90 recensioni
Yes, Bill Murray, in a tailor-made role, is excellent and memorable. Even in a weak movie, he was probably worth of being considered for an Oscar nomination. However, in my humble opinion, this is a wanna-be art-house film masquerading as a movie that succeeds in neither endeavor. The Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay nominations are ridiculous.
Scarlett Johanssen and Bill Murray are two bored, disaffected, cynical, and self-absorbed Americans who are emotionally distant with their spouses. We spend two hours watching them make fun of a Tokyo they refuse to make the effort to understand or get personally involved with. He's there, his acting career 20+ years behind him, to film a series of Suntory whiskey commercials. She's there because of her husband's work as a photographer. They make fun of friends and acquaintances and their own spouses for their superficialities. She quickly diagnoses that he is in typical middle-age male crisis; he quickly admits to it. They poke fun at the absurdity of life, and basically enjoy a platonic "affair" -- a loose and transitory union of two lost souls with little better to do, who recognize that misery loves company.
That's it -- that's the entire script of the movie. Period. The rest is all "intriguing" camera angles revealing the shallowness of Japan, about 36 of Bill Murray's best deadpan facial expressions, all three of Ms. Johanssen's facial expressions, and an uninspired soundtrack.
In short, nothing happens, and unlike better-albeit-flawed art-house films like My Dinner at Andre's, nothing intriguing or remotely philosophical is explored. This is actually reminiscent of 1973's "a Touch of Class" without the sex or the contrived situations. given a choice of watching relentless ennui or sex and contrived situations, I'll take the latter every time.
All of this, and most especially the absence of traditional contrivances such as plot and resolutions, makes it hip and original and a darling of the critics. For those of us who travel for business, it's a two-hour compilation of the evenings we spent in various cities between appointments hanging out at hotel bars with nothing better to do. This is boring in your own life and even less interesting watching two people who give you no reasons to care about them -- since they don't care about themselves or anybody else -- being even more bored.
This also reminded me quite a bit of 2002's "About Schmidt", but not quite as pathetic. About Schmidt made an additional mistake not made here -- casting Jack Nicholson as a midwestern Mr. Everyman!
I think it's ludicrous that no American female has ever been nominated for Best Director before Sofia Coppola. The only thing more ludicrous would be if she were to win the award for this pretensiously underwritten time-waster.
This should have been called Bored in Japan -- just a tad more interesting than watching your Uncle Mike's vacation movies -- and even then, only if your Uncle Mike were not played by the ever-amazing Bill Murray. If you are an industry professional trying to impress your colleagues, you probably will enjoy "Lost in Translation." If you wish to be entertained, rent something else.
Scarlett Johanssen and Bill Murray are two bored, disaffected, cynical, and self-absorbed Americans who are emotionally distant with their spouses. We spend two hours watching them make fun of a Tokyo they refuse to make the effort to understand or get personally involved with. He's there, his acting career 20+ years behind him, to film a series of Suntory whiskey commercials. She's there because of her husband's work as a photographer. They make fun of friends and acquaintances and their own spouses for their superficialities. She quickly diagnoses that he is in typical middle-age male crisis; he quickly admits to it. They poke fun at the absurdity of life, and basically enjoy a platonic "affair" -- a loose and transitory union of two lost souls with little better to do, who recognize that misery loves company.
That's it -- that's the entire script of the movie. Period. The rest is all "intriguing" camera angles revealing the shallowness of Japan, about 36 of Bill Murray's best deadpan facial expressions, all three of Ms. Johanssen's facial expressions, and an uninspired soundtrack.
In short, nothing happens, and unlike better-albeit-flawed art-house films like My Dinner at Andre's, nothing intriguing or remotely philosophical is explored. This is actually reminiscent of 1973's "a Touch of Class" without the sex or the contrived situations. given a choice of watching relentless ennui or sex and contrived situations, I'll take the latter every time.
All of this, and most especially the absence of traditional contrivances such as plot and resolutions, makes it hip and original and a darling of the critics. For those of us who travel for business, it's a two-hour compilation of the evenings we spent in various cities between appointments hanging out at hotel bars with nothing better to do. This is boring in your own life and even less interesting watching two people who give you no reasons to care about them -- since they don't care about themselves or anybody else -- being even more bored.
This also reminded me quite a bit of 2002's "About Schmidt", but not quite as pathetic. About Schmidt made an additional mistake not made here -- casting Jack Nicholson as a midwestern Mr. Everyman!
I think it's ludicrous that no American female has ever been nominated for Best Director before Sofia Coppola. The only thing more ludicrous would be if she were to win the award for this pretensiously underwritten time-waster.
This should have been called Bored in Japan -- just a tad more interesting than watching your Uncle Mike's vacation movies -- and even then, only if your Uncle Mike were not played by the ever-amazing Bill Murray. If you are an industry professional trying to impress your colleagues, you probably will enjoy "Lost in Translation." If you wish to be entertained, rent something else.
Lost In Translation is a very well-crafted film. Lance Acord's cinematography is nothing short of masterful. The acting from the leads is nuanced, characters memorable.
The film's casual racism, however, is deeply regrettable. Almost every scene revels in the throwaway mockery of the Japanese: accents, language, culture, stature: all are subject to a torrent of snide belittling by the film- makers. What's more shocking is that more attention hasn't been called to this. Put another way: if this film was set in Africa and contained similarly juvenile mockery of the populace, there'd doubtless be uproar.
All in all, a well-made film severely let down by an unforgivable streak of crass racism.
The film's casual racism, however, is deeply regrettable. Almost every scene revels in the throwaway mockery of the Japanese: accents, language, culture, stature: all are subject to a torrent of snide belittling by the film- makers. What's more shocking is that more attention hasn't been called to this. Put another way: if this film was set in Africa and contained similarly juvenile mockery of the populace, there'd doubtless be uproar.
All in all, a well-made film severely let down by an unforgivable streak of crass racism.
- twilightseer
- 14 mar 2005
- Permalink
I profoundly disliked the comparison of the cultures implicit in this film. In my opinion, the japanese are portrayed as stange people, impossible to understand by the "normal" (american?) ones. The main characters don't even try to understand or analyze anything, they just bore and think about how life is empty and senseless. I don't think that if I was visiting another country, always fascinating and new, I would spend all my time at the hotel, drinking and flirting with men of my father's age. Modern life obliges to be adaptative and comprehensive. Wide horizons are so rare in american movies.
I expected something less deceiving from Sofia.
I expected something less deceiving from Sofia.
- criminalhorn
- 24 apr 2004
- Permalink
- some-like-it-hot
- 4 set 2019
- Permalink
Ok, good stuff first: the aesthetics of the movie are very nice. Static lingering shots of the interesting cityscape of Tokyo, a cool, clean touch.
Unfortunately this aloofness carries over into the acting, or rather non-acting, because the protagonists hardly say anything, especially to each other.
Bill Murray is perenially bewildered and accepts whatever comes his way with vacuous boredom. Johansson looks nice with her big, strange puffy lips, but also extremely uninteresting. None of them have any meaningful lines, their characters are only sketched slightly and don't develop.
The minimalist approach might be considered cool and very 2003, but it really translates into a couple of characters that just don't touch the spectator.
Only redeeming feature: the superficial view into Japanese culture and a city we hardly ever see portrayed in the West.
(Japan and Japanese culture by the way only serves as a backdrop which the protagonists can be amused by. Yes, we know Japanese people pronounce "l" as "r", but in our time and age and in a supposedly serious movie, couldn't we have had a bit of a deeper interaction with Japan than this, in the movie?)
Unfortunately this aloofness carries over into the acting, or rather non-acting, because the protagonists hardly say anything, especially to each other.
Bill Murray is perenially bewildered and accepts whatever comes his way with vacuous boredom. Johansson looks nice with her big, strange puffy lips, but also extremely uninteresting. None of them have any meaningful lines, their characters are only sketched slightly and don't develop.
The minimalist approach might be considered cool and very 2003, but it really translates into a couple of characters that just don't touch the spectator.
Only redeeming feature: the superficial view into Japanese culture and a city we hardly ever see portrayed in the West.
(Japan and Japanese culture by the way only serves as a backdrop which the protagonists can be amused by. Yes, we know Japanese people pronounce "l" as "r", but in our time and age and in a supposedly serious movie, couldn't we have had a bit of a deeper interaction with Japan than this, in the movie?)
With The Godfather part 3, Sofia Coppola proved that acting isn't her forte. So what about directing? Well, Lost in Translation is my first taste of Ms Coppola behind the camera, and let's just say; if her other films aren't as good as this, then I hope this is my last taste also.
Lost in Translation is the tale of two people that suffer from insomnia and have hit a dry patch in their lives. The two are in the foreign land of Tokyo, Japan. They are outcasts in this land, not just because of the language, but the culture too. So what we basically have here is a story of two fish out of water that find romance. You may notice that my plot analysis isn't very detailed, and that has a reason; this movie has very little plot. It has a premise, and that's all; and all it does is play out from that premise. The movie is very random as it doesn't follow a set formula, and although that can work for some movies because it can be spontaneous; it doesn't work here. The film is very subdued, too subdued in fact, and after a while you are instilled with a notion that nothing out of the ordinary will happen in this movie; and it doesn't. This will be to the movie's credit in some people's opinions, because, as we all know, movies that are slow are ultimately more intelligent than anything that is entertaining. And as you should have gathered from that last sentence, I was being sarcastic.
That's my first major criticism of the movie; it settles into itself to a point where after a while you forget you're watching a movie, and it just seems like you're simply watching a fish bowl with two people in it; and although this is good in terms of realism, and I don't doubt that Sofia intended it that way; movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, and although some people would disagree; movies are also meant to be entertaining, and I for one don't watch movies to not be entertained; Lost in Translation fails in both of those respects.
In it's bid to realistic; Lost in Translation is ultimately a hollow movie experience. It's a simple tale of two people, and that's all that can be took from the film. The characters lack depth; he's a bored middle aged man going through a mid-life crisis and she's a bored wife that is doubting her two year marriage; we don't learn anything about the two characters other than this, and a few minor details such as the fact that he has a wife and kids. In one scene, through dialogue, Bill Murray gives Scarlett words of wisdom regarding children; and this is as deep as the film gets. She says that the advice he gives is different from everything she's heard regarding the subject, but it's merely blatantly obvious advice that any fool with kids or an imagination could conjure up; and this film does that a lot. Two people have empty lives, they find love and they like it. Yes, that's great; now where's the point? I imagine that people with empty lives can relate to this film, but I can't see why.
Had the film have had depth of character, it would have improved it vastly. Take Brief Encounter; a similar film along similar lines, but it worked. It worked because it was fleshed out; we can see the main character's predicament clearly, which enables us to get inside of her head and see why she wants to spice up her life by having an extra marital affair. Here, we have none of that. Scarlett Johansson's husband is about as much use in the film as the taxi driver that took them to a party, or the waiter that served them drinks; here's there so we know he's there, but we don't learn anything about the couple's predicament, so why should we care if she finds her life empty and hollow? We know nothing about her. It's similar with him; he's a big movie star that is past his prime and now he's advertising whiskey in Japan, so what? We're supposed to empathise with this guy why? That's another major criticism of this film; the characters have no feeling, they're just there.
Despite the review so far; Lost in Translation is not completely void of positive aspects. It has one in particular; the cinematography. Although I don't think the way Tokyo was photographed in this movie is among the best examples of ___location shoots of all time, and it certainly isn't enough to carry the film; it is good. However, although it is well photographed; Tokyo is not a nice place. Take Roman Holiday; another similar film along similar lines. That film also made the best use of it's surroundings to increase the impact of the film, the only difference is that it's locations were beautiful. Rome is a beautiful city; the style of the architecture, the relaxed feel of the city is incredible; Tokyo looks cheap and nasty. This is very much an opinion; but Tokyo is a hive of plastic rubbish and is overall a place with a very low quality feel. The town is not beautiful; in Roman Holiday, the ___location almost took on a life of it's own, and it increased the potency of the film; here all we have is an awful metropolis that offsets the potential beauty of the story. The hosts of the film; the Japanese, were also not portrayed in the best light.
Onto the acting, then. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were praised for their performances in this movie, and they both got the essence of their characters right. Bill Murray did, at times, look like he was trying to be funny and never really pulling it off, though. However, I cant give any plaudits for the acting. The characters in the film are, like the rest of the film, subdued, and I'm sorry; but anyone can do subdued. I can mope around looking solemn and bored, and so can anyone else; it's the roles that require charisma and the actor to work that should win the awards; not stuff like this. This is typical awards fodder, however; and I'm afraid it will continue to be like this and I will continue to be baffled by it. But neither Scarlett, nor Bill won the award; and neither Scarlett nor Bill deserved the award.
Sofia Coppola can create a picture that's memorable; the shot where a pink wig wearing Scarlett puts her down on Bill's lap sticks out in my memory, as does the scene with Bill on the bed; but when it comes to creating a scene, Sofia doesn't do memorable, I saw this film a little under two hours ago, and I've forgotten bits of it already. This is mostly due to the fact that in it's 95 minute (or so) running time, nothing really happens; and if a movie is forgettable, it cannot be a masterpiece. And forgettable, Lost in Translation is. The scenes tend to lack things which would make them memorable because they're so subdued and they fade into each other; which although this creates fluidity in the scenes, it discredits the movie because nothing really stands out from anything else.
Overall, Lost in Translation is not an awful film; it does have its plus points, but it's not a great film either. Lost in Translation is forgettable, it doesn't stand up, in any way, to the Romance genre's true milestones; Casablanca, It Happened One Night, Roman Holiday etc. It left me feeling cold at it's conclusion. And that's not a note that a masterpiece should end on. Lost in Translation is not a boring film, and it does have enough to hold the audience's interest throughout, but once the movies ends and the curtains close, does Lost in Translation really have an impact?
Lost in Translation is the tale of two people that suffer from insomnia and have hit a dry patch in their lives. The two are in the foreign land of Tokyo, Japan. They are outcasts in this land, not just because of the language, but the culture too. So what we basically have here is a story of two fish out of water that find romance. You may notice that my plot analysis isn't very detailed, and that has a reason; this movie has very little plot. It has a premise, and that's all; and all it does is play out from that premise. The movie is very random as it doesn't follow a set formula, and although that can work for some movies because it can be spontaneous; it doesn't work here. The film is very subdued, too subdued in fact, and after a while you are instilled with a notion that nothing out of the ordinary will happen in this movie; and it doesn't. This will be to the movie's credit in some people's opinions, because, as we all know, movies that are slow are ultimately more intelligent than anything that is entertaining. And as you should have gathered from that last sentence, I was being sarcastic.
That's my first major criticism of the movie; it settles into itself to a point where after a while you forget you're watching a movie, and it just seems like you're simply watching a fish bowl with two people in it; and although this is good in terms of realism, and I don't doubt that Sofia intended it that way; movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, and although some people would disagree; movies are also meant to be entertaining, and I for one don't watch movies to not be entertained; Lost in Translation fails in both of those respects.
In it's bid to realistic; Lost in Translation is ultimately a hollow movie experience. It's a simple tale of two people, and that's all that can be took from the film. The characters lack depth; he's a bored middle aged man going through a mid-life crisis and she's a bored wife that is doubting her two year marriage; we don't learn anything about the two characters other than this, and a few minor details such as the fact that he has a wife and kids. In one scene, through dialogue, Bill Murray gives Scarlett words of wisdom regarding children; and this is as deep as the film gets. She says that the advice he gives is different from everything she's heard regarding the subject, but it's merely blatantly obvious advice that any fool with kids or an imagination could conjure up; and this film does that a lot. Two people have empty lives, they find love and they like it. Yes, that's great; now where's the point? I imagine that people with empty lives can relate to this film, but I can't see why.
Had the film have had depth of character, it would have improved it vastly. Take Brief Encounter; a similar film along similar lines, but it worked. It worked because it was fleshed out; we can see the main character's predicament clearly, which enables us to get inside of her head and see why she wants to spice up her life by having an extra marital affair. Here, we have none of that. Scarlett Johansson's husband is about as much use in the film as the taxi driver that took them to a party, or the waiter that served them drinks; here's there so we know he's there, but we don't learn anything about the couple's predicament, so why should we care if she finds her life empty and hollow? We know nothing about her. It's similar with him; he's a big movie star that is past his prime and now he's advertising whiskey in Japan, so what? We're supposed to empathise with this guy why? That's another major criticism of this film; the characters have no feeling, they're just there.
Despite the review so far; Lost in Translation is not completely void of positive aspects. It has one in particular; the cinematography. Although I don't think the way Tokyo was photographed in this movie is among the best examples of ___location shoots of all time, and it certainly isn't enough to carry the film; it is good. However, although it is well photographed; Tokyo is not a nice place. Take Roman Holiday; another similar film along similar lines. That film also made the best use of it's surroundings to increase the impact of the film, the only difference is that it's locations were beautiful. Rome is a beautiful city; the style of the architecture, the relaxed feel of the city is incredible; Tokyo looks cheap and nasty. This is very much an opinion; but Tokyo is a hive of plastic rubbish and is overall a place with a very low quality feel. The town is not beautiful; in Roman Holiday, the ___location almost took on a life of it's own, and it increased the potency of the film; here all we have is an awful metropolis that offsets the potential beauty of the story. The hosts of the film; the Japanese, were also not portrayed in the best light.
Onto the acting, then. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were praised for their performances in this movie, and they both got the essence of their characters right. Bill Murray did, at times, look like he was trying to be funny and never really pulling it off, though. However, I cant give any plaudits for the acting. The characters in the film are, like the rest of the film, subdued, and I'm sorry; but anyone can do subdued. I can mope around looking solemn and bored, and so can anyone else; it's the roles that require charisma and the actor to work that should win the awards; not stuff like this. This is typical awards fodder, however; and I'm afraid it will continue to be like this and I will continue to be baffled by it. But neither Scarlett, nor Bill won the award; and neither Scarlett nor Bill deserved the award.
Sofia Coppola can create a picture that's memorable; the shot where a pink wig wearing Scarlett puts her down on Bill's lap sticks out in my memory, as does the scene with Bill on the bed; but when it comes to creating a scene, Sofia doesn't do memorable, I saw this film a little under two hours ago, and I've forgotten bits of it already. This is mostly due to the fact that in it's 95 minute (or so) running time, nothing really happens; and if a movie is forgettable, it cannot be a masterpiece. And forgettable, Lost in Translation is. The scenes tend to lack things which would make them memorable because they're so subdued and they fade into each other; which although this creates fluidity in the scenes, it discredits the movie because nothing really stands out from anything else.
Overall, Lost in Translation is not an awful film; it does have its plus points, but it's not a great film either. Lost in Translation is forgettable, it doesn't stand up, in any way, to the Romance genre's true milestones; Casablanca, It Happened One Night, Roman Holiday etc. It left me feeling cold at it's conclusion. And that's not a note that a masterpiece should end on. Lost in Translation is not a boring film, and it does have enough to hold the audience's interest throughout, but once the movies ends and the curtains close, does Lost in Translation really have an impact?
First time I take the time to write a review... I'm sorry but I just can't get what people LOVE about this film... I mean, seriously? The boring vision of two boring people about a foreign culture is supposed to amuse us? I love Scarlet, I love Murray but... Really? We have a beautiful young lady with no direction in life and a middle-aged actor who is going through a -sorta- crisis. I mean, being 2003, do you really still have the need of making fun of languages you can't speak? To make jokes about culture that's not yours? I seriously wonder how Hollywood still deems itself the center of worldwide culture... Call me shallow all you want, I'm going back to my popcorn-cinema. Thanks for nothing you all intellectual-good for nothing-reviewers. I want my hour and 40 minutes back!
Director Coppola taps into that feeling of being lost we get every once in a while and turns it into a 2-hour movie.
To magnify and sustain feelings of isolation, artificialness, and being 'on the outside', Coppola plops her two characters in Tokyo, a perfect choice thanks to its distinct 'foreign-ness' but lack of 'ickiness'. Dialogue is generally at the level of the stuff you do your best to ignore while walking down the street, so when a good line of scripted dialogue comes out of a character's mouth (e.g. Scarlet's phone call early in the movie), it seems out of place. You can tell it had been in Coppola's little diary for awhile.
Personally, I'm waiting for Lost in Translation II, where instead of two rich white people, the Murray character is a Colombian on a one-year visa working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week in an assembly line at a Toyota factory sending his entire paycheque home to his family, and the Scarlet character is a 17-year old Filipino with a fake visa whose passport has been confiscated by the yakuza and is being forced into prostitution.
But I suspect the people who like Lost in Translation wouldn't like it so much if the characters had real problems.
A disappointing 3/10 for the silly Lost in Translation.
To magnify and sustain feelings of isolation, artificialness, and being 'on the outside', Coppola plops her two characters in Tokyo, a perfect choice thanks to its distinct 'foreign-ness' but lack of 'ickiness'. Dialogue is generally at the level of the stuff you do your best to ignore while walking down the street, so when a good line of scripted dialogue comes out of a character's mouth (e.g. Scarlet's phone call early in the movie), it seems out of place. You can tell it had been in Coppola's little diary for awhile.
Personally, I'm waiting for Lost in Translation II, where instead of two rich white people, the Murray character is a Colombian on a one-year visa working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week in an assembly line at a Toyota factory sending his entire paycheque home to his family, and the Scarlet character is a 17-year old Filipino with a fake visa whose passport has been confiscated by the yakuza and is being forced into prostitution.
But I suspect the people who like Lost in Translation wouldn't like it so much if the characters had real problems.
A disappointing 3/10 for the silly Lost in Translation.
What this movie intends to do -- to create a troubling dissonance in the viewer through subtle and realistic scenes of claustrophobic alienation -- it does remarkably well. The acting, the script, the camera-work is all spot-on.
Unfortunately, its deft touch left me feeling deeply depressed. This film's manifesto seems to be that none of us can ever truly connect to anybody else. No attempt at love (friendship, devotion, or romance) can ever successfully overcome the barriers between people because of our different lives and circumstances, regardless of whether we share the same culture or not.
It's like an entire film of watching people cling to a life raft, only to discover that no rescue is possible regardless of what they do, or where they go.
How completely depressing a lesson.
Unfortunately, its deft touch left me feeling deeply depressed. This film's manifesto seems to be that none of us can ever truly connect to anybody else. No attempt at love (friendship, devotion, or romance) can ever successfully overcome the barriers between people because of our different lives and circumstances, regardless of whether we share the same culture or not.
It's like an entire film of watching people cling to a life raft, only to discover that no rescue is possible regardless of what they do, or where they go.
How completely depressing a lesson.
Bill Murray being nominated for Best Actor? Huh????
Bill Murray just played Bill Murray. Except he had less lines than in any movie he has been in. I saw this movie one day before the Academy's just to prep myself. Did you watch the clips of each actor as they showed best actor clips? BILL MURRAY WAS BEING BILL MURRAY! No show of emotion. Just dry deadpanned line delivery. And don't get me wrong I like Bill Murray. But he did not deserve to be nominated and neither did this picture. Also this picture won like best comedy at the Golden Globes and it wasn't even a comedy.
It was very very slow. Actually I think Scarlett was better than Bill.
Really all I have to say is that this movie definitely shows that their are politics in the Academy. My mind it flabbergasted why Bill and this picture got nominated. Are they trying to push Sofia Coppola as the next big director? Or is it something else. Who has naked picture of who???? Also 8.0???? WHAT?!?!?
Bill Murray just played Bill Murray. Except he had less lines than in any movie he has been in. I saw this movie one day before the Academy's just to prep myself. Did you watch the clips of each actor as they showed best actor clips? BILL MURRAY WAS BEING BILL MURRAY! No show of emotion. Just dry deadpanned line delivery. And don't get me wrong I like Bill Murray. But he did not deserve to be nominated and neither did this picture. Also this picture won like best comedy at the Golden Globes and it wasn't even a comedy.
It was very very slow. Actually I think Scarlett was better than Bill.
Really all I have to say is that this movie definitely shows that their are politics in the Academy. My mind it flabbergasted why Bill and this picture got nominated. Are they trying to push Sofia Coppola as the next big director? Or is it something else. Who has naked picture of who???? Also 8.0???? WHAT?!?!?
- Zingbot_9000
- 29 feb 2004
- Permalink
Watching which, i was almost about to sleep. But then by the time i was about to completely give in, the movie was over. A complete drag all the way to the end. I really don't understand what the heck in this movie was so good that it is so highly rated. I mean it is not even anything special. The story is so damn ordinary, but that's not the point. There are movies with ordinary or clichéd story lines but still they are in fact very well executed. This one is a 1 hour 40 minutes of bombardment of clichés and boredom. Hell even the actors' faces look so bored as if they are themselves asking 'when the heck will this movie be over'. And the director has succeeded in making the viewer feel the same too. Total waste of 1 hour and 40 minutes.
- ravikant21490
- 10 set 2008
- Permalink
I do appreciate the themes and the performances of Lost In Translation, but it was one of the most desperately dull experiences I've had. The film is completely overrated and the dialogue is not engaging. Not particularly funny or interesting either. I was looking through the length bar at the bottom the entire time. However, it is definitely a film that you either love or hate. I just happen to be on the latter end.
- heathrobertj
- 15 mag 2022
- Permalink
I really cannot understand people who support films like this. All they do is promote ageist values and mid life crisis! And then these same people seem to think that they are somehow more spiritual. Of course looks, colour, nationality etc does not matter but AGE certainly does. Hollywood loves to churn out garbage like this and the critics will lap it up because it just cements the values of Hollywood! What would have been beautiful would have been an ageing man finding a(shock horror!!) ageing woman! Or man or whatever! It seems like these sort of films will continue to condition the masses. Cannot believe Bill Murray wasted his talent on this sort of film
The jokes about the Japanese people saying lat pack and lip my stalkings were not funny at all. Nothing happened in the movie. Two bored Americans meet in Japan and have a little fun and they like each other. That's it. It was an average movie. It didn't deserve an Oscar for writing. The acting was great, the girl was very cute. But I never even moved from my seat through the whole thing. I didn't think it was bad, but it wasn't great. It could have been better if they got involved in the Japanese culture, not just make bad jokes about it. I don't understand why people like this movie so much. Maybe they have never been out of the United States
- feriosvides
- 29 feb 2004
- Permalink
- Sister_Spooky
- 26 ott 2008
- Permalink
Lost In Translation is about an actor (Bill Murray) who arrives in Tokyo to film an advert for Whisky. At his swanky hotel, he meets a young woman called Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and over the duration of this movie bemoan how dull and tedious their lives are.
And how right they are. Bill Murray has done much better than this in other films like Mad Dog And Glory and Ghostbusters, roles where he had a likable funny charisma. Here, he sleepwalks around playing the actor Bob Harris like a former shadow of himself, perhaps this is the point, to show how TIRED he is of life.....yawn.
Then there is Scarlett Johansson. A very pretty and attractive model who walks around certain places in Tokyo exploring the culture with a big dumb look on her face while her director husband is away filming on ___location. Why did she win all this praise for this role? Has she been in a box office smash since? The Island anyone? There's nothing really badly made on a film making note with Lost In Translation, it has a not bad soundtrack and a nice opening shot of Scarlett Johansson's butt over the titles, but apart from that there's not anything terribly interesting going on.
Dull as ditch water.....three out of ten.
And how right they are. Bill Murray has done much better than this in other films like Mad Dog And Glory and Ghostbusters, roles where he had a likable funny charisma. Here, he sleepwalks around playing the actor Bob Harris like a former shadow of himself, perhaps this is the point, to show how TIRED he is of life.....yawn.
Then there is Scarlett Johansson. A very pretty and attractive model who walks around certain places in Tokyo exploring the culture with a big dumb look on her face while her director husband is away filming on ___location. Why did she win all this praise for this role? Has she been in a box office smash since? The Island anyone? There's nothing really badly made on a film making note with Lost In Translation, it has a not bad soundtrack and a nice opening shot of Scarlett Johansson's butt over the titles, but apart from that there's not anything terribly interesting going on.
Dull as ditch water.....three out of ten.
Disappointment doesn't begin to describe this film. Especially after hearing all the rave reviews.
My biggest complaint was that the story plodded along at an absolutely GLACIAL pace. No appreciable plot/character development after the first fifteen minutes. The story took way WAY too long to tell, and in the end there was hardly anything to tell at all.
In lieu of actual story pacing, though, was some very effective imagery. Many fine and varied shots illustrated the isolation the main characters felt, and especially how foreign other lands appear to us in midst of them. Often I was reminded of the combined wonder and slight unease I felt when I was overseas, experiencing new cultures.
But in the end, the story was too sparse, too slow. In fact, for me, there were but two significant moments in the entire film that had any meaning whatsoever. Worse still, after all my patient trudging through this trying, aimless "tale", waiting for something to happen to qualify it as a story, I was rewarded with a big let-down cop-out of an ending. I could not have been more disappointed.
Great imagery, very fine photography, but those qualities cannot begin to make up for this waiting game of a film. The fact that this time-waster garnered such praise makes me ashamed to be part of the American movie audience.
Seems every year, we as Americans are enthralled by the crappiest movies. Any film that goes nowhere is "deep," any story that means nothing is "abstract," any tale that takes forever to tell is "epic."
But then, contrast this film with the trash-heap of "blockbusters" Hollywood regularly turns out like "Fast and Furious," "Legally Blonde," or any number of inane action/chick-flick movies and their improbable sequels, and "Lost in Translation" becomes art-house genius.
Come on, America! Aren't we more intelligent than this? No wonder the rest of the world hates our guts! We deserve it!
Let's get our brains out of neutral, folks.
My biggest complaint was that the story plodded along at an absolutely GLACIAL pace. No appreciable plot/character development after the first fifteen minutes. The story took way WAY too long to tell, and in the end there was hardly anything to tell at all.
In lieu of actual story pacing, though, was some very effective imagery. Many fine and varied shots illustrated the isolation the main characters felt, and especially how foreign other lands appear to us in midst of them. Often I was reminded of the combined wonder and slight unease I felt when I was overseas, experiencing new cultures.
But in the end, the story was too sparse, too slow. In fact, for me, there were but two significant moments in the entire film that had any meaning whatsoever. Worse still, after all my patient trudging through this trying, aimless "tale", waiting for something to happen to qualify it as a story, I was rewarded with a big let-down cop-out of an ending. I could not have been more disappointed.
Great imagery, very fine photography, but those qualities cannot begin to make up for this waiting game of a film. The fact that this time-waster garnered such praise makes me ashamed to be part of the American movie audience.
Seems every year, we as Americans are enthralled by the crappiest movies. Any film that goes nowhere is "deep," any story that means nothing is "abstract," any tale that takes forever to tell is "epic."
But then, contrast this film with the trash-heap of "blockbusters" Hollywood regularly turns out like "Fast and Furious," "Legally Blonde," or any number of inane action/chick-flick movies and their improbable sequels, and "Lost in Translation" becomes art-house genius.
Come on, America! Aren't we more intelligent than this? No wonder the rest of the world hates our guts! We deserve it!
Let's get our brains out of neutral, folks.
- Brave_Sir_Robin
- 3 apr 2004
- Permalink
Beware. This is not a great film, or even a good film. If fact, it is not even a film at all. Instead, the experience of sitting in a movie theater watching this pretentious claptrap for 2 hours gives one the illusion that they are on a long dull flight to Japan. You just want it to end! But it won't.
And you have to keep waiting and waiting, all the while you have nothing to do to pass your time. Exactly how many times can you look at your watch during this movie? There is no plot to help pass the time. You keep waiting for something to happen, but it doesn't. You keep waiting for something poignant or something funny. But nothing happens.
Just postcard like snippets of Japan, which is akin to flipping through a tourist magazine while on your long range flight. There is a ridiculously long scene of bad Karaoke in some Japense dive bar. Funny? No. Pointless? Yes. But so is the rest of the movie.
Do you get the point? Actually, one good way to get across how boring this movie is, and to simulate what it feels like to watch it, is to keep writing the same thing over and over again for the next 1,000 lines. But then you'd stop reading. Just like you are going to want to stop watching this film.
The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack. But the movie is so God awful, you don't want anyone associated with this movie to make any money whatsoever, so to spite yourself, and the folks associated with this movie, do NOT buy the soundtrack. You can download it from various sources for free.
And you have to keep waiting and waiting, all the while you have nothing to do to pass your time. Exactly how many times can you look at your watch during this movie? There is no plot to help pass the time. You keep waiting for something to happen, but it doesn't. You keep waiting for something poignant or something funny. But nothing happens.
Just postcard like snippets of Japan, which is akin to flipping through a tourist magazine while on your long range flight. There is a ridiculously long scene of bad Karaoke in some Japense dive bar. Funny? No. Pointless? Yes. But so is the rest of the movie.
Do you get the point? Actually, one good way to get across how boring this movie is, and to simulate what it feels like to watch it, is to keep writing the same thing over and over again for the next 1,000 lines. But then you'd stop reading. Just like you are going to want to stop watching this film.
The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack. But the movie is so God awful, you don't want anyone associated with this movie to make any money whatsoever, so to spite yourself, and the folks associated with this movie, do NOT buy the soundtrack. You can download it from various sources for free.
Bill Murray plays a famous actor named Bob who goes to Japan to do an ad campaign for big bucks. The problem is, he's experiencing a bit of a crisis before he arrived (a sense of disconnection with his wife and kids), and being in a totally alien culture, he is even more lost and alone. Some of the observations about the way that the Japanese do business and behave are pretty interesting, but there aren't enough of them after the first twenty minutes or so. Having a Westerner come to Japan and feel lost and overwhelmed is an interesting starting point for a film. Unfortunately, the film never really seemed to go anywhere after this interesting start. Plus, the characters (especially Bill Murray's) ultimately turned out to be rather selfish, so I really didn't care about them.
The main theme of this movie is a sense of disconnectedness. Unfortunately, in making the two leads (Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson) feel alone and disconnected in Japan, the audience, too, feels pretty much the same way about these leads as well as the movie as a whole. As a result, the movie is extremely somber, sterile and moves at a snail's pace. Both Johansson and especially Murray seem to almost sleepwalk through their roles--showing very little energy or emotion. Overall, it's a sometimes interesting but sleep-inducing experiment that failed. After seeing this and THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, it seems Murray's career is stagnating. While critics might enjoy these films, they are NOT what the average person would enjoy. As for me, I much prefer the funny Bill Murray of WHAT ABOUT BOB? and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE.
By the way, if you DO like seeing Murray play a zombie-like character like he did in this film, then I suggest you also watch BROKEN FLOWERS--another recent film where he gives an identical performance with absolutely no emotional range.
The main theme of this movie is a sense of disconnectedness. Unfortunately, in making the two leads (Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson) feel alone and disconnected in Japan, the audience, too, feels pretty much the same way about these leads as well as the movie as a whole. As a result, the movie is extremely somber, sterile and moves at a snail's pace. Both Johansson and especially Murray seem to almost sleepwalk through their roles--showing very little energy or emotion. Overall, it's a sometimes interesting but sleep-inducing experiment that failed. After seeing this and THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, it seems Murray's career is stagnating. While critics might enjoy these films, they are NOT what the average person would enjoy. As for me, I much prefer the funny Bill Murray of WHAT ABOUT BOB? and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE.
By the way, if you DO like seeing Murray play a zombie-like character like he did in this film, then I suggest you also watch BROKEN FLOWERS--another recent film where he gives an identical performance with absolutely no emotional range.
- planktonrules
- 31 mar 2007
- Permalink
Although the pop-group, "Coldplay" evokes supposed musical melancholy to a large mass of people, to me it evokes money-making nostalgia for a time when one wasn't such a money-making sellout. I.e. it sounds weak, not weepy; bored, not melancholic.
Thus is my argument for this film and most of Sofia Coppola's work. Her movies are kitschy pop film pieces, masquerading behind the imagery of deeper film-makers before her. A la Coldplay versus Radiohead, post-punk or Elliott Smith.
I, like every other dopey American, thinks night-time shots of Kyoto are mysterious and alluring and would like to be jaded and melancholy in a crazy Japanese metropolis. However, I don't know if this movie does much for me in painting that cheesy fantasy.
I really don't know about the character developments here. Giovanni Ribisi's convenient photographer "character", John, is unrealistically aloof from his mopey wife, Charlotte (Scarlett!). He's friends with this girl, Kelly (Anna Farina, famous from Scary Movie) who is freaking annoying on the deep end of the scale. She evokes the lowest-common-denominator of annoying, so that anyone seeing the film can understand how stupid she is in comparison to the lead characters. 'Course, John (Ribisi) doesn't notice this annoying twerp like Charlotte does! Zoinks! Now Charlotte feels soooo socially alienated!!!
I mean, geez, could you spell it out any more clearly for us, Mme. Directeuse? With characters like these, this movie borders on social indoctrination! There are a bunch of moments like this. The wisdom Bill Murray's character Bob (What About Bob?) imparts to Charlotte in these situations is basically on the level of an older brother telling his younger sister not to care what stupid frat jocks think about her booty.
If there's a reason this movie evokes emotions you can't quite put into words, it's because the movie doesn't know what it's trying to do. This movie is like some meandering indie-rock song that SOUNDS kind of melancholy, but is not concisely written with any theme or message that stands out.
Highlights: --Scarlett Johannsen crying at the Buddhist-Shinto shrine --the see-thru underwear on her butt at the opening shot --scientologists in lead roles --Bill Murray crying (he's a tragic character on a level unbeknownst to himself)
Thus is my argument for this film and most of Sofia Coppola's work. Her movies are kitschy pop film pieces, masquerading behind the imagery of deeper film-makers before her. A la Coldplay versus Radiohead, post-punk or Elliott Smith.
I, like every other dopey American, thinks night-time shots of Kyoto are mysterious and alluring and would like to be jaded and melancholy in a crazy Japanese metropolis. However, I don't know if this movie does much for me in painting that cheesy fantasy.
I really don't know about the character developments here. Giovanni Ribisi's convenient photographer "character", John, is unrealistically aloof from his mopey wife, Charlotte (Scarlett!). He's friends with this girl, Kelly (Anna Farina, famous from Scary Movie) who is freaking annoying on the deep end of the scale. She evokes the lowest-common-denominator of annoying, so that anyone seeing the film can understand how stupid she is in comparison to the lead characters. 'Course, John (Ribisi) doesn't notice this annoying twerp like Charlotte does! Zoinks! Now Charlotte feels soooo socially alienated!!!
I mean, geez, could you spell it out any more clearly for us, Mme. Directeuse? With characters like these, this movie borders on social indoctrination! There are a bunch of moments like this. The wisdom Bill Murray's character Bob (What About Bob?) imparts to Charlotte in these situations is basically on the level of an older brother telling his younger sister not to care what stupid frat jocks think about her booty.
If there's a reason this movie evokes emotions you can't quite put into words, it's because the movie doesn't know what it's trying to do. This movie is like some meandering indie-rock song that SOUNDS kind of melancholy, but is not concisely written with any theme or message that stands out.
Highlights: --Scarlett Johannsen crying at the Buddhist-Shinto shrine --the see-thru underwear on her butt at the opening shot --scientologists in lead roles --Bill Murray crying (he's a tragic character on a level unbeknownst to himself)
The only thing about this turkey with which I was happy was that I watched it on someone else's DVD and it did not cost me any money to be bored to death. Older washed-up movie star Bill Murray goes to Tokyo to star in an ad campaign for a liquor company. Not only is he lonely and bored (yawn), but he is disappointed in his current life. His wife and family back in the States seem to have other things on their minds than him. Scarlett Johansson is a young woman in Tokyo also lonely and bored (yawn) and disappointed in her current life. Not only is she shacked up with a guy more interested in his career than her, but he has left her alone while he goes on a job assignment without leaving her so much as a sex toy with which to amuse herself. She and Murray meet. They play grab-ass for several days. What is this strange relationship: father/daughter or a "two ships who passed in the night" romance? Who cares? Finally he goes home and leaves her to pine away. I gave this movie a 3 only because of my respect for Murray's abilities demonstrated in other movies.
In general I like slow-paced films when others do not, but I found this film tedious. I can't quite grasp what it is about it that people could have liked so much. Two sad characters, living lonely moments in Tokyo, build an unlikely relationship. I disliked the script, and some of the scenes were just damned silly! Do we really wish to see a group of half-drunken people singing Karaoke badly? Bill Murray was as dull as I've ever seen a character in a film, why on earth would Scarlet Johansson's character have had any interest in him? He did nothing to interest her, on the contrary, he was just plain boring, as often as not, lost for what to say in the many moments of silence during the film. I simply cannot understand why this film has received such rave reviews.