Lost in Translation: why do my friends hate it?
#126
Suspended
Originally posted by Mr. Salty
What about movies from countries other than America that do the same? Are those OK?
What about movies from countries other than America that do the same? Are those OK?
It's good to have popular art that deals with these subjects head-on. It's in the very least cathartic. And the best artists, such as the Coppolas, go deeper than that.
Last edited by baracine; 04-13-04 at 08:57 PM.
#127
Suspended
Originally posted by kcbrett5
Yes you are very clear about what is NOT morally worthwhile in your opinion.
All I am looking for is 1 or 2 examples of something that is worthwhile.
Why are you unwilling to mention anything? Is it fear of being ridiculed?
Do you suffer from low self esteem?
Yes you are very clear about what is NOT morally worthwhile in your opinion.
All I am looking for is 1 or 2 examples of something that is worthwhile.
Why are you unwilling to mention anything? Is it fear of being ridiculed?
Do you suffer from low self esteem?
As for the tone of your last two sentences... I happen to be a translator and can usually cut right through superficial formulations to the intended meaning and those two sentences sound a lot like: "Here, chickie, chickie, chickie..."
Were you a schoolyard bully as a kid or were you just recently warped by too many violent American movies and one too many bloody video game?
Last edited by baracine; 04-13-04 at 10:49 PM.
#128
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love all kinds of movies and will give any movie a chance as I did with LiT,I rented it last week and it took me a week to watch it all the way through because it put me to sleep everytime I watched it,this movie does have good acting,good directing and a great cast but it still doesnt erase the fact that the movie was not that good and was so overhyped and boring,I got the movie it just didnt get me but I respect movies and the people that watch them so im not bad mouthing the movie or the people who watched it,I did not like it,Mystic River IMO blows this movie out of the water for movies in 03.
#129
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Flava-Country!
Posts: 3,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too havent seen Lost in Translation - although I did walk past a theater while the trailer was running. I thought the movie sucked - and you all suck too for liking it.
Star Wars RULZE!!1! Thank you and goodnight.
Star Wars RULZE!!1! Thank you and goodnight.
#130
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by baracine
blah blah blah... not answering the question... blah blah blah
blah blah blah... not answering the question... blah blah blah
And baracine - you never did answer my question, either:
Have you seen the film "Lost in Translation"? You seem to be offering a pretty wild opinion of a film you said you hadn't even seen. How do you know it is any of the things you said? Are you just basing your opinion on what other people have told you about the film?
This reminds me of all of the hoopla surrounding "The Passion of the Christ" - people were complaining that the film was anti-semitic - of course, until they actually *saw* the film - then they realised that it wasn't and shut the f--- up.
#131
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
This reminds me of all of the hoopla surrounding "The Passion of the Christ" - people were complaining that the film was anti-semitic - of course, until they actually *saw* the film - then they realised that it wasn't and shut the f--- up.
This reminds me of all of the hoopla surrounding "The Passion of the Christ" - people were complaining that the film was anti-semitic - of course, until they actually *saw* the film - then they realised that it wasn't and shut the f--- up.
Originally posted by baracine here
This film is aimed squarely and unequivocally to the converted, i.e. backwards, fundamentalist, American "Christians". It supplies them with the kind of "hate fix" which no other media can legally supply in a modern, civilized society. It justifies their hatred towards any non-Christian, "alien" entity, be they atheists, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, liberated women, Democrats, or, in your case, the French.
This film is aimed squarely and unequivocally to the converted, i.e. backwards, fundamentalist, American "Christians". It supplies them with the kind of "hate fix" which no other media can legally supply in a modern, civilized society. It justifies their hatred towards any non-Christian, "alien" entity, be they atheists, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, liberated women, Democrats, or, in your case, the French.
Having done my mudslinging, I would mention that I thought Lost in Translation was pretty overrated, despite its technical expertise and excellence. I thought it had kind of a "whispy" feel... I don't know, it just kind of had a consistent feeling without any emotional movement throughout the movie. I do love that it is about a platonic relationship though... I wouldn't mind seeing more of that in films. Oh and I thought the Cameron Diaz mocking was hilarious (I'm not a big fan of hers).
#132
Suspended
Originally posted by jough
Originally posted by baracine
blah blah blah... not answering the question... blah blah blah
Originally posted by baracine
blah blah blah... not answering the question... blah blah blah
But I believe you are quoting accurately from the official tagline of The Passion of the Christ when you say: "If you don't like it, shut the **** up!" It would make a great t-shirt for your debating team too!
Last edited by baracine; 04-14-04 at 08:03 AM.
#133
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by drjay
It probably reminds you of that because of baracine's participation in the Passion thread
It probably reminds you of that because of baracine's participation in the Passion thread
baracine, I only pick on you in fun, but if you complain about the content of a film you haven't seen, it's hard for people to take you seriously as anything but a tin-foil-crowned crank.
And you claim that Hollywood is a den of sin, making morally corrupt films, and can't even name two fims you think AREN'T evil.
Consider this: the world was much more violent before the cinema. Movies have actually made the world a better place.
#134
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
Consider this: the world was much more violent before the cinema. Movies have actually made the world a better place.
Consider this: the world was much more violent before the cinema. Movies have actually made the world a better place.
The world was much more violent before Sugar-Free Lime Jello. Therefore, Sugar-Free Lime Jello has made the world a better place.
Last edited by mgbfan; 04-14-04 at 08:19 PM.
#135
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I finally watched this a couple nights ago. It was better than I expected; however, I could see how some may dislike it.
I give it a B-.
Edit to add: I'm Japanese and I didn't find the movie racist.
I give it a B-.
Edit to add: I'm Japanese and I didn't find the movie racist.
Last edited by island007; 04-14-04 at 09:13 PM.
#136
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mgbfan
Wow - talk about your extreme flaw in basic logic. I'd like to believe you're joking, but you really don't seem to be. So ...
The world was much more violent before Sugar-Free Lime Jello. Therefore, Sugar-Free Lime Jello has made the world a better place.
Wow - talk about your extreme flaw in basic logic. I'd like to believe you're joking, but you really don't seem to be. So ...
The world was much more violent before Sugar-Free Lime Jello. Therefore, Sugar-Free Lime Jello has made the world a better place.
Anyway, my point was that saying that violence in the world is caused by films like "The Passion of the Christ" is ludicrous.
I still credit movies and television (and now the internet) for keeping people too sedentary and occupied to kill each other as much as they used to when they had nothing better to do.
#137
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
No no - the world has actually become MORE violent since sugar-free jello - the world needs its sugar!
No no - the world has actually become MORE violent since sugar-free jello - the world needs its sugar!
#138
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,687
Received 560 Likes
on
404 Posts
I'm just dumbfounded that LiT could be considered a morally corrupt film. It's a film with no sex or nudity, no violence, that is all about emotion.
I can surely see someone not liking it, but morally corrupt? Or somehow having any connection to films like the Godfather (other than the last name of the filmmaker)? Huh?
I can surely see someone not liking it, but morally corrupt? Or somehow having any connection to films like the Godfather (other than the last name of the filmmaker)? Huh?
#139
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so baracine, from what you've said, if you went to mexico, you'd learn spanish, brazil portuguese, france french, russia etc.? so you expect people to learn the complete language before visiting a foreign country? or just a few words? if so, the characters do know a few words. not everyone's profession is translator.
and you have not seen the film apparently, so please, if you make any more comments about it, just state this before your posts so we know how much value to place on it.
and you have not seen the film apparently, so please, if you make any more comments about it, just state this before your posts so we know how much value to place on it.
#140
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here ..
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Lost in Translation: why do my friends hate it?
Why do you care about their opinion anyway? It's subjective alright.
Me, I felt a little bit lost and lonely when I was watching the movie. But I was impressed by how the movie is done, and by the top notch chemistry that happened between Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray.
I still am impressed.
Me, I felt a little bit lost and lonely when I was watching the movie. But I was impressed by how the movie is done, and by the top notch chemistry that happened between Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray.
I still am impressed.
#141
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I enjoyed the film.
I think anyone that has done significant travel can identify with the disorientation that Coppola went for in the hotel, street, elevator and bar scenes (to name some). I also like the way she drew the two main characters together.
I thought it was well contained. Films sometimes try to be too much, be too much and then lose their story and identity. This film didn't.
However, those that believe this film to be great (in the true sense of the word) ... I don't see that.
Perhaps some of the lash out at this film is because it may have been over-hyped. The media tends to get on the bandwagon for a film and some of this may be backlash.
I think anyone that has done significant travel can identify with the disorientation that Coppola went for in the hotel, street, elevator and bar scenes (to name some). I also like the way she drew the two main characters together.
I thought it was well contained. Films sometimes try to be too much, be too much and then lose their story and identity. This film didn't.
However, those that believe this film to be great (in the true sense of the word) ... I don't see that.
Perhaps some of the lash out at this film is because it may have been over-hyped. The media tends to get on the bandwagon for a film and some of this may be backlash.
#142
Moderator
They had a discussion of this film on this week's "Ebert and Roeper" talking about how people who saw it on the big screen loved it, while people who saw it on DVD hated it. Some of Ebert's comments from his recent "Answer Man" columns:
Q. I work at a local video store and the recent release of "Lost in Translation" on DVD has had lots of people asking about it. But I noticed that about 90 percent of the people that watched it said they didn't like it. In fact, most of them said that it was one of the worst movies they've ever seen. They didn't understand why it drew all of the attention that it got.
Is this because of the expectations that the general public has in their minds? Was it over-advertised by the Oscar hype it got? Or is it just because the general public can't watch a film that will challenge them to think when they are used to watching big-budget films where everything is drawn out for them?
Sean O'Connell, Novato, Calif.
A. Yes, yes and yes. "Lost in Translation" requires audiences to be able to pick up feelings and information on frequencies that many moviegoers don't receive on. Most of the movies most people go to see are made in such a way that not a moment's thought is required. The audience is a passive receptor for mindless sensation. When I'm told by people that they hated "Lost in Translation," I have to restrain myself from replying, "You are saying more about yourself than about the film."
"Lost in Translation" was applauded by 94 percent of the 190 critics monitored at rottentomatoes.com, and by 97 percent of the major critics. Does that mean critics are (a) out of touch with popular taste, or (b) have better taste than the customers at Sean O'Connell's video store? Before you answer, remember that the mission of a good critic is not to reflect popular taste but to inform it.
Q. Something in your most recent Answer Man column struck me as incredibly arrogant. You wrote: "'Lost in Translation' was applauded by 94 percent of the 190 critics monitored at www.rottentomatoes.com, and by 97 percent of the major critics. Does that mean critics are (a) out of touch with popular taste, or (b) have better taste than the customers at Sean O'Connell's video store? Before you answer, remember that the mission of a good critic is not to reflect popular taste but to inform it."
I'm one of those people who found "Lost in Translation" tedious and overrated. However, I'm also a film student and must concede that it was well-constructed and beautifully shot. But implying that somehow I, and thousands like me, are somehow lesser than the all-knowing, all-seeing critics who reviewed the film positively is ridiculous. Whether you enjoy a film is largely based upon how it "hits" you, not on logic. "Translation" just didn't hit me (in fact, it missed completely). Does this mean I should drop out of film school and start prepping for a career in used-car sales?
Jesse Hill, Boston
A. I got a lot of messages like yours. Andrew Glasgow of Birmingham, Ala., wrote, "You write about how many critics think 'Lost in Translation' is God's gift to film -- and how they, and you, just by sheer weight of numbers, could not possibly be wrong. Maybe next time be a little more open about the feelings of others."
And Greg McClay of Lowell, Mass., wrote: "All opinions say more about the person than the subject they are talking about. Are you seriously implying that there is something wrong with somebody who didn't like 'Lost in Translation'? If so, then what does that say about you?"
Two readers have an intriguing theory. Sarah Metcalfe of Ottawa, Canada, writes: "I loved 'Lost in Translation' in the theater and encouraged all of my friends to see it. Every single one who saw it on video was bored by the movie. To me, much of the humor and interest was in Bill Murray's expressions and reactions. Is there a possibility that this would be lost on the small screen?"
And Edward Rosenthal of Roslyn Heights, N.Y., writes: "It's just better in a movie theater. There's pretty much universal agreement that big action movies should be seen on the wide screen, but it's been my experience that quiet, character-driven movies also benefit from this environment, even though this may sound somewhat counterintuitive. In a dark and quiet theater, free of the distractions of home viewing, you can concentrate and appreciate this type of film much more."
I wonder if that's it. The movie drew me in and enveloped me, and the big screen had something to do with that. As for my original reply -- well, it was ill-considered. You're not wrong just because you disagree with me.
But we film critics didn't hold a meeting and conspire to like the movie. A remarkable 97 percent individually and independently admired it. We must have seen a different movie -- and maybe we did, since we saw it on the big screen. Theater audiences generally liked the movie; video audiences hate it. Strange.
Q. Re the Answer Man items on how people loved "Lost in Translation" in theaters and hated it on video. After being in the video industry for 20 years, I've noticed that nothing affects a person's view more than expectations. With "Lost in Translation," I saw a screener on video months before its release and loved the movie. By the time it was released on video, it had gone through the media hype of the Academy Awards, and viewers were expecting heights that could not be reached. Everyone had heard what a great movie it was, and the virgin experience that reviewers got was lost.
I remember years ago when "Ghostbusters" first came out; most video customers were very vocal in their dislike of it. It was one of the first video titles to go through a media frenzy, and like "Lost in Translation," nothing could live up to the hype. Since then it has, of course, moved on to become a video classic.
Brad Pilger, Edmonton, Alberta
A. The movie's reception on video has inspired a record number of messages to the Answer Man. Bob Riggs of Houston writes: "Some films are intended to be appealing and easily digested, while others try to explore difficult subjects in unique ways. By nature, humans enjoy simple repetition of pleasant experiences and shy away from the hard work involved with dealing with anything challenging.
"Thomas Kinkade and Britney Spears have made enormous amounts of money marketing to people for whom this instinct has become a way of life. I would suggest that the value of 'Lost in Translation' lies in its appeal to another part of human nature -- that which says, 'Get up off your butt and find out what's going on out there!' "
And J.C. Inglis of Toronto writes: "Why did you give in to the clods who disagreed with your statements on 'Lost in Translation'? At the end of your reply you wrote, 'You're not wrong just because you disagree with me.' Yes, they ARE wrong. Watching, enjoying and understanding movies is a skill and can be done poorly and wrongly. 'Getting' a movie is not the same as having an emotional response.
"One can still 'get' a movie even if one doesn't like it. Saying one doesn't 'get' a movie is like saying one doesn't 'get' a symphony. It proves that one has a stunted or undeveloped faculty of appreciation, or possibly that one is an idiot."
Is this because of the expectations that the general public has in their minds? Was it over-advertised by the Oscar hype it got? Or is it just because the general public can't watch a film that will challenge them to think when they are used to watching big-budget films where everything is drawn out for them?
Sean O'Connell, Novato, Calif.
A. Yes, yes and yes. "Lost in Translation" requires audiences to be able to pick up feelings and information on frequencies that many moviegoers don't receive on. Most of the movies most people go to see are made in such a way that not a moment's thought is required. The audience is a passive receptor for mindless sensation. When I'm told by people that they hated "Lost in Translation," I have to restrain myself from replying, "You are saying more about yourself than about the film."
"Lost in Translation" was applauded by 94 percent of the 190 critics monitored at rottentomatoes.com, and by 97 percent of the major critics. Does that mean critics are (a) out of touch with popular taste, or (b) have better taste than the customers at Sean O'Connell's video store? Before you answer, remember that the mission of a good critic is not to reflect popular taste but to inform it.
Q. Something in your most recent Answer Man column struck me as incredibly arrogant. You wrote: "'Lost in Translation' was applauded by 94 percent of the 190 critics monitored at www.rottentomatoes.com, and by 97 percent of the major critics. Does that mean critics are (a) out of touch with popular taste, or (b) have better taste than the customers at Sean O'Connell's video store? Before you answer, remember that the mission of a good critic is not to reflect popular taste but to inform it."
I'm one of those people who found "Lost in Translation" tedious and overrated. However, I'm also a film student and must concede that it was well-constructed and beautifully shot. But implying that somehow I, and thousands like me, are somehow lesser than the all-knowing, all-seeing critics who reviewed the film positively is ridiculous. Whether you enjoy a film is largely based upon how it "hits" you, not on logic. "Translation" just didn't hit me (in fact, it missed completely). Does this mean I should drop out of film school and start prepping for a career in used-car sales?
Jesse Hill, Boston
A. I got a lot of messages like yours. Andrew Glasgow of Birmingham, Ala., wrote, "You write about how many critics think 'Lost in Translation' is God's gift to film -- and how they, and you, just by sheer weight of numbers, could not possibly be wrong. Maybe next time be a little more open about the feelings of others."
And Greg McClay of Lowell, Mass., wrote: "All opinions say more about the person than the subject they are talking about. Are you seriously implying that there is something wrong with somebody who didn't like 'Lost in Translation'? If so, then what does that say about you?"
Two readers have an intriguing theory. Sarah Metcalfe of Ottawa, Canada, writes: "I loved 'Lost in Translation' in the theater and encouraged all of my friends to see it. Every single one who saw it on video was bored by the movie. To me, much of the humor and interest was in Bill Murray's expressions and reactions. Is there a possibility that this would be lost on the small screen?"
And Edward Rosenthal of Roslyn Heights, N.Y., writes: "It's just better in a movie theater. There's pretty much universal agreement that big action movies should be seen on the wide screen, but it's been my experience that quiet, character-driven movies also benefit from this environment, even though this may sound somewhat counterintuitive. In a dark and quiet theater, free of the distractions of home viewing, you can concentrate and appreciate this type of film much more."
I wonder if that's it. The movie drew me in and enveloped me, and the big screen had something to do with that. As for my original reply -- well, it was ill-considered. You're not wrong just because you disagree with me.
But we film critics didn't hold a meeting and conspire to like the movie. A remarkable 97 percent individually and independently admired it. We must have seen a different movie -- and maybe we did, since we saw it on the big screen. Theater audiences generally liked the movie; video audiences hate it. Strange.
Q. Re the Answer Man items on how people loved "Lost in Translation" in theaters and hated it on video. After being in the video industry for 20 years, I've noticed that nothing affects a person's view more than expectations. With "Lost in Translation," I saw a screener on video months before its release and loved the movie. By the time it was released on video, it had gone through the media hype of the Academy Awards, and viewers were expecting heights that could not be reached. Everyone had heard what a great movie it was, and the virgin experience that reviewers got was lost.
I remember years ago when "Ghostbusters" first came out; most video customers were very vocal in their dislike of it. It was one of the first video titles to go through a media frenzy, and like "Lost in Translation," nothing could live up to the hype. Since then it has, of course, moved on to become a video classic.
Brad Pilger, Edmonton, Alberta
A. The movie's reception on video has inspired a record number of messages to the Answer Man. Bob Riggs of Houston writes: "Some films are intended to be appealing and easily digested, while others try to explore difficult subjects in unique ways. By nature, humans enjoy simple repetition of pleasant experiences and shy away from the hard work involved with dealing with anything challenging.
"Thomas Kinkade and Britney Spears have made enormous amounts of money marketing to people for whom this instinct has become a way of life. I would suggest that the value of 'Lost in Translation' lies in its appeal to another part of human nature -- that which says, 'Get up off your butt and find out what's going on out there!' "
And J.C. Inglis of Toronto writes: "Why did you give in to the clods who disagreed with your statements on 'Lost in Translation'? At the end of your reply you wrote, 'You're not wrong just because you disagree with me.' Yes, they ARE wrong. Watching, enjoying and understanding movies is a skill and can be done poorly and wrongly. 'Getting' a movie is not the same as having an emotional response.
"One can still 'get' a movie even if one doesn't like it. Saying one doesn't 'get' a movie is like saying one doesn't 'get' a symphony. It proves that one has a stunted or undeveloped faculty of appreciation, or possibly that one is an idiot."
#143
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,687
Received 560 Likes
on
404 Posts
Originally posted by ctyankee
I thought it was well contained. Films sometimes try to be too much, be too much and then lose their story and identity. This film didn't.
However, those that believe this film to be great (in the true sense of the word) ... I don't see that.
I thought it was well contained. Films sometimes try to be too much, be too much and then lose their story and identity. This film didn't.
However, those that believe this film to be great (in the true sense of the word) ... I don't see that.
But sure, it's not great in the sense that it will be a movie that will rock people's foundations, or leave memories so lasting that we're talking about it 20 years from now.
#144
DVD Talk Legend
I can't be bothered to read this thread right now, but I watched this a few nights ago finally...
I didn't love it. I merely liked it okay. I thought it was filmed beautifully and had captivating performances and the whole idea of it was pretty interesting. I just found it hard to fall in love with this film. I'll have to watch it a few more times perhaps.
I didn't love it. I merely liked it okay. I thought it was filmed beautifully and had captivating performances and the whole idea of it was pretty interesting. I just found it hard to fall in love with this film. I'll have to watch it a few more times perhaps.
#145
Banned
Yeah, maybe another viewing would help. My biggest problem initially was what a vacant loser the Murray character is. "I'm here doing a commercial when I could be doing a play in New York." Boo-F****n-Hoo. What a rotten life you have.
There was certainly a chemistry between him and Johansson but imo it wasn't sexual in the least. Quite frankly if she had actually had sex with this slightly creepy alcoholic who was old enough to be her dad I would've puked.
Great movie though.
There was certainly a chemistry between him and Johansson but imo it wasn't sexual in the least. Quite frankly if she had actually had sex with this slightly creepy alcoholic who was old enough to be her dad I would've puked.
Great movie though.
#146
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I guess I'm a little behind the curve, but finally rented this last night. I read the first two pages of this thread and it looks like there is definitely a mixed opinion. I would have to say that I fall on the appreciated it for what it was and saw the emotion, but didn't really like pace and lack of plot.
I do like movies where you have to think, but even with this I think I got the emotion of "midlife crisis" and "loveless marriage" within the first half of the movie and then it seems like it just dragged on those themes (very slowly) for the remainder of the film. Anyway, I know different strokes, but I probably wont see it again and I'm not sure why it got so much praise.
Also, don't lambast me right off the hop, because I didn't research this movie much before asking, but what does Bill Murray say at the end of the movie? Or is it supposed to be like the "suitcase" in Pulp Fiction thing, where it can be whatever you want it to be? You can put the answer in spoiler tags if needed.
Anyway, just wanted to give my two cents and figure out why it was praised so much.
I do like movies where you have to think, but even with this I think I got the emotion of "midlife crisis" and "loveless marriage" within the first half of the movie and then it seems like it just dragged on those themes (very slowly) for the remainder of the film. Anyway, I know different strokes, but I probably wont see it again and I'm not sure why it got so much praise.
Also, don't lambast me right off the hop, because I didn't research this movie much before asking, but what does Bill Murray say at the end of the movie? Or is it supposed to be like the "suitcase" in Pulp Fiction thing, where it can be whatever you want it to be? You can put the answer in spoiler tags if needed.
Anyway, just wanted to give my two cents and figure out why it was praised so much.
#147
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: CANADA
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found lost in translation to be a beautiful LOOKING film, and had some great character moments.
..but it's not a great film. There is little to no plot, and relies sqarely on the performances of the actors to carry it. Granted, it's a great showcase for Scarlett and Bill's acting capabilities.. but that alone a great film does not make.
..but it's not a great film. There is little to no plot, and relies sqarely on the performances of the actors to carry it. Granted, it's a great showcase for Scarlett and Bill's acting capabilities.. but that alone a great film does not make.
#148
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by LurkerDan
I'm just dumbfounded that LiT could be considered a morally corrupt film. It's a film with no sex or nudity, no violence, that is all about emotion.
I can surely see someone not liking it, but morally corrupt? Or somehow having any connection to films like the Godfather (other than the last name of the filmmaker)? Huh?
I can surely see someone not liking it, but morally corrupt? Or somehow having any connection to films like the Godfather (other than the last name of the filmmaker)? Huh?
I'm right there with you (more than two years later even!), I just don't understand all of this at all. In this day and age it seems to me that people purposely go out of their way to read things into certain works that just aren't there.
Lost in Translation is racist and morally corrupt? No, it's a very touching piece of work showcasing loneliness and alienation for two people in a far away land much different than their respective homes. After being surrounded by so many people who are so different, so many other aspects of culture that they just are not used to, they find comfort in one another, and while the age difference is there they are really more alike than anyone else in their lives at the moments when they are together. There are also a few glimpses that even though their culture is far different than that of Tokyo Japan, there are certain times, when it all comes down to it, that people are more alike no matter what the differences...like the laughter in the hospital, etc...
Few films have inspired me in so many different ways, and I don't see how anyone with an open and clear mind can't see that.
Then we have The Passion of the Christ, where people spoke out against it saying that it presented the Jewish people in a bad light. I just about understand this less than the crying out against LiT. The film took a written work, The Bible, and presented it to us on the screen. The story could not be told without showing the Jewish community's actions back in those days, and in all reality who can really blame them for their actions? When taking into account just what was going on, no matter if you believe in it or not, they were seeing a man claiming to be Christ and many simply did not believe what he was saying, and that was a far greater crime than most in their eyes.
To speak out against TPotC would be just like a bunch of morons speaking out against any number of Civil War films. Why don't we have a bunch of crying out saying that it puts our ancestors, the Americans who came before us, in a bad light when we see that they owned slaves? Or how about when many slaughtered the Indians? To me it's all the same, and I have no problem with putting things like that on the screen. You simply can't ignore history.
baracine, wow, just wow, reading certain things that you've posted in this thread, and in other threads, it just seems really out there (for a lack of better words without it being reported as a flame). Check out this thread on baracine's opinion on those who enjoy and like to talk about horror films.
I'm simply glad that there are a few level headed people out there who also see where I'm coming from, and thank God for that.
Last edited by BrentLumkin; 06-22-06 at 12:20 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Winfred0000 (08-24-22)
#149
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Corvin
I'm sure there are avid movie-goers with experience to arthouse films that didn't like Lost in Translation. I haven't met or talked to one yet, but I'm sure that one exists. ...
All joking aside, I am an avid movie watcher with *plenty* of arthouse film experience. I am also educated, intelligent, etc, etc and I found Lost in Translation incredibly boring. Honestly Lost In Translation came across as an exercise in film making that forgot the first purpose of a film is to entertain.
#150
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Nuff
Honestly Lost In Translation came across as an exercise in film making that forgot the first purpose of a film is to entertain.
Oh, and I found "Lost in Translation" to be highly entertaining, so I disagree with you on that point as well.