Lost In Translation: Highly Recommended!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by goldfgn@telus.net, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I love this film after seeing it on DVD tonight. I can identify with
    the feelings of the two main characters after being a frequent
    business traveller to Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and other Asian cities in
    the past.

    I especially notice how quiet the film is for Tokyo is like Paris the
    city of night that never sleeps, and Tokyo is rightly so a rather
    noise place. But the film makes Tokyo sound like as quiet as Fargo
    North Dakota. I couldn't yet fanthom why Sophia chose to do it this
    way but it's marvelously done.

    For Lost in Translation, I acquitted Sophia Coppola of her crime of
    ruined Godfather III.
    , Feb 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Briggs Guest

    <> wrote:

    > I love this film after seeing it on DVD tonight.


    I hated this film. Utterly, completely pointless.

    > For Lost in Translation, I acquitted Sophia Coppola of her crime of
    > ruined Godfather III.


    I actually preferred her acting in that, to her...her...(oh, I can't
    even bring myself to say it!)..."direction", here!

    Has the world gone INSANE??? This is an incredibly pointless exercise
    of wasting film stock! Is anyone SERIOUSLY going to want to pull this
    off the shelf and watch it again in a few years time??! This is the
    kind of movie you discover at three o'clock in the morning on TV, and
    have on in the background while you're doing something else, because it
    won't impinge upon whatever you're doing...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Peter Briggs" <pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1g8mtl7.knmon91d41dpkN%pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk...
    > Has the world gone INSANE??? This is an incredibly pointless exercise
    > of wasting film stock! Is anyone SERIOUSLY going to want to pull this
    > off the shelf and watch it again in a few years time??! This is the
    > kind of movie you discover at three o'clock in the morning on TV, and
    > have on in the background while you're doing something else, because

    it
    > won't impinge upon whatever you're doing...


    Right. Meanwhile, Gladiator is a lasting classic. Hmmm.....
    Joshua Zyber, Feb 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Steve K. Guest

    Peter Briggs wrote:
    > I hated this film. Utterly, completely pointless.

    You gotta be talking about that Academy Award winner "American Beauty".
    That was a steaming pile.

    "Lost in Translation" was a billion times better than that. Bill Murray
    was awesome!
    Steve K., Feb 5, 2004
    #4
  5. damnfine Guest

    Joshua Zyber wrote:
    > Right. Meanwhile, Gladiator is a lasting classic. Hmmm.....


    Ahhh back to the AVDVD classics.


    --
    /^\damnfine/^\
    "To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
    affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
    damnfine, Feb 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Stan Brown Guest

    It seems "Steve K." wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >You gotta be talking about that Academy Award winner "American Beauty".
    > That was a steaming pile.
    >
    >"Lost in Translation" was a billion times better than that. Bill Murray
    >was awesome!


    So good to know that I can depend on the group for thoughtful,
    reasoned analyses.

    --
    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com
    DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
    other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
    Stan Brown, Feb 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:37:37 +0000,
    pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk (Peter Briggs) wrote:


    >I hated this film. Utterly, completely pointless.


    It's a very subtle film that place you in the position of the actors.
    Tokyo, a city of at least 15M people, is a noisy and dirty place. Yet
    from the opening scene, the film is extremely quite and clean, why?
    Because that's how a tired traveller not knowing a bit about this
    foreign city should feel.

    If you have done some business travelling, you must have waken up one
    morning no exactly knowing where you are for a split second. And the
    film conveys that beautifully. I can go on and on and on but that's
    how you would feel going to Japan alone.

    And the subtle change in Bill Murray's pyschology from desperately
    wanting to leave to wanting to stay.

    A film like this is very hard to pull off, a little bit slower and
    it's the best sleeping pill every made. A little too fast, the
    message is completely lost. Sophia Coppola got it just right.

    >I actually preferred her acting in that, to her...her...(oh, I can't
    >even bring myself to say it!)..."direction", here!


    I hope that only reflects how much you hate this movie instead of how
    much you love Sophia's performance in GFIII. I can see how someone
    would not like LIT, but give it more time, it'll grow on you.

    BTW, anybody know what Bill Murray says to Scarlett Johansson in the
    end?
    , Feb 5, 2004
    #7
  8. damnfine Guest

    <> wrote:
    > BTW, anybody know what Bill Murray says to Scarlett Johansson in the
    > end?


    "Fans of this movie who seriously want to know and think it's important are
    just as intolerably silly as the people who don't like it at all."


    --
    /^\damnfine/^\
    "To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
    affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
    damnfine, Feb 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:55:02 +1030, "damnfine" <>
    wrote:

    ><> wrote:
    >> BTW, anybody know what Bill Murray says to Scarlett Johansson in the
    >> end?

    >
    >"Fans of this movie who seriously want to know and think it's important are
    >just as intolerably silly as the people who don't like it at all."


    I was just asking out of curiosity. I know the audiences are not
    supposed to know because they are supposed to make up their own mind
    of what's being said. The only audidable word is the poignant OK by
    Scarlet.

    I though Bill said something I"ll always remember this but you'll
    have to forget about me. OK, by Scarlett

    Or that we'll always have Tokyo, OK by Scarlett.

    Or that meet me again here this time next year, OK by Scarlett.

    It could be anything and that's the most powerful scene I've seen in a
    long time. We all want to see Bill and Scarlett get together but we
    know it they cross that line, it'll spell the end to this beautiful
    relationship.

    They'll be just like what they have been to their spouses now and
    that's the beauty of this film and subject.
    , Feb 5, 2004
    #9
  10. damnfine Guest

    <> wrote:
    > >> BTW, anybody know what Bill Murray says to Scarlett Johansson in the
    > >> end?

    > >
    > >"Fans of this movie who seriously want to know and think it's important are
    > >just as intolerably silly as the people who don't like it at all."

    >
    > I was just asking out of curiosity. I know the audiences are not
    > supposed to know because they are supposed to make up their own mind
    > of what's being said.


    Then why ask the extremely silly question?


    --
    /^\damnfine/^\
    "To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
    affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
    damnfine, Feb 5, 2004
    #10
  11. Guest

    On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:22:16 +1030, "damnfine" <>
    wrote:


    >Then why ask the extremely silly question?


    Just to see if any silly peopel will answer.
    , Feb 5, 2004
    #11
  12. Peter Briggs Guest

    Joshua Zyber <> wrote:

    > Right. Meanwhile, Gladiator is a lasting classic. Hmmm.....


    I really don't know why you're so down on "Gladiator", Josh...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #12
  13. Peter Briggs Guest

    Steve K. <> wrote:

    > Peter Briggs wrote:
    > > I hated this film. Utterly, completely pointless.

    > You gotta be talking about that Academy Award winner "American Beauty".
    > That was a steaming pile.


    I really didn't care for "American Beauty", but at least that had
    moments were *something happened*...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #13
  14. Peter Briggs Guest

    <> wrote:

    > >I hated this film. Utterly, completely pointless.

    >
    > It's a very subtle film


    To call it "subtle", is akin to saying that a snail is "a creature that
    doesn't move terribly quickly"...

    > If you have done some business travelling, you must have waken up one
    > morning no exactly knowing where you are for a split second.


    Sure. But if Ms Coppola wanted to impart that, she could have given us
    a film that has something ELSE to say for it's remaining 118 minutes...

    >I can see how someone
    > would not like LIT, but give it more time, it'll grow on you.


    Trust me. It won't...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #14
  15. Justin Guest

    Peter Briggs wrote on [Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:07:26 +0000]:
    > Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    >
    >> Right. Meanwhile, Gladiator is a lasting classic. Hmmm.....

    >
    > I really don't know why you're so down on "Gladiator", Josh...


    Probably because it is an overhyped piece of excrement
    Justin, Feb 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Justin Guest

    Peter Briggs wrote on [Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:07:28 +0000]:
    > <> wrote:
    > To call it "subtle", is akin to saying that a snail is "a creature that
    > doesn't move terribly quickly"...


    Not at all. It's a great character exploration piece.


    > Sure. But if Ms Coppola wanted to impart that, she could have given us
    > a film that has something ELSE to say for it's remaining 118 minutes...


    So... calling you a minute man would be an overestimation.


    >>I can see how someone
    >> would not like LIT, but give it more time, it'll grow on you.

    >
    > Trust me. It won't...


    *whoosh*

    That's the sound of the movie going way over your head.
    Justin, Feb 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Peter Briggs Guest

    Justin <> wrote:

    > > I really don't know why you're so down on "Gladiator", Josh...

    >
    > Probably because it is an overhyped piece of excrement


    Now, you're just being silly...
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #17
  18. Peter Briggs Guest

    Justin <> wrote:

    > > To call it "subtle", is akin to saying that a snail is "a creature that
    > > doesn't move terribly quickly"...

    >
    > Not at all. It's a great character exploration piece.


    Is it? Really? It just seems like an exercise in catharsis, to me.
    Johansson plays a "great character"? Huh? Where? She mopes around
    Tokyo, devoid of facial expression. And making those same stupid little
    "huhhh" sounds she did in "Girl With A Pearl Earring" (another piece of
    drivel I've had to sit through recently.).

    Bill Murray...is Bill Murray. He's always fun to watch. But, to me,
    it's as if the camera was trained on him, and he was asked to improv.
    He simply wasn't given anything to do.

    If you want to see a good indy movie that deals with "character
    exploration", watch "Secretary". It also has something that "Lost In
    Translation" doesn't...its lead actress can *act*.

    Everyone underachieves in this movie. I genuinely believe if the
    director's surname was something else, this movie wouldn't even be in
    competition.

    > > Sure. But if Ms Coppola wanted to impart that, she could have given us
    > > a film that has something ELSE to say for it's remaining 118 minutes...

    >
    > So... calling you a minute man would be an overestimation.


    I'm sure you tried to make a clever bon mot there, but somehow it didn't
    quite come off. Have another go...I'm feeling generous.

    > > Trust me. It won't...

    >
    > *whoosh*
    >
    > That's the sound of the movie going way over your head.


    That simply isn't possible. There is no content in this movie TO be
    elusive. As I said earlier -- the movie is a piece of catharsis, with
    Coppola retreading various things that happened in her life, onscreen,
    in the mistaken belief it's entertaining. It isn't. I was bored to
    tears by this tedious and vapid waste of celuloid, and money.
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #18
  19. Jay Stewart Guest

    <big snip>

    > That simply isn't possible. There is no content in this movie TO be
    > elusive. As I said earlier -- the movie is a piece of catharsis, with
    > Coppola retreading various things that happened in her life, onscreen,
    > in the mistaken belief it's entertaining. It isn't. I was bored to
    > tears by this tedious and vapid waste of celuloid, and money.


    We don't always share the same taste in movies but I couldn't agree with you
    more on this one. I would add 'pretentious' to its list of faults.

    Jay
    Jay Stewart, Feb 5, 2004
    #19
  20. Peter Briggs Guest

    Jay Stewart <> wrote:

    > We don't always share the same taste in movies but I couldn't agree with you
    > more on this one. I would add 'pretentious' to its list of faults.


    I hesitated to use that word, as it's a bit overused and often out of
    context, but to echo your words: "I couldn't agree with you more".
    Peter Briggs, Feb 5, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    419
    Dyuob Poltice
    Feb 6, 2004
  2. Waterperson77

    Re: Lost In Translation: Highly Recommended!

    Waterperson77, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    373
    Justin
    Feb 23, 2004
  3. Saref Aref

    Highly Recommended

    Saref Aref, May 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    329
    Lloyd Jones
    May 22, 2004
  4. Replies:
    19
    Views:
    482
    Dave Martindale
    Aug 7, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,003
    Chris Malcolm
    Aug 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page