an intimate film while the others were either spectacles ("The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World") or larger than life stories ("Mystic River" and "Seabiscuit"). But even an intimate mediation can be a jewel of a film.
| 
