Recensioni degli utenti

I usually agree with the general consensus on what makes a good film and what doesn't, but very occasionally I find myself watching a widely popular film and wondering what on earth people saw in it. 'Lost in Translation' is one of those films. It did nothing for me and I thought it was very average and even forgettable.

It doesn't matter to me how slow or subtle a drama film is, but I do expect it to connect with me and make me feel something. 'Lost in Translation' left me cold. I found it to be dull and uninspiring. The characters are wooden and emotionless. The plot does nothing and goes nowhere.

Maybe I will rewatch this film on another day and see it in another light, but on first viewing, 'Lost in Translation' is lost on me.

Yes, the cinematography is gorgeous. And yes, the soundtrack's great, if not always appropriate. But sadly many otherwise intelligent people have been fooled by this surface gloss into thinking this is a piece of high cinematic art. It isn't.

What it is is a mean-spirited little film about two spoiled Americans who, given an opportunity many of us would dream of - a week's free stay at a luxury hotel in one of the world's most exciting cities - do nothing but mope around moaning about how bored they are and how they can't sleep, occasionally breaking off to laugh at those crazy Japanese. The old "flied lice" jokes may have been funny when Benny Hill was doing them thirty years ago, but surely things have moved on? As well as an unpleasant vein of racism, there is also a seam of snobbery running throughout. Is Charlotte - lying around in her hotel room, living off her more proactive, more talented husband - really any better than B-movie starlet Kelly? The latter may be an airhead, but she has her own career and is enjoying the opportunity life has granted her while it lasts. And is Bob - who has travelled across the globe, missing his son's birthday in the process, just to prostitute his talent by filming a whisky commercial - in any way superior to the Japanese director and TV presenter he sneers at? Coppola clearly thinks so.

Ah yes, Bill Murray. How ironic that an actor whose reputation was founded on the film Groundhog Day should spend the following years endlessly playing the same character with diminishing returns, fooling critics into thinking he's more than a one-trick pony with that hangdog expression. Which brings me to irony no.2. During the video shoot scene, Murray's character pokes fun at Roger Moore, as if to say that Murray himself is the vastly more versatile actor. He isn't.

The film's one saving grace is Johansen who, despite the blankness of her character, lights up the screen every time she appears and has you looking at your watch when she leaves. A stunning performance, wasted on such otherwise vapid material. A film which promises an intellectual fix but ultimately says nothing.

The pacing was very slow. Although i get the vibe it's trying to give off and that it's supposed to make you sympathize with the characters by feeling their loneliness. I couldnt sit through the entirety of the movie without wanting to watch another movie.

To me, every single aspect of this movie came out as very superficial. The plot, the exploration of the Japanese surroundings, the characters and their bond and even the photography, which although beautiful, was not enough to save this movie, or to make it comparable to the slow paced European films whose main quality is the cinematography.

I believe the idea could have been explored much more deeply. The film could have either kept the aesthetics and lost the romance (or whatever that was, the inexistent relation between the characters) OR spent more time developing a connection which would have made the "emotional" scene at the end justified.

Not knowing which direction you are going in or having a midlife crisis are not good enough premises to assume depth in the story.

'Brilliant', 'amazing', 'fabulous', and 'breath taking' are just few of the adjectives attached to this Oscar winning masterpiece by leading critics and movie aficionados everywhere, which is why I have to consider the possibility that maybe I just didn't get it.

Or maybe slow paced movies with nothing much happening in it are not my cup of tea. Or maybe - ironically enough - the movie maker's intended message and commentary got lost in translation. For whatever reason, I remain underwhelmed.

It's the tale of Bob, a veteran, famous Hollywood actor who has is on a business trip to Japan, where he's commissioned to act in an ad for a Japanese whiskey brand. He feels secluded and lost in the city, and welcomes the friendship of Charlotte, a newlywed bride of a celebrity photographer, who is also lonely as her husband stays busy on shoots.

The friendship blossoms into a deeper connection that stays unstated, but poignant. I have this feeling that this blossoming process is the central part of the movie that raked in most of the rave reviews, but frankly, I think even this part felt a bit forced. It's not the actors - they all do a fabulous job - but rather, the storyline that felt too thin. The entire movie is way too slow, but the pace at which the central characters get close - that seems too fast. Perhaps they could have put stronger focus on their connection... More time for them, maybe less time making one dimensional caricatures of the Japanese.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Maybe it just isn't my kind of movie. Hmm... I never knew I had a 'my kind of movie' thing. :-/

I like "slice of life" movies ... but this was just boring and pointless. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Murray was at his best in "What about Bob?" and here he's just a boring, washed-up actor who meets some boring, rock photographer's wife. They stumble around Tokyo and never really get to know one another... yawn.

Am I supposed to be impressed that a great comedic actor can play a boring real guy that's bored... So what?! Life is boring, that's why we go to the movies - to escape from boring experiences like this. Anyone could have played this role by just playing himself. Maybe I just didn't get it.

This has to be one of the most overrated movies. Yes, it is shot beautifully, but it is because it takes place in none other than - Japan. If they were to take the same story and then film it in America, I guarantee you - it would not be praised this much.

Don't get me wrong, I give credit to Bill Murray as well; if it wasn't for him, I'd probably fall asleep during the movie. He added the subtle comedic act - not too forced - which was good for me (I hate forced humor like in movies such as "Along Came Polly" or "Scary Movie 3") to make me laugh a bit. If this movie didn't have that, then it would've been really dull and boring, since the story wasn't doing it and neither was Scarlett Johansson's character (Charlotte). Even Sofia Coppola (the director) mentioned how she wouldn't have made the movie if Bill Murray were to decline the part - surprise surprise.

People who love this movie say there's much more to the story, but there seriously isn't much going on! (Some audiences just like to create their own imagination/story than what the movie is actually showing) The story is just plain and simple. Basically, it's just two lonely Americans connecting together in Japan. Great. Who doesn't get lonely when they're far away from home or a loved one? I could only come up with these reasons why people love this movie:

1.) The viewer has never traveled to Japan, so watching this movie was exciting to them. Or the viewer just has a love for Japan.

2.) The viewer has/had their own lonely mid-life crisis and can/could relate to the characters. (Even though the story is just so brief and simple... hmm, they must get easily touched.)

3.) The viewer likes the "real-life" style of the movie with slow pacing, unlike the typical Hollywood look movies. Kind of like films such as Magnolia and Punch Drunk Love. (I do like this kind of style... but the story was just not there.)

4.) Fan of any Bill Murray movie. (This one is lame--I know, but there are hardcore fans out there)

If you have some time to waste, then you'll probably have the patience to watch this entire movie. But if you don't - don't watch it. It will feel like it just drags on and all you could do is sit there and wait for something to happen - nothing mind blowing will ever happen in the movie! (Unless you consider a Japanese strip club with business men as shocking). And as I mentioned before, if you don't have the money to travel to Japan; or have no clue what Japan looks like (and would like a general idea); or just have an interest in Japan; then you might enjoy this movie, since you might feel like you're traveling with the characters. But that's about it.

Actually, take a trip to Japan and visit Shibuya, Tokyo (there is a short scene in the movie) and just stand there - you'll see more stuff happening there than in this entire movie.

Oh, about the whole hotel shower scene in the beginning where Bill Murray is supposedly too tall for it... he could've just adjusted the thing even higher! He just stopped it half way! And one more thing... please - it's 'Moshi moshi', not 'Mushi mushi' like some idiot in the movie was saying.

**** Some minor spoiler: To people who saw the movie *** Seriously, what is so beautiful about the STORY? Charlotte is a snob who attended Yale and thinks low of others. It seems to me that she was only interested in Bob Harris (Bill Murray's character) because he was a star. And yes, she knew fully well he was a star. I really doubt she would've approached him if he was some stranger. And as for Bill Murray's character, he did end up cheating on his wife by sleeping with an old lady! I mean, come on.... what was that all about?!

The ending just had no meaning... I doubt their experience together changed them. It was basically a "one night stand" kind of thing... yeah, isn't that beautiful? Others can disagree with me, but that is what the movie is SHOWING. So the only beautiful thing about this movie were images of Japan. That's it.

The movie should be called Blue Balls in Tokio instead of lost in translation.

By now everyone will know it is an emotionally engaging film, and on this aspect alone I'm sure it deserved all it's plaudits.

However, I'll admit to not being able to sit through the whole film as the racist stereotyping made me very uncomfortable and the supposed jokes such as tall Bill Murray and short Japanese people in the elevator was eye rollingly bad, as was the fact the shower nozzle was too low for him - a terrible slap stick moment.

The Japanese people were dehumanised and were just foils for repeated obvious jibes, which in the end forced me to terminate watching it which was a shame.

I think I'll await the Japanese remake of this US film! (which would be an ironic reversal of the usual way of things, i.e. a poor US remake of top Japanese film).

I try to understand why this film is so trumpeted yet a lot of the points raised as to why this film is sublime are simply untrue: They say it's funny- well no it isn't - there are very few jokes or particularly humorous moments in the film and certainly if you are a fan of Murray don't expect the usual ream of wisecracks. It has no plot and very little happens, Tokyo as a backdrop never really integrates with the characters and they seem condescending to the Japanese and their "Engrish" (how well can these Americans speak Japanese?). The supporting characters are caricatures with little depth (Johansson's screen husband is often described in reviews as flippant or self obsessed but there's little actual screen evidence for this or the motivation of any characters but the two leads). The central performances are fantastic but the story is so slow burning with so little happening that I failed to care at all. The film seemed vague, insubstantial and to be honest, dull.

In the twilight of his career as a movie star, exhausted Bill Murray (as Bob Harris) takes flight to Tokyo, to take an assignment as pitchman for a Japanese whiskey. Apparently, Mr. Murray is emotionally estranged from his American family. He shoots his ad spots, then goes out for a drink. At the bar, he attracts the attention of beautiful Scarlett Johansson (as Charlotte). Recently graduated from Yale, with a major in philosophy, Ms. Johansson seems to be having an early-life crisis to parallel Murray's mid-life crisis. Johansson is, apparently, being taken for granted by photographer husband Giovanni Ribisi (as John).

Writer/director Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" is, like the lead characters, a bit of a bore. She does, however, score with an interesting and unconventional "relationship" between the characters played by dead-panned Murray and sexy pantie-clad Johansson. Yet, like one of Murray's amusing ad directors notes, there is a certain lack of tension. And, why would two Americans in Tokyo spend so much time in karaoke bars when the city has infinitely more to offer - you can get that stuff here. There was a parade of awards and nominations for Ms. Coppola, Murray, and Johansson, with Sofia's screenplay leading the charge.

***** Lost in Translation (8/29/03) Sofia Coppola ~ Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris

Some films are acquired tastes; there are readily-molded Hollywood blockbusters that leave nothing up for interpretation and then there are desperately quirky, off-beat and artsy 'gems' that leave everything up for interpretation. It is not rocket science to see that Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation mercilessly falls into the latter category. I have great difficulty in enjoying both extremes and tend to prefer more balanced films which is why I never truly took a liking to this film. That, and it sadly never manages to elevate itself above generic 'psuedo-indie' formula.

Perhaps this label is unjustly applied because, on a basic level, Lost in Translation is a strangely enjoyable film about two strangely interesting characters. A 50-year-old man (Bill Murray) and a 20-something woman (Scarlett Johansson) find each other in the exile of the hotel bar in Tokyo; they are both lonely, jaded, and utterly bored with life and thus begin an unlikely friendship in the midst of having nothing to do. Unfortunately, Coppola never lets us get to know them besides that. Instead we follow the two only through an introspective zooming between them and their Tokyo environment, thereby pinning culture contrasts somewhere in between and the latter provides for some laughs in the film.

The majority of this steadicam documentary stalking of Murray and Johansson is a listless, lifeless and pointless diversion that can only be entertaining to viewers who are totally oblivious to Japanese culture as the film clearly expects us to find the mere clichéd culture contrasts to be "breathtaking". Nevertheless, the photography is beautiful and seamlessly snaps up the locations in Japan; you want pick out every scene, frame it and hang it on your wall for the sheer cinematography of it. Soon this process plays on for far longer than it should and Lost in Translation wears out its welcome, clumsily falling back on a plot that is thinner than an Olsen twin. In other words, nothing else happens in the story besides harmonic visuals.

This undoubtedly gives rise to a peculiar pace and this is where the 'acquired taste' truly kicks in. It moves slowly. Real slowly. Some say it epitomizes subtlety and Japanese tranquility and certainly it does; regrettably, it also falls prey to a truly sedative flow. If you were 'hypnotized' by this like many fans claim, it was probably because you were snoozing off. Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray certainly do not facilitate things plot-wise either. Here the film aptly showcases Murray's frighteningly limited range in inhabiting the 'poker-faced cynical middle-aged man' role that he recycles for every comedy and it pairs it with Johansson's comatose charisma and non-acting.

As you can see, I am greatly conflicted when it comes to Lost in Translation. There is an admirable cinematic harmony in the film but it treads the balance between poignancy and pointlessness all too often and no doubt it tips over into listless nothingness a few times too many...

5 out of 10

Before watching this movie I checked everything: rating, parents guide, reviews, awards it got and so on. I was like "yeah, this is what I wanted, romance/comedy with actors I like".

First 10-15 minutes were okay, but then I felt like I was about to fell asleep. Actors were okay, some jokes at the beggining funny, but then everything was gone. I wanted to turn it off, but i watched it till the end thinking "maybe it has unexected ending, at least it won an oscar for best original screenplay". And guess what? Nothing happens. I'm still questioned why it got best screeplay when there was nothing? It's not a bad movie, it's just boring. I slept well after watching it. In my opinion, it doesn't deserve more than 5 stars.

I was on board with this film from the start. I thought it was quiet but said a lot. It's surely a passive almost melodic film that mosies about with a loose story. You are merely a silent observer of two peoples melancholy Tokyo experience. Watching those two people slowly come together was slightly unnerving to me... as their joyous union indubitably rears the ugly head of infidelity. Adulterous behavior doesn't put a smile on my face, whether that be in a physical or emotional nature. The movies nature and message could have led to a deep truthful message. Instead it leads nowhere at all, like a match that fizzles out and dies without even a whimper. Incredibly anticlimactic and ambiguous as to what this film is trying to say. All I know is that it showed and romanticized a relationship I found wrong.

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a faded movie star who is in Japan promoting whiskey - he is just about recognisable enough to gain this endorsement. He has a troubled home-life with a wife who seems to both harass and undermine him constantly. Staying in the same hotel is Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a young married woman who is in Japan with her photographer husband John (Giovanni Ribisi). Charlotte feels neglected and unloved and when her husband goes away for a few days she spends a lot of her time with Bob and it turns out that they both aren't so different...

Many of the problems with this film are confined to the first half of the film where proceedings are drawn out painfully slowly; clearly this approach has been employed as a way of developing Bob and Charlotte as people and to show their own personal struggles, but to be perfectly honest I didn't find either of their characters or individual story arcs to be all that interesting. The second half of the film is much better when Bob and Charlotte begin communicating with each other and hanging out together - there is a genuine warm bond between the pair and it is quite touching watching them on screen together; I could genuinely see that there was some chemistry there and I felt that there was an attraction between them in an unconventional sense.

Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray were both good here and their wonderful and natural chemistry together does go a long way in making many of the scenes where they appear together to be rather enjoyable.

One thing I will applaud Coppola on is that she does do a good job in developing Bob and Charlotte's friendship and rather than cheapening the film by showing the pair lusting after each other we're given reasons to believe why they may be drawn to each other. I think their similar personality traits are what draw them to one another more than anything else which does make their relationship slightly more involving.

Lost in Translation unevenness is what lets it down slightly and whilst it undeniably has its strengths and moments some of the dull spots it encounters here and there prevent it from being as great as all of the hype suggests it is.

There's a nice film in here trying to get out, which is probably what all the kudos and awards acknowledge. The other nay votes do have a point: this movie shows one too many scenes of cultural isolation / modern ambivalence. On the other hand it's just like life in it's lack of overall momentum and it's quieter moments. It's really free from Hollywoods dirty fingerprints, which makes it remarkable for a second film. The score and the sentiments are gentle, which is why a young audience can't make heads or tails of it. Gentleness has no place in American culture anymore: It couldn't be sold to anyone for a profit.

There are too few films made about friendship. Unfortunately while Scarlett Johanssen looks lovely and Bill Murray is a national treasure, this movie stays in the average pile. The movie seems chronically underwritten. The script says something about being adrift in various ways. It just doesn't say it very rapidly.

I used to think that people like Murray used humor to bring people closer, but now I realize it's way of keeping people at bay by never letting them see even a hint of who he really is. I begin to wonder if this is Murray's problem, an observation he brougt to the character or both. It would be nice to see him actually relate to someone instead of to exist outside of the moment mocking it. His humor is a pretty effective force field.

A strong candidate for film of 2004. In the "Brief Encounter" and "Before Sunrise" mode, it's tale of fleeting glances and unresolved love.

Murray fulfills the potential he's been increasingly showing, and Johansson has a face that can tell a story.

My one criticism is the ending. I would have finished with the muffled conversation, and the audience unsure of their future. The fact that they kiss undoes the good work. Sill it's a minor point, in an otherwise solid film.

"Lost in Translation," is one of those movies that has received high critical acclaim. We went to see it on the basis of the impressive 8.2 weighted rating on IMDb. After seeing "Lost in Translation," my thought is, "What movie did everyone else see?"

We are presented with the situation of two presumably lost souls, searching for meaning in their lives. Bob Harris (Bill Murray), is being paid $2 million to spend a few hours making a Japanese whiskey commercial. Bob--take the money and run.

You're never going to play Macbeth. (Neither are you, Bill.)

We are also meant to have sympathy for Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson). Let's get this straight--you are young, beautiful, intelligent, an Ivy League graduate, staying in a luxury hotel in one of the world's great cities. Why are you sad? Poor thing--you took your degree in Philosophy and it never occurred to you that you'd need a PhD to teach the subject? Your husband is a jerk? (OK--he's a jerk. No one made you study Philosophy, and no one made you marry the jerk, and no one's making you stay with the jerk you married.)

My advice to Charlotte--stop with the angst and leave Bill Murray alone. Go home, get a divorce, go back to college, study law, social work, or education. Get a degree, get a job, get a life.

My advice to movie buffs--stay away from "Lost in Translation." Rent "Roman Holiday" instead.

It will be obvious that Bill Murray isn't Gregory Peck, Scarlett Johansson isn't Audrey Hepburn, and Sofia Coppola isn't William Wyler. Why accept a weak substitute if you can watch the same plot in a great movie?

What happens when two depressed people trapped in unhappy marriages find themselves in Tokyo? You get "Lost in Translation," a story of two lonely people lost deep inside themselves.

Bill Murray is perfectly cast as Bob Harris, a has-been actor who is in Tokyo to film whiskey ads and do some annoying TV interviews. Rookie actress Scarlett Johansson is also great as Charlotte, a lonely young wife of a photographer. They meet in a hotel bar, and its friendship at first sight. Together they paint the town, learn about each other, and find in each other a reason to live.

While the performances are Oscar worthy, Sofia Coppola's direction is not. She could have done much more in developing their friendship, even have the pair have second meaning-of-life talk. (The one they had--simply Murray and Johansson in bed, fully clothed, wondering if life ever gets any easier--was the best scene in the movie.) Other than the karaoke scene, during which Murray does a funny rendition of Elvis Costello's "Peace, Love, and Understanding," the music was just out there. The movie is rated R because of one completely unnecessary scene in a Japanese nudie bar, while a song called (I'm not kidding) "F--- the Pain Away" plays. Take out that scene, you have a cleaner and probably better PG13 or even PG film. She'll get better.

Overall, a good movie that could have been better. 5/10.

I wanted to like this film so badly, but as I watched, my opinion started high and just started a steady decline. I simply thought this movie tried to be too artsy and self-important for it's own good. It's not a thought that struck me at first as everything about this film is done so subtley. Bill Murray himself doesn't disppoint, he did a great job in this film. A picture says a thousand words and so many of his expressions were just priceless. However the chemistry between his character and Charlotte was simply non-existant in my opinion. They had no interaction, they had no life altering discussions, their relationship amounted to the same value of two people staying up late getting drunk and discussing the world. Which is exactly what this movie is, it just happens to be in Japan. What a bunch of garbage that keeps movie critics in business.

It is no doubt a good movie. Well acted. Funny at times. Nice cinematography. I am stunned, though, by the amount of high praises it has received. 10 out 10? Best movie of 2003? Greatest love story? Far from it. How many movies have these people been watching to come to such conclusion? If you enjoyed 'Lost in Translation' you should see 'In the Mood for Love' - a much better movie.