25%
OFF
OFF
  | Lost In Translation (Widescreen Edition)
| ||||||||||||
| |
Average user rating:  | ||||||
 Strangely mesmorizing and entertaining | ||||||
| Most people who have seen this movie have a hard time saying why they like it so much. I am no exception, but here goes the ole College try.
Bill Murray is a genius, there's is no argument about that. Scarlett Johanssen is a brilliant actress and a goddess to be sure. The two of them together in this movie, for whatever intangable reason, just simply work brillantly. Their interactions in the great city of Tokyo, combined with their budding romance, and dealing with their similar problems, was very enlightning to watch. It's just a very relaxing movie, with an even more relaxing soundtrack. It's well scripted, which is hard to do when you have a movie like this which is all situational. It's not too much, without is being too little. In closing, see the movie for yourself and see if you like it. If you don't, no big deal. If you do, then you will know what I'm talking about, when I say it's hard to pinpoint why this movie is so enjoyable and well done. | ||||||
 What's So Amazing About the Obvious? | ||||||
| I thought there was something there after I watched *Lost in Translation*. It left me, of course, asking, "Isn't there a point to this movie?" I didn't exactly go out getting this movie with expectations (I bought it together in a pairing with *Eternal Sunshine*). I had no interest in watching this movie before I got it. I didn't really know what to expect. I knew that Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola had been nominated for awards for it. The only thing of the content that I knew of this movie before watching it was what a friend of mine described to me: a scene where Bill Murray's character was listening to a translator translate Japanese into English, and long Japanese sentences were communicated into only a few words in English, while a few Japanese words were translated into novel-sized speeches. The sad thing was that my friend's description of the joke was funnier than the actual manifestation of it on film.
Needless to say, I didn't receive this movie as well as my friend did. But that's not to say I didn't get it. I once thought I didn't get it after I had watched the film. But then I asked around, asked other friends who had seen it. I asked, "Did I miss something? What was the point of the movie?" And the answers came back pretty much what every positive reviewer on here has said: "The finding of good company even in a strange world," "The solace one finds in another in loneliness," "The charm and beauty of a subtle relationship," etc. Well, they weren't telling me anything I hadn't known before. Essentially, I had already gotten it, but I thought I didn't, because I was looking for more. I was looking for a point that I thought was worth putting on the screen, instead of the ones I had confirmation for from so many others. My confusion was in wondering, "That can't be all to it, right? No one would have laid down millions to make so much noise without anything more to say, right?" And instead of getting something more from the answers I received, I got explanations that would usually be the starting point of a premise. And this is what this movie is: about two hours of character development, and when the conflict (aside from Charlotte's getting upset over Bob's sleeping with the lousy lounge singer) is about to begin, the movie ends. It leaves the viewer wondering how the relationship between Charlotte and her husband will be (which would be much more interesting to explore). It leaves the viewer wondering how Bob will reconcile his situation with his wife at home, which would also be much more interesting to watch. But those questions don't seem to ever play into the movie--never in the psychology of the characters, even. Throughout the movie, as the relationship between Charlotte and Bob develops, they never once question what they're doing in relationship to their spouses who are not present. The subtlety of the relationshp between the two characters may be charming to watch (thanks mainly to Bill Murray's acting and the tension provided by our curiosity to see if they will do anything more than talk to each other), but the characters are never realistically fleshed out. There may be many moments of slow-paced dialogue, but just because slow-paced dialogue is in direct contrast to flashy cutting and exploding cars does not automatically make characters and themes complex. Nor does it automatically provoke the assumption that something is beautiful simply because it tests our patience. I know the so-called art house audiences will find that hard to believe, since they truly believe that they are the only ones who get it and that the rest of the world doesn't--because it is imperative that anyone who does not get such things must like only slap-stick, nudity, and gratuitous violence. The point, however, isn't whether the rest of us get it or not. I got it, and I don't very much care for slap-stick, nudity, or gratuitous violence. And I'm going to venture to guess that most of the people who saw the movie got it. The answers given by my friends who so loved the movie echoed my own guesses as to the point of this movie. The reviews that many of those lathering praises upon praises on this movie echoed my guesses. I understood that this movie was about desperately trying to find that connection in the context of alienation and all those other things. It actually doesn't take great smarts to figure that out. The question is: do I care? Another reviewer here found this movie to be as pointless as *American Beauty*. I am not sure how one compares those two movies. *American Beauty* actually tied everything together in the end. The soliloquy in the end echoed a few things in the middle of the movie, giving those moments greater significance. Random things seemed to happen, but in the end, everything came together, and we go away with a poignant revelation of the beauty of all occurences, good or bad. And all characters, be they looking to be liked, looking for power, looking to regain dignity, looking for love, they are all looked upon as beauty in the great scheme of things. In the end, I cared about the characters, the themes, the movie. In *Lost in Translation*, we have none of that. Both main characters are self-absorbed, a bit spacey, and are just a little obnoxious in their sense of superiority over a different culture. And yes, some of the stereotyping are offensive, but I don't really expect people to actually sense this unless they're Asian. After all, the American identity is represented by the two superior characters in the film. They are the ones we are supposed to identify with. So it's probably difficult for non-Asians to actually step out of that identity to understand how offensive some of the portrayals of the Japanese were. But that's beside the point. The point is that *Lost in Translation* lacks a point worth spending a couple of hours to watch. And just because you say that you can appreciate that lack of a point and that you can take two hours out of life to witness and cry over the beauty in that lack of a greater point doesn't necessarily mean that you have a greater understanding for art or beauty. Again, the question isn't whether one gets the point of this movie. The point is easily comprehensible. It's sort of like asking your boss, "Why do we need to get this report done in two hours?" and the reply comes back, "So that we can get it done on time." Well, we already knew that. It's not profound or anything. The question again is: do I care? The answer is no. | ||||||
 Yow! | ||||||
| [...]Last weekend, I got my hands on a copy of "Lost in Translation" and then spent the better part of the next two hours trying to figure out what Murray and Sophia Coppola were trying to do. It was a tedious experience, to say the least. But, in some ways, probably worthwhile.
I'm not going to describe what happens in the film, but I will say that my first impression of "Lost in Translation" after watching it for only half hour was that Bill Murray wanted to make a movie in Japan. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but consider this: There's an upside and a downside to everything. The upside is that there are no car explosions, flying monkeys, no interglactic arks transporting shipments of minerals through deep space, no aliens blowing holes through buildings, and no Whoopie Goldberg. Afterwards, you can impress other people by telling them that "Lost in Translation" is truly cinematic art, and that something this good was never meant for the masses! Good stuff for all us culture vultures! The downside is is that there are no car explosions, flying monkeys, no interglactic arks transporting shipments of minerals through deep space, no aliens blowing holes through buildings, and no Whoopie Goldberg. Nothing really happens except that we get to see one establishing shot after another of Bill Murray mugging his way through Japan and getting himself into situations that couldn't be called slapstick by any stretch of the imagination. Yow! I guess if you like that sort of thing, "Lost in Translation" is for you. The last movie I saw that I would compare "Lost in Translation" to is Adam Sandler's "Punch Drunk Love". To be honest, if I were a Japanese citizen, I wouldn't know what to think of "Lost in Translation", but I sure wouldn't be flattered by it. At the very least, we all better hope that this film doesn't provoke another attack on Pearl Harbor. Anywaaaaay, I gave this dvd three stars because Bill Murray doesn't deserve anything less!! Hello Bill!!! Thank You | ||||||
People who bought Lost In Translation (Widescreen Edition) also bought ... | ||||||
| ||||||
