I don't get "Lost In Translation"

Hey, in my neighborhood I like it more than everybody else I know who saw it! I simply think it's a real average movie. The others won't give it that due. I do get the story too. I've been in the very situation the plot portrays. The film is much too low-key for me. I don't have any affinity for CON AIR either!

By the participants own admission it was, "...a low-budget film shot in 27 days...". I did see it on film at the cinema. It did not look stellar there either. Maybe some folks like to see a low-budget film contend for best film? I didn't think this one should of.

I'm not an actress but I have played one on TV , Rachael Bitchlist, world denounced film critiic. For a laugh I might have been mean to this one??? I can be meaner than Rex the turd! I wouldn't of been too mean to this one. I liked it a little, up to an extent. Not that I really care what the silly Akademy gives it's awards to, but this middle of the road fim sure passed up mearde-loads of better films for consideration IMO. ...not an airball but O-V-E-R R-A-T-E-D!

Wanna get a real ear full? Ask my mom about this film. She'll totally trash it! So did my date whom I saw it with. You had't seen the cat's claws yet! Recuerdos de la Gata!

 

The Chicago Reader Review of Lost In Translation:

"Coppola does a fair job at capturing the fish-tank ambience of nocturnal,
upscale Tokyo and showing how it feels to be a stranger in that world, and
getting the most from her lead actors. Unfortunately, I'm not sure she
accomplishes anything else."

 

I don't think the intent was to accomplish anything else. Is that so wrong? Yeesh!

Gahhh!! It's like listening to Norah Jones and hating it cause it doesn't rock out. Or serving great cuisine to Philistines in the hopeless hope that they'll appreciate it.

 

Nicely said!

I, however, was in an evil mood last night and I apologize to all. It is certainly your right to like or dislike a movie. 'Translation' does have an emotional connection for me, probably because I have lived through some of what is depicted, and I over-reacted to some of the comments.

 

Please, wags, rent the movie! I'll be waiting to read your reaction to it!

 

I thought it was the best movie I've seen this past year. I'm glad I saw it though before the hype and the nomination. Very original and just a good story about two bored people in a strange land that have an encounter. Thought the ending was perfect.

Joe L.

 

If thas your best evil mood, you need some practice and training! I could give you some tips.

 

Movies, music, food, it's all personal taste......I've come close to being drawn and quartered for hating The Matrix...1 movie cannot connect with everybody's tastes.

I do wanna see this movie. I'll let you know if it connected with me.

 

No need to ask mom, as I am here. I have never "trashed a film" before. I am going to trash this one due to the fact that it was even nominated for, what is supposed to be, such a prestigious award. Instead of OVER-RATED, this will be OVER-TRASHED.

Let's begin.

This missive by Sofia, which won best screenplay, obviously show that the saying "less is more" has sharp teeth. There's barely any frikin' dialog in this film. Ad the dialog there is is reminiscent of Bill Murry jokes from Stripes and Caddyshack. The quick witted humor was pleasant, but unexpected in a role that was supposed to be "out of character" for Mr. Murry. While I agree he did a wonderful job in his role, it was not such a great leap from other characters he has played. Bill Murry was the best part of the film. The Cinematography seemed to be a mixture of an MTV music video with elements of Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick fighting behind the camera.

Character development? In Bill Murry's case sure, that character was clearly shown as a middle-aged man, going through a mid-life crisis. The young girl? To quote Dennis Miller, "I haven't seen depth in a character portrayal since... I gotta go back to Larry Storch on F Troop."

This came off as a movie of nepotism in the worst way. "Daddy, I wanna go to Tokyo so let me type 20 pages of dialog. You call Bill Murry and get him to meet us there, we'll have a couple of cameras and some blue light bulbs, we'll shoot some shots, and the use the trip as a tax write-off."

The kiss was horrible. Should never have happened. On the cheek, sure, but a lip kiss, out of the question to keep with he consistent theme. The sexual tension between the two characters was the best part f the movie, and that kiss released half of it. Completely un-called for.

Useless dialog? Plenty of it. Not that there was that much to begin with. The whole part of the young girl smoking? What was that for? What did that do for her character? Why does she smoke in the first place? Made no sense, other than to show her "husband" didn't like it. Virtually pointless, should have been left out of her characeter, and on the cutting room floor.

As far as I'm concerned the film gets only a two rating.

 

If only their lonely hotel rooms had been a portal to an alternate reality, where Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson, dressed in fetish leather outfits, shot up downtown alterna-Tokyo to save Earth from the cyber-vampire robots that dwelled in the fiber-optic networks. Sequel!

I think people's inability, or unwillingness, to "get" this modest film is a sad comment on our junk food film diet of CGI epics and frathouse comedies.

 

A slice of reality is not everyones taste!

 

Just so that I am clear. I have no problem, with a slice of reality or even this movie. I have a problem with it being so "OVER-RATED."

It was everything I expect from an indipendant film.

I'm 34 and can relate to some of the things Bill Murry's character was going through. We have a 21 year old intern at the station that is "older man" hungry. She is so flirtatious with em and othes, that it is quite disturbing. In "reality" I avoid that situation like te plauge. Talk about a sexual harrasment suit wating to happen. Others at the office are not as eager to "ignore" her advances.

This just was not, in my opinion, "Oscar" quality. Then again, the politics of Hollywood are amazing and would make a great film in it's own right.

 

LIT-It has its charm, its a b-flick! I probably will never watch it again. Lord Of The Rings trilogy like wise, it had its moments. But I will never buy dvd"s of any of them.LIT just a movie for a rainy day.

 

This movie's understatedness is what makes it so attractive. Forget Tokyo! Forget age disparity! -- that's just a distraction (or enhancement) from the movie's core -- a growing fondness between two human beings. A good movie doesn't need fat dialogue, drivel, violence and computer-generated effects.

 

I'm surprised that some people expect that everyone else will share their taste in art. Isn't it okay if some people just don't find this film that appealing and that the reasons why some people might not like this film (or think it is mediocre) have nothing to do with an inability to appreciate subtlety?

I really appreciate those who contributed to this thread to explain why they liked this film. It helped me to realize that I wasn't, in fact, missing anything. I think that this film failed in the ways that others believe it succeeded marvelously. I can certainly live with others' experience of this film as one that conveyed an interesting relationship in a subtle way even though my experience was quite different. Neither point of view is "right" or "wrong."

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you personally. I get frustrated because I'll recommend what I think are very good, straightforward films like LOST IN TRANSLATION (or ANYWHERE BUT HERE or A MAP OF THE WORLD or WHERE THE HEART IS, etc.) , only to be told later, "I thought it was boring," or "My husband falls asleep everytime we watch a chick-flick." Say what?

It's like something that doesn't include a gun battle or car chase every fifteen minutes isn't even worth watching. I had one college student complain that COOL HAND LUKE was dull! For a lot of these people, I would blame their lack of appreciation on an inability to appreciate subtlety -- although I don't consider the films mentioned above subtle -- numbed by overexposure to sensationalistic blockbusters and genre films.

 

I've had the feeling that the discourse on this movie is simply a spirited debate and/or discussion, and that as adults we're above the triviality of right or wrong.

Great movie, BTW.

 

My own take is that it's brilliant, and I certainly think it deserved more attention than it received at the Oscars. I haven't had or desired the sort of relationship depicted in the movie, so I think that's right out as a condition for liking it. It may be, however, that it requires some amount of emotional empathy or maturity to appreciate, though. (Or maybe you can just be a Nihonphile and appreciate the correctness of the cultural details.)

No, I don't think this fits the typical Bill Murray stereotype. In all his previous efforts, you never get the depth of honest emotion you see from him in this movie.

Here's Ebert's impression, if anyone cares (he loves it). He articulates the details better than I can. I think he's pretty spot on.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2003/09/091201.html

 

Until this very morning I've never even hit the "Visual Arts" section of Hoffman's website! I felt compelled to jump in when the first two threads I saw were about the last two movies I watched (and didn't "understand" either one, I might add!)
"Big Fish" was the other one, read that thread to get my side on THAT one!

Anyways Jeff, I'm with you! I also appreciate the views of others to explain WHY I had that blank "deer in the headlight" look that my wife saw on my face at the end of this film. It explains that I still have a bit more living to do (and evidently need to have) a mid-life crisis to help me enjoy this thing! In the meantime, I'm gonna drink Sofia's dad's wine and re-watch my beloved "No Cure For Cancer" with Denis Leary...Now THERE'S A film!

Chris C

 

I agree. One would think to win an Oscar, the dialog would be rather important. Unless, of course, we re talking about a silent film. On that note, I think it is possible to have told the story of Lost In Translation without dialog at all. This film could have been wonderful as a silent film. As I think about it, that is probably more art than anything else.

 

I have the undying capacity to truly believe that a film I'm especially fond of, will be regarded fondly by everyone else. I'm always mystified when it doesn't happen. I *love* About Schmit but I don't know anyone else who does. Lost In Translation is the same. Maybe I'm wierd for liking pictures that take their time, don't spell everything out, have enigmatic characters, avoid cliches, etc.

Bill Murray said it was his fave film that he was in.

 

Lost The Plot........

I preferred AS to LIT. Neither of them are a cinematic masterpiece(IMHO)! ...Perhaps all for the better! With neon night scenes predominating it permanently through out. On a sour note-The music soundtrack could have been better to complement the audio visual experience!!!

Regarding the actors character portrayal the only one that brought life to it was Bill Murray who gave a subtle performance.(no "Mad Dog Glory" here). Some may have found the girlie bar pole dancing scene offensive. Though i found Bill Murray"s facial expressions priceless, this was the only Bill Murray convincing scene. A tad more than a slice of life!

Anybody like King Of Marvin Gardens?

 

I liked, not LOVED "About Schmitt" and most of my friends thought I was nuts, so you're NOT alone! Maybe I enjoyed it so much because Jack was just soooooo...NOT JACK, in it!

If you enjoy such "don't spell everything out" films, then may I HIGHLY suggest Adam Sandler in "Punch Drunk Love"! If ever a stranger movie was made by a popular actor, that one takes the cake of W-E-I-R-D!

and finally...Bill Murray not saying that "Stripes" or "Caddyshack" was his fave film, is a huge disappointment to "THIS" Bill Murray fan, I tell you! Well, at least he didn't say "What About Bob?"

Chris C

 

I'll check out Punch-Drunk. I'm not much of a Sandler fan, but I'm open-minded.

I want to give props to someone who hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread--Scarlett Johannsen!! She is such a great foil for Murray. First saw her in Ghost World and knew immediately she was going on to big things. Studied under Strasberg here in NY, did broadway at age 12. It's her understatedness that gets me, as much as her beauty. Wow, she IS beautiful!

It was something of a conceit on Coppola's part to cast her as a 26 year-old woman (she was 18 *I think* when they shot LIT) and yet no one seems too bent out-of-shape about it. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of her in the future...

 

Nah. You like the film, or you don't. You don't have to have a mid-life crisis to like it. A good film can convey that experience to you.

I loved LIT, and I am certainly way too young to have had a mid-life crisis...

Mystic River, LIT, and Kill Bill are the best three 2003 films I've seen so far!

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs