Movies-TV

One of the best movies I've seen in a long while

This movie was not what I expected -- it was more. These two alienated, lonely souls meet and create a bond that is subtle and powerful. The environment of Tokyo both creates the possibility for their relationship to develop as well as reinforcing the sense of disconnectedness that they feel in many aspects of their lives. The nuanced performances of Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannsen made the film successful -- in many cases, it wasn't what was said verbally, but what was communicated in other ways. Most importantly, I enjoyed the atypical ending -- not your usual Hollywood romance fare. People either love or hate this movie -- see it for yourself and join the debate.

Annoyingly bad yet strangely good

When I came out of the cinema after seeing this film I heard someone saying walking past that it was 'worse than 8 Mile'. That might be a little harsh but I wasn't exactly overwhelmed.As a 16 year old boy I probably wouldn't be expected to enjoy this movie and actually I'm not sure if I did. Having read many of the reviews on this site it has been either 'terrible' or 'beautiful'. I think the film had many positives - brilliant acting from the two leads, especially Scarlett Johansson who I'm sure will have taken over Hollywood in a few years, and Bill Murray shared the camera with her superbly, the cinematography was excellent but there were also some things that I was pondering on the way home on the bus.There were so many scenes in this film that just seemed to be pointless. I understand that Sofia Coppola was trying to show the relationship between Murray and Johansson developing, but I'm sure there are better ways than showing them out clubbing or whatever they were doing. I have to admit being intrigued though at how and when they would meet, and the build up was quite watchable but when they did although the relationship formed between the two was quite affectionate, they didn't seem to do anything thing interesting. I realise that Sofia Coppola probably wanted to stay clear of the traditional American romance, but it just wasn't interesting enough to grip me, and a good film is one that grips me.Despite being relatively bored throughout this film, I wanted to know how their relationship would conclude, and actually was quite satisfied with the happy yet very sad ending which I won't give away.I can see why people would love this film, I could also see why people would hate this film. Me - I'm still not sure. My friends hated it, and I wasn't surprised to be honest. I didn't love it but I definitely think something was there.

Puts modern cinematic dreck into perspective

Every once in a while a movie comes along that reminds you that the film industry isn't completely insane. "Lost in Translation" is one of them. It's the performance of a lifetime for Bill Murray; Scarlett Johansson ably stars opposite him in a performance she should be very proud of; and the screenplay, direction, cinematography, and soundtrack selection are superlative. I won't go into the details, since other reviewers have already done so, and better than I could, but I will say that this is the best movie I've seen in years, Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola both deserve Oscars (whether they will get them is another story), and that it's good to know real *films* are still being made. It's easy to forget that, given the quality of what studios pass off as movies these days. All too often we're treated to very self-conscious performances, with dialogue delivered and scenes shot for the tittilation of the audience. Here, Coppola (and her actors) pull off the remarkable feat of making it seem like there is no acting, no performance as such: you're simply there, along for the ride, just observing. This is such a rare occurrence that many people feel cheated, that there was no story, that "nothing happened"--this couldn't be farther from the truth, although it is true that nobody gets shot, nothing gets blown up, nobody's ripping their clothes off.

Don't be put off, though. It's not your "typical art-house intellectual film." It's a wonderful, bittersweet story of love, friendship, alienation, heartbreak. Neither a drama nor a comedy nor a romance, it combines elements of all three into a movie you don't want to miss. All that, and it features one of the best-performed and affecting endings I've ever seen on film. Like Peppermint Patty, "Lost in Translation" is a "rare gem." Treat yourself, and demonstrate to the industry that Americans actually do like an intelligent, well-crafted movie once in a while.

Best Film of 2003

This film is definetly not overrated. There is a reason why it's 2003's most acclaimed film and why you SHOULD BUY THIS DVD.

The first time I saw it I rolled my eyes and thought OVERRATED. Then I saw it for two for times and, like with most great films, the beauty came out.

I though first overrated because what's the deal about this friendship (Scarlett and Bill's), what's so great about it? It's because it's not really about a great friendship and all that. It's about just friendship and how great it is to find it when you're LOST and ALONE. That's why it's deeper than anything else this year; it's not about LUST or LOVE. It's just the fact a friendship can work w/o really anything in common with these people. That's why in the trailer it says FRIENDSHIP needs no TRANSLATION. Hence, Lost In Translation.

The soundtrack is great and PERFECT. Superbly acted too by Murray and Johansson. The ending will shatter your heart, too.

Kudos to Coppola for a magnificent film. A film you'll love and cherish.

My favorite of 2003, and Bill Murray's best. (spoilers)

I thought this was a really good movie, fantastic actually. I let it sink in for a week before I decided to really say anything about it, and I hope everyone else does to. It had everything I look for in films: humor, romance, adventure, discovery.SPOILERS are going to be throughout this whole thing. Anyway, It just really all clicked together for me. I don't think I had any problems with it at all. I saw nothing morally wrong with it. They were friends, and it never went past that. It became really deep, but they both knew their limits.Personally, I didn't think there needed to be any real deep conversations. That would've been such an obvious and silly thing and waste to put in there. Actually I believe everything that happened between them was real deep. From their 1st meeting on the elevator, it was such a small thing but it was better than any conversation the two could've had. Or when they were just lying in bed and they had a nice little conversation. It was saying what's on your mind and not caring. They had a little fun with it and were very comfortable, that didn't need to go any farther than it did. It really cemented their relationship. And Bob's little foot rub was a very nice touch. There are just so many instances in there of little things like that. They connected and nothing more need be done.Were the spouses flat? Of course, but they weren't the central characters, rounding them out would have only hurt Bob's and Charlotte's story. Those characters served their purpose and that was that.Personal favorite scenes, and I guess these are SPOILERS, were: the hooker sent to Bob, Karaoke, them in bed, meeting Kelley, shooting the commercial, and organizing the prison break.Also, I can't think of a better ending for the movie. It was really one of those moments I wish could capture in my own life. You know those two will always have eachother, even if they never see eachother again.The movie also has one of the better opening shots I've seen in a while. :)A final thought: I feel sorry for anyone that can't appreciate this film, it really just hit me straight in the heart and I could not be friends with anyone that it did not do this to. I understand opinions, and anyone is entitled to not like this film, but in my opinion they are are cold and heartless people. Also, no one can give me an excuse that age has anything to do with it, I'm 18 and I know plenty of people, all varied in age, who enjoyed this movie.Just my thoughts.

Just Lost

I rented the DVD and I kept watching for 102 minutes trying to make sense of it. What I saw was a nineteen year old lonesome female and a fifty-four year old lonesome male staying in the same hotel in Tokyo. I wouldn't expect anything real dramatic to happen between two people at opposite ends of the age spectrum in the real world and absolutely nothing happened between the two main characters in this film.I find it laughable so many people who commented on this film categorized their words as "spoilers." How can you spoil a film which is rotten from minute 21 to minute 102?P.S. Bill Murray still has not performed in a dramatic role worthy of critical acclaim. Stick to comedy Bill.

Lost In Pregnancy

I found this movie a breath of fresh air. So many films nowadays leave nothing up to the imagination, where as Lost In Translation lets you ponder all of the possibilities. I thought the casting was great and cannot wait to see Scarlett Johansson in future films.Although the forum has covered all of the likes and dislikes of this film I was quite surprised that the possibility of Charlotte being pregnant was not discussed. I know, I know let me explain myself here! Well, if you do get an opportunity to watch this film again notice the positioning of her hands in several scenes, she seems to constantly have them comforting/shielding her stomach. She is also overly emotional as most women are when they are pregnant and almost seems to be questioning whether or not her husband will be a good father to her unborn child.I definitely had a number of questions running through my mind when leaving the theater. Several being, Is she on the trip to Tokyo to try and approach the subject with her husband and let him know she is expecting? Does her husband already know? Suggesting she should stop smoking early on in the film. Another possibility though much more taboo would be that she has already decided not to have the child and is therefore not concerned with smoking and drinking. Or could it be that no one knows including herself which would explain her bad habits. Not to mention the baggy clothes throughout the movie. Now before you completely try and discount my theory take the time and watch for yourself and this time pay attention. There is a key conversation between the two leads regarding parenting and how on one hand parenting can be scary while on the other in can be absolutely delightful. Listen to this in depth and notice the placement of her hands.Don't get me wrong the bottom line is that I loved this film although I was not impressed with the editing. It seemed to be very choppy and in some aspects out of sequence, which could be a consequence of studio execs not liking the pregnancy subplot then editing it down to 96 minutes, excluding credits. Would the continuity of this film been more fluid with the pregnancy footage? Well, your guess is as good as mine!

While not for everybody...

This film is not for everybody. The premise is not strange but it does have an exotic air to it. One reviewer here wrote something about it's lack of sensitivity towards Japan and the Japanese. I didn't see that. I saw a film about two displaced people who probably shouldn't have gone to Japan and I never was convinced that their take of the country was meant to be worldly or balanced. They were both their because of circumstances that led them there and their take was never meant to be some utopian ideal. The actor (Murray) was there because the money was too good (presumebly) to pass up. The young wife (Johanssen) was there to be with her new husband, and she did try to take in the culture and the sights. That they amused themselves in their boredom by making light of their circumstances is nothing more than a safety valved to compensate for their loneliness and apprehension about being in that alien place. As the film progressed they got out of their shells and had fun among the locals, and by the end there was no doubt that the memory of the experience would be a high mark among others which would sustain them as they continued in their lives. I really loved to see how this change came about as well as the sexless love affair that ensued (the lack of sexual intimacy put more weight into the affair making it seem somewhat more potent and on some levels more disturbing when regarding their marriage partners) within this setting of glittering towers, high tech commercial visual displays and little restaurants. The population, that was as varried as any metropolitan cities around the world, and despite the language barrier, were also the stars. The fact that Murray's character is uneasy and somewhat flippant toward his hosts is not because he's a creep. These people are just as shallow as handlers on the other side of the Pacific and my guess is that he's disappointed with that realization. I can understand that. How often are Hollywood and advertisement folks painted with a broad brush in the USA? I never hear anyone complain of that treatment. It's the character growth in this film that makes me like them despite knowing very little about them. I've been in strange places with a language barrier and it's often not very pleasant but eventually you get out, meet the strangers, eat their food, drink their beverages and do that weird pantomime with hand gestures and facial expressions, and, if you're smart, a well placed local greeting, and things are no longer very strange.One word of caution. Just because the critics like something, or, heck, even your best friend, that is no indication of whether you will like the film. Don't blame the film because you didn't like it. Their intention is to entertain people and not rob them of their hard earned cash. Next time pay attention to the previews (most filmmakers have very little say about how a film is marketed) and really read those critics' reviews and from a few sources not just one or two. For more than a few people who've reviewed this film I get the impression that they bought into the hype rather than made good individual choices.Never, never buy into the hype. While I like (putting it mildly) this film, I can't see why it was as popular as it was. It's not that kind of film. The last time I saw this happen was with "American Beauty". Another great film but not one that was a crowd pleaser. Both of these films are too layered and subtle to be popular. The viewing audience is not at fault for liking or disliking this film, but neither are the filmmakers. Chalk this up to bad communication.

Ok but beware

It is amazing that this humble little arthouse flick about essentially nothing (shades of SEINFELD!) could pick up any Oscar nominations. Two lonely people meet on a trip to Japan and briefly befriend each other. That's it. Short and not-so-sweet. Brief and only occasionally to the point. Bill Murray is RUSHMORE-fine as an aging movie actor jaded with life and Scarlett J. is fetching as a bored-housewife filly who attaches herself to him -- although scenes of the two getting increasingly intimate with each other play pretty creepy considering the huge age gap between them. The film's biggest fault: It is boring, and ultimately one cannot wait for it to end -- and believe me, it takes its sweet time ending. Recommended for the most foolhardy only.

If you've been there, it's a cliche festival.

Any "round-eye" who's spent more than a vacation in Japan knows that every scene at the beginning of that movie, except where Bill Murray sees his face on a billboard, is a cliche... Boring.I lasted 32 minutes watching the DVD, and that was all I could stand.Then I heard that people who saw it in a theater liked it, but those who saw it on the tube didn't. So I thought maybe I should watch it until the end, which I did. No difference. If I hadn't forced myself to stay awake, I'd have fallen asleep at least twice.Maybe someone can tell me, if the majority of the voting members of the academy didn't see it in a theater but watched the DVD version, how come the movie got the award for best screen play, which to me is a consolation prize for not getting best picture.Something is rotten in Denmark!

B o r i n g

This film was deadly-the angst and ennui of 2 spoiled privileged people is not something which interests me especially. Should we feel sorry for Bill Murray's character,who is being paid $ 2 million for a week's work (plus, of course, being put up at a super-luxury hotel)? Both he and his soul mate are, after all, volunteers-no one has forced them into this situation.This is the life each of them has freely chosen, and they seem to have advantages (material) not shared by most of us.Was this film perhaps made by people who take such advantages for granted?

For those who think they're smarter than everyone else

I've noticed reading these reviews that people who love this movie tend to knock those that don't because they think we wanted "explosions", "jokes about passing gas" or other raunchy comedy scenes. Please don't be fooled. This is not an "art" movie. It's not that Lost in Translation is boring--it's that it has no soul. Coppola does nothing to make the audience care about the charachters, or care about the plot. Those of you criticizing people who didn't like it need to get off your high horses.

I love Sofia Coppola films.

I love to watch anything Sofia Coppola produces. She just has a unique view of love and friendship. I have to admit while watching Lost in Translation initially, I was clueless and totally lost in translation for the first half of the movie. I kept thinking where is this story going. I guess the light bulb finally turned on in the second half of the picture. I had to watch this film again the next night. It was then that everything makes sense and I realized that Lost in Translation is such a special film.

The (Japanese) Emperor's New Clothes

This film falls into the category I call "Emperor's New Clothes" (ENC), as it has achieved fame and accolades for "deep meaning" and "sensitivity" but really is a two hour film about two boring, unhappy people who meet in a foreign county in which they don't speak the language. That's pretty much it, and there's not much too "deep" in flogging the limited cinematic possibilities offered by the premises that some Japanese people don't speak English, that some Japanese people speak English (and sing kareoke) with a heavy accent, and that some parts of Japanese popular culture may be different from what Americans might enjoy. As an American I have often found it amusing that some Europeans who frequent the IMBD boards take great umbrage at perceived slights (real and imagined) inflicted upon their national honor, history and integrity by ostensibly "American" film makers and screenwriters. In some cases it may even be justified. There is no excuse for this movie's outright mockery of the Japanese, however, and it is astonishing to me that this insulting vapid waste of time- a two hour tribute to nothing but Sofia's attempt to reimagine her marriage to Spike, and the time she wasted hanging around Tokyo hotel suites- is somehow being hailed as great storytelling, or great anything. The Japanese whiskey company can pay fading action movie star Bill Murray $2 million to endorse its product, but cannot afford to pay for a competent translator for filming the commercial? A wig magically appears (and just as magically disappears) when young Scarlett is singing kareoke. Bill Murray plays, well Bill Murray, doing his SNL lounge singer character. The final climactic moment of the movie is a whisper not shared with the audience. Is this writing or in fact the absence of writing? Scarlett's song is one made famous by the Pretenders; how fitting indeed: The Emperor has no clothes! The movie features

Bill Murray should get credit for a save!

This movie was saved by a great performance by Bill Murray. Without his quirky and fascinating presence, this film would have nothing going for it.
What a great dramatic actor Murray has become.

Dreadful Movie

I would have to say this was the worst movie I ever went to. I was expecting something funny with Bill Murray in it. It was DREADFUL! Poor acting, no plot, I spent half the movie wondering when it was going to start. My friends all fell asleep, it was soooo bad! There was absolutely no direction in the movie, no buildup, no story, just an old guy meeting a young girl and going to parties, thats it!Enough said where Bill Murray's career is going.

What Was The Point In This Movie? The Best Part Of It Was The Title and Then The End

Why Subject anyone to this gruelling ordeal the story is simple, to simple nothing happens the journey finishes with the characters exactly were they started and just leaves us all a little more confused then when we started watching. Trufully the WORST movie I have seen in a VERY long time, how did this movie win so many awards is a mystery to me. I was left waiting for something to happen the whole movie and all that happens is a kiss at the end which is pointless. Each scene was dragged out 5 minutes to long and repeated the same situation over and over. My final thoughts on this film if you truly despise someone bring them to see this movie and they'll get the point.Why this movie won awards i'll never know but whoever was jugging was watching something totally different to the rest of us.

I don't get all the hype

I didn't get it. This movie received all this hype and I was excited to see it. Boy was I disapointed, this movie had no point, no ending, no meaning. The story is old man meets young girl, old man and young girl party, old man leaves. That's it. Nothing happens. Save 2 hours of your life and pass on this movie.

Liked it better the second time around

I wasn't thrilled with this film when I saw it a few years ago in the theater but after watching it again I found it to be very amusing and entertaining. Murray and Johansson have good on screen chemistry and the situations and settings they are sharing in Tokoyo offer great context for their reactions. Murray actually gives a very understated performance.

A side effect of viewing this is to have a sudden urge to travel to Japan and see for oneself. Pretty cool concept for a movie and well executed.

Sterile and pretentious

Are you familiar with the agony of having to confront most of your friends with your (very) negative assessment of a movie everyone loves? It never hit me so hard as with Lost in Translation, a sad monument to vanity and contempt. Two aspects of that film made it particularly unpleasant: the use of clichés, and the very poor tailoring of scenes.I suppose the foggy poetry of the title explains the distance with which everything is filmed, and the particularly painful impression that everything taking place on the screen is in fact happening behind a bullet-proof window. Every time something a little significant threatens to occur (physical or verbal contact between the two main characters, a twist in the plot...), the scene is cut short. Now I very well understand that this may be considered a rather clever technique, and I can appreciate the understated aesthetics of it all, but this is going too far, and turns into a farce: we're asked to PRETEND that something meaningful is taking place between the scenes, or inside the character's heads. What a fraud.Now back to the multitude of clichés that are used throughout the movie, particularly to depict the Japanese, cultural and everyday Japan, but also show-business relationships, what happens after 20 years of marriage, expatriates, the shallow side of young and successful Americans, etc. This is a feature that many people commended, arguing that it was a rather subtle, elegant and ironic treatment of the issue of cultural shock in particular and inter-cultural contact in general. I only see contempt for the world at large, a very crude perception and rendering of other human beings, and a terribly self-indulgent narration technique. No effort of understanding each snapshot, nor any attempt to brush an overall picture: what was the point?!All in all, I did not enjoy this movie. Except during the very rare moments of humor ("for relaxing time, make it Suntory time"), it was not pleasant at all to watch. 1/10