This "respected, thought-provoking Quebec journalist" missed the entire ending of the movie.

from the article:

What good is her review then? Honestly?

I respect her opinion, but she should have at least watched the entire film before she wrote a review about it.

I didn't see LIT but if I was in a theatre watching two selfish, unfathomable strangers acting like they are brain-dead and making fun of the strange country they're in, its inhabitants and their language, who can't face who they are and are groping in the dark for some form of communication with another human being, I would leave before the end too. I have already seen Ingmar Bergman's Silence, thank you very much.

But what the hell, the director is the daughter of a famous American director. She has already been nominated by the Academy for sentimental, touchy-feely reasons and will probably win her category because Hollywood likes fairy-tale happy endings, even if her film doesn't provide one.

The Coppola family started out making films debasing their fellow Italian-Americans and glorifying the Mafia lifestyle. Now they are the Italian Mafia.

I don't understand the overwhelming praise for LIT either.

And before you dismiss me as some uncultured lowest common denominator Brukheimer fan with zero understanding of cinema (which, btw, has nothing to do with intelligence), I'll have you know that my favorite film-maker of all time is Luis Bunuel and one of my favorite current film-makers is Wong Kar-Wai, with his In The Mood For Love and Fallen Angels being a couple of my favorite films of the last 10 years.

Anyways, I found both characters neither likable nor interesting - a character-based film needs at least one of these aspects (if not both) in order for the main characters to be compelling. Not to mention, every other character (Murray's wife & Johansen's husband) was so thinly drawn, they may as well have been cardboard cut-outs.

The actual writing (script/dialogue) was also boring, insipid and in no way deserving of any sort of award, much less and Oscar. If you want to present compelling dialogue between two characters, you should write GOOD DIALOGUE - not allude to them having a good time by showing reaction shots. That's just bad writing.

Ultimately, I'm the sort that prefers deviations from standard film narratives. If a film doesn't rely on a story, it needs to rely on characters and behavior that is interesting. Lost in Translation had neither.

The film relies of discovery and re-discovery of certain aspects of life that had eluded each one of them up until they form their unlikely platonic friendship from 2 different points of view, and it does this well. This film is more about tone and mood than it is about plot and achievement.

I'm not saying I thought From Justin to Kelly was a materpiece (far from it). Simply put, FJTK was pretty bad but remotely watchable (if nothing else unintentionally funny ala Showgirls). To me LIT didn't have anything going for it. It was like watching 2 of the most boring people alive on the big screen. I think even Jar Jar had more life than any actor in this movie (and he's CGI).

I think Slop101 summed up my feelings exactly! Good job Slop.

And for the record, I do enjoy art house films. I thought there were plenty of good ones this year (American Splendor and Whale Rider).

I enjoyed Lost in Translation, but feel it is overrated. What pleased me was the tone, the cinematography, the pacing, the music. The acting matched the languidness of the film well. I didn't particularly care what happened to the characters, but there is so much else in the film to enjoy, just the sheen captured radiating off of Tokyo at night made it a worthwhile film.

For a film about people lost in other countries and cultures I'd recommend either Tsai Ming-Liang's What Time is it There? and Alex Cox's Three Businessmen over Sofia Coppola's work here.

This is complete ignorance. I love when people start off their review of a movie by saying "I didnt see this movie but..."

If you are sitting at home and your review starts off in this way. Just hit delete until it is gone and move on to the next big thing in your life. Dont waste your time.

I'm just saying: Conventional wisdom is wondering how many decapitated horses' heads were delivered to reticent producers' bedrooms in the middle of the night before this movie about "slanty-eyed gooks and their weird culture" got made.

You also have to remember that before Coppola Sr. was turning on all of America to the delights of sadistic criminal behaviour, he started out his career by desacrating a Russian classic film (Sadko, 1953) and turning it into a piece of trash called The Magic Voyage of Sinbad (1961) for personal gain. He's got a lot of bad karma to live down. The sins of the father shall be visited on the BAD ACTRESS daughter...

conventional wisdom is wondering how someone can assess what a movie is really about without having seen it.

If you consider the price of a ticket a voting slip, you can understand why I don't want to cast my vote for that kind of film.

baracine, its your prerogative if you chose not to see LIT, but please spare us your asinine comments. All you're doing is being a poseur - "I'm so smart I don't have to see the film to 'get' it" which clearly you don't.

Or, more accurately, I don't want to get it.

And I am answering the thread's question which is: Why do so many people hate this film? My contribution explains the reasons why it is hated even by people who haven't seen it.

It is already very clear why it is hated by people who have seen it.

btw -
(i didn't hate it, nor is it a bad movie - i just don't see why it's so over-praised)

Then buy a ticket for something else and go and se LIT instead. What are you the pope? Is that too morally bankrupt for you? You act like there's no way to see a movie without paying for it. Get a clue

Please leave this thread because you have nothing to contribute to it besides an ignorant viewpoint.

you can understand why i think it's ridiculous for someone to publicly cast aspersions on a film they've decided not to see. my issue is not with your decision to refrain from "casting your vote." it is with your open lobbying against something of which you have no first-hand knowledge. besides, without seeing it, you don't even really know what kind of film your "vote" has been withheld from.

No, it isn't. The question was about why the original poster's friends hate "Lost in Translation." Most of the people who have actually seen the film do not hate it, and in fact seem to be quite affectionate towards it.

Kudos to you for having the stones to offer up such vocal opinions on a film you haven't even seen.

I finally got to watch this movie last night after I picked up the DVD. For me, it lived up to all the hype and was better than I anticipated. The only movie I had seen of hers prior to this was her short "Lick the Star" and I thought it was absolutely horrendous and considered her a no-talent hack. It even put me off watching The Virgin Suicides, I figured she would just destroy the book that I loved.

With the cast in LiT I couldn't resist seeing it, and I am a self proclaimed Japanophile. She blew me away. The writing was pretty good, direction was great, and the acting was brilliant. Yes there are some "over the top" performances, like the actress Kelly(?). I did think some of the jokes that referenced Japan were a bit overused and cliche, but it didn't bother me that much.

The one thing that does get me is why is this market as a comedy? Yes there are a few humorous moments, but overall this is not a "comedy" movie.

It has Bill Murray in it, of course it's a "comedy". I swear, some of you people just don't get a good 'art-house comedy'.

:rolleyes:

Why do some people hate this? Because they don't care or can't relate to these characters. This is a slow character study of a middle aged man, and a younger girl who form a platonic relationship. Of course many people don't even believe that platonic relationships can exist between male and female, and many others can't stand watching two people...just become friends. The movie is subdued, it isn't a roll in the isle laugh a minute movie (which may confuse bill murray viewers) nor is a grandiose story, a deep plot, none of those things.

Instead it is more of a meditation...it is a film that lulls you into the feeling that these two people have...and slowly pulls you along their journey through the week. Not to mention the films ends on an ambiguous whisper...somethign that for many people, is very telling. But for others...is Bill Murray whispering, and the audience wondering what the hell he said.

Nonetheless, those are the reasons I have come up with why people may not like this film. They are valid responses, as this is not a mainstream film that wil appeal to everyone. It is very focuses on its meaning, so it's not going to appeal to everyone.

On my side...loved the film...very funny, very moving...and just very very sweet.

The price of the ticket entitles you to an informed opinion about the film, unless you prefer others to make your decisions for you.

Great movies, but if you disliked Lost in Translation because of the minimal dialogue, slow pacing and lack of action, then those two movies would make you put a fork in your eye.

Nope, not Joe six-packs. For example, one is a commercial banker for ABM/Ambro, the other is a Director-level exec at the bank I work at, another was my brother, currently a PhD candidate at MIT in aero/astro engineering. I deliberatly did not recommend the movie to other friends that prefer Michael Bay fare. That's what makes it so puzzling to me.

ITA!! Well-put!

I have to admit the first time I saw advertising for this film when it came out, I was puzzled that they'd pair Bill Murray with Scarlet Johansson, who was still playing teenagers the last time I saw her (I was saying "She matured fast!"), but I started to hear the film was doing well, and I happened to be watching Before Sunrise, the Ethan Hawke/Julie Delpy film last week on cable. That film seems to have even less of a "plot" than LiT, and I really enjoyed the way that picture showed you this budding relationship between two people on a trip (In Austria instead of Japan here), who also had only just met (Difference here is these 2 weren't married). It really just brought you into their world, and everything and everyone else was just a backdrop.
Lost in Translation has some great quirky moments (Bill Murray is hilarious when he's shooting the commercial, and also when he's on that quirky local talk show with that Austin Powers/Pee-Wee Herman guy!) and some genuinely heart-felt passages as well. I'm not a critic so I can't really give you a wordy account like Roger Ebert, but I'm one Joe Six-Pack that wasn't disappointed. I even bought the DVD.

bought it sight unseen and WOW, absolutely loved it!!!

Same hear. Just bought it sight unseen and was absolutely blown away. I think this ties for the 2nd best movie of 2003 for me. #1 being Whale Rider and the tie for second going to LOTR: ROTK.

I have a very broad mind when it comes to films, but this film was awful.

So mind numbing, what really was the point.

As for best film of 2003, get real! But thats only my personal opinion.

This does not deserve the recognition it is getting.

The point: Showing a friendship forming between two "displaced" individuals.

This is a rather bold statement. Worst movie EVER made in the history of film? So, you have seen EVERY film EVER made not only American films but European and Asian as well?

Oh you were the one in front of me getting a ticket to go see Eurotrip...now I can see clearly.


----

The film was beautifully photographed, acted, and directed.

Of course that is my opinion...and yours is stated above.

Leave it at that.

But what if I did get it and I still thought that it was boring and went nowhere? Why does my reason for not liking this film have to be long, drawn-out and detailed in order for me to avoid being labeled stupid?

I just didn't like this movie. I thought it was boring and overhyped. I was disappointed. If my reasons aren't good enough for you consider my opinion a valid one coming from a fairly well-informed film fan, then I would like to know what reasons you would accept.

I don't mean you specifically, Maxin. I'm generalizing to all the people who would label me "unintelligent" because of my opinion.

If that was meant lightly, then ignore the rest of my post.

If it was meant as an insult, then I think that was rude and uncalled for. Why do you make judgements just because he didn't like a movie. I didn't like Lost in Translation, I'm curious what kind of movies you think I'd go to see.

Painkiller: What can you expect from the "loving, sensitive, intelligent" people who "really loved" this film even though it shows too typical ugly Americans abroad caught in the grips of ignorant xenophobia (which is just another variety of intolerance and belly-button worship)? Let them dream on, I say.

These are the same enlightened trendies, BTW, who gag at the thought of two words of French (that ugly, foreign language!) on the packaging of the Canadian edition of the LIT DVD (see that thread in DVD Talk).

I know this gets asked of you several times a day, but what the hell are you talking about? Please use examples from the film to show this "xenophobia" you are talking about. It's not present at all.

Or have you still not seen this movie that you keep ranting about?

Or so you've read. But because you haven't bothered to actually see the film, you really have no idea what it shows, do you?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the people who complain about the bilingual packaging are doing so because it makes the package look cluttered, not because they have something against the French language?

Probably not, because it's clear from your posts in this and other threads that you are far, far more xenophobic than the ugly Americans you rail against.

It was just okay......

I think it largely depends on the atmosphere of the viewing and if your friends know what they're in for.

I showed Lost in Translation to a group of 10+ high school seniors and everyone loved it. I told them it was a quiet story about a man and a woman finding each other in tokyo.

We were bawling in laughter at the right scenes, and everyone unanimously thought it was great with an excellent soundtrack. To the friends I've recommended it to, 80% thought it was boring and not funny enough.

Just the views of a high school senior

Well I got to around to watching it tonight. I found it to be a great film, a film that doesn't have a plot per se, but has great cinematography and it really made me cry ( I am a guy and don't cry at many movies)

If you have ever felt lonely at a certain point of your life, and have met somebody you have shared your loneliness with, it makes perfect sense. I really believe that everybody feels lonely sometimes, no matter if you are married. Its a movie, I almost want to watch again as soon as I get the chance.

Bill Murray deserves an Oscar for his performance.

I finally got around to watching it last night as well. I found it to be good in most aspects except for the editing. Some scenes just didn't fit well in conveying mood or were just too short. I thought the acting was top notch but I can't agree Murray deserves an Oscar, but what do I know. :)

I didn't cry or anything but it was very heart-warming. I have felt lonely and still wonder if I'll meet my soul mate, but the ending just didn't have the emotional impact on me. This is probably because I connected more with Scarlett's character than Murray's, yet didn't really care for how they handled their problems and themselves. For example, the excessive smoking and drinking, cheating, and the occasional moments of stubborness (for lack of a better word). I know these are reasons for the characters misery and the result of them being such, but just couldn't connect as much with them given the circumstances. I was happy for them in rediscovering/discovering who they are, finding each other, and it gave me hope for the future.

I look forward to watching it again. :)