User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 799 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MoviewatcherRuiz
    Oct 5, 2003
    1
    As you can notice, this movie received excellent reviews by the critics and about half of the public. After seeing Lost in Translation, I was compelled to reexamine why it was viewed so highly which led me to see it. The only thing I could conclude was the critics fear denouncing the director, who is the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola. The acting of Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson As you can notice, this movie received excellent reviews by the critics and about half of the public. After seeing Lost in Translation, I was compelled to reexamine why it was viewed so highly which led me to see it. The only thing I could conclude was the critics fear denouncing the director, who is the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola. The acting of Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson was first rate, however the story lacked meaning, interest, and quality. My wife and numerous people leaving the theatre agreed. Even the cinematography was mediocre. I also agreed with other reviews who noticed the jokes were racial and portrayed the Japanese as caricatures. The racial jokes did not bother me as much as the recurring, prolonged periods of mundane events. I think there is a place for showing slow scenes and reflecting, so as to develop the story and emphasize the characters, but in this case it was nearly the whole movie and came across as extremely boring. Throughout the movie I remembered the wonderful reviews and was just hoping the good scene was next, which would pull the movie together, give it purpose, and in the end I would appreciate the slow meaningless scenes, but it never came. I really enjoy Bill Murray and I think Metacritic.com is the best, however this movie is so inaccurately reviewed by the critics, that I forced myself to express these opinions. Expand
  2. JonDoeCritic
    Jan 6, 2004
    2
    This film sucks big time. I really don't know what it's about or where it's going. For example, Coppola sets the film in a foreign land and Murry and Johannsen (the girl) are sort of stuck there together by chance, and maybe they both share problems with their lives, but they have fun together, and then the film ends. Murray flies back home with a smile. This is no This film sucks big time. I really don't know what it's about or where it's going. For example, Coppola sets the film in a foreign land and Murry and Johannsen (the girl) are sort of stuck there together by chance, and maybe they both share problems with their lives, but they have fun together, and then the film ends. Murray flies back home with a smile. This is no meaningful exploration of the problems they have, nor do we even get a hint of how they will be solved. As to them as a couple: it .... is closer to a really good friendship rather than anything else. So, what do we get? what did i get after watching the film? a sense of emptyness and a feeling of being ripped off 2 hours of my time. Perhaps during the film i got a sense of "would they get together?" but this is destroyed by the really slow pace, and the fact that the director never really puts in anything else into the film apart from the couple's really close friendship and a confirmation of all the Japanese stereotypes. I'd say the balance was 50/50. Half the time we see scenes cut straight from those "cwazy-foreign people and their cwazy traditions" parts of films; e.g. the part where they dine and couldn't make out the sushi menu.....or was it the part where the Japanese director couldn't say his Rs properly.....or was it the other part where the Japanese photographer who couldn't say his Rs properly......or was it the fact that perhaps arcade games and Karoke are popular in Japan??or was it that Japanese people sometimes idolize western filmstars?..etc etc. The other half of the scenes were also repetitive and boring pictures of Murry and Johannsen never actually doing much, with hardly any dialogue, or good dialogue. I would neither go as far as saying the two main actors were good. In a film with roles like this, it?s impossible to say anyone was good. NB: only watch this film if you really really have time to spare?..don?t say I didn?t warn you!!! And how this film ever got above 5/10 remains a mystery to me Expand
  3. PeterK.
    Jan 6, 2004
    0
    I dragged three friends to watch this movie, which had incredibly good reviews from the critics. Half way into the movie, one of my friends said he had to go to the restroom....he never came back. The second friend fell asleep. And the third kept giving me a mean look, whispering to me, "You're gonna get it !" I don't get this movie. I thought it was supposed to be funny. I can I dragged three friends to watch this movie, which had incredibly good reviews from the critics. Half way into the movie, one of my friends said he had to go to the restroom....he never came back. The second friend fell asleep. And the third kept giving me a mean look, whispering to me, "You're gonna get it !" I don't get this movie. I thought it was supposed to be funny. I can literally count how many scenes that were funny: (1)Shower scene with the short shower head, (2) commercial shooting for that japanese alcoholic drink, (3) the scene of the two ladies trying hard not to laugh at Bill Murray talking to a japanese, and (4) the quirky japanese tv show. About 5-7 minutes total for these 4 scenes. The rest? I don't know. For the life of me, I do not understand this movie at all. I heard so many good reviews about this movie. And after watching it, I go back to these reviews (on this site). And I still don't quite get it. I notice on this site that people either love this movie (giving it a 10) or they think it's the worst thing ever. For me, maybe I'm just not sophosticated enough to understand this movie, but it's like watching a documentary of how snails move. Expand
  4. BillT.
    Feb 16, 2004
    2
    I viewed this in a group of savvy film fans. We thought it was boring, mis-directed, and a waste of time. Not many films in our lives fell into such a low cubby hole of class, in our estimation. If it weren't for the antics and talent of Bill Murray, it would have been a thorough waste. We are returning our DVD copy for a refund. Let's see Bill get into a film company that has talent.
  5. Pearlpark
    Feb 17, 2004
    2
    I could not believe how much attention this film has garnered given its use of offensive Japanese stereotypes which inadvertently and ultimately detract from the artistic merits of the film. I found the protagonist played by Scarlett Johanneson so unlikeable when she continued to say such dumb comments about why the Japanese mix up their r's and l's. She's supposed to be a I could not believe how much attention this film has garnered given its use of offensive Japanese stereotypes which inadvertently and ultimately detract from the artistic merits of the film. I found the protagonist played by Scarlett Johanneson so unlikeable when she continued to say such dumb comments about why the Japanese mix up their r's and l's. She's supposed to be a Yale graduate but yet she doesn't know that there are more a few thousand languages in the world, which don't have a r's and l's in their alphabet? There was a continual undercurrent theme of the Japanese being strange and incomprehensible, which definitely verged on racism. They are mocked at because the characters in the film did not care to delve further into the culture of the country that they were visiting. The characters are portrayed as isolated and lonely because of their ambiance (foreign and strange Tokyo) not by their choices to remain aloof and uncurious. These characters were not intelligent cultured people though I believe it was the artist's intention to depict them as such. The dialogue was grossly insipid. The only real parts of the film are when Bob, Bill Murray's character and Johanneson's character share some beautifully orchestrated intimate moments. It's a film poking ethnocentric fun at the Japanese with art-film veneer. It's only veneer with pressboard as its substance. I understand that the isolationist element was the backdrop to the romance between the 2 leads. But must Coppola resort to racism in order create to the effect that she did? A more skillful artist would NOT. Expand
  6. ZinWin
    Feb 2, 2004
    1
    Those not conforming to this never have a voice of their own. They simply don't have a story to tell, or at least not one that interests "us". This is the ignoble tradition into which Lost in Translation fits. It is similar to the way white-dominated Hollywood used to depict African-Americans - as crooks, pimps, or lacking self-control compared with white Americans. The US is an Those not conforming to this never have a voice of their own. They simply don't have a story to tell, or at least not one that interests "us". This is the ignoble tradition into which Lost in Translation fits. It is similar to the way white-dominated Hollywood used to depict African-Americans - as crooks, pimps, or lacking self-control compared with white Americans. The US is an empire, and from history we know that empires need to demonise others to perpetuate their own sense of superiority. Hollywood, so American mythology has it, is the factory of dreams. It is also the handmaiden to perpetuating the belief of the superiority of US cultural values over all others and, at times, to whitewashing history. The caricatures play to longstanding American prejudice about Japan. The US forced Japan to open up for trade with other countries in 1864, ending 400 years of isolationist policy by the Tokugawa regime. The US interned thousands of Japanese during World War II and dropped two nuclear bombs on the country. After Japan's defeat, America became more influential in East Asia; Japan was occupied, not only by the US forces but, more important, politically and culturally. Some have hailed the film's subtlety, but to me it is reminiscent of the racist jokes about Asians and black people that comedians told in British clubs in the 1970s. Yet instead of being shunned, the film this week received eight British Academy award nominations, and has four Oscar nominations, including for best picture. Coppola's negative stereotyping of the Japanese makes her more the thinking person's Sylvester Stallone than a cinematic genius. Good luck to the director for getting away with it, but what on earth are people with some semblance of taste doing saluting it? Expand
  7. CallieS.
    Feb 22, 2004
    1
    A story has to have guts. Structure is nice, but not critical. It needs parts. Internal pieces, working together to form a greater whole. Not a like, say, a mannequin, that only has shape but is ultimately hollow. When anyone sees a film or reads a story, they project themselves into it, onto it. They picture themselves there. They fancy themselves as silent observers, but then become one A story has to have guts. Structure is nice, but not critical. It needs parts. Internal pieces, working together to form a greater whole. Not a like, say, a mannequin, that only has shape but is ultimately hollow. When anyone sees a film or reads a story, they project themselves into it, onto it. They picture themselves there. They fancy themselves as silent observers, but then become one of the characters. Some films give you less to work with. This may be a matter of disagreement over exactly what is ?less? and ?more.? Some films are extremely talky and leave nothing to the imagination; others offer long, ambiguous lingering pauses and wordless stretches where you, the viewer/reader, must mentally fill in the blank. For example, I recall a scene from Legends of the Fall with Brad Pitt. One scene stood out in my mind, but only because of how absurdly it was executed and how obviously it was meant to have played: Brad and Julia Ormond are separated by jail cell bars, and look into one another?s eyes for, oh, I?d say a good minute. But blankly. Both of them. Nothing happening. Maybe a little head tilt there and there. But nothing. No reaction. No spark. No information. Mystery in a film is fine, but don?t leave me guessing what the characters are thinking unless that?s your goal. And given the length of the scene, I can only imagine that wasn?t the goal of the scene. The trick?no, the essential need?of making a great story is walking that line. I feel I can tell when a director means to say something with a pregnant pause or an idle rumination, but I can also tell when they simply don?t put forth enough effort to make it happen. So many films have only the shape of an effectively communicative scene that should truly, genuinely resonate, but don?t have the guts. Show me a scene like that again, and you?re basically saying, ?See what I?m trying to say here? If not, fill in the blanks.? I feel as if I?m invited to go home and make up my own story. I watch a film to feel something and know what it is that?s being shown, not play Madlibs. Minimalism?s great; Nothingism ain?t. Finally, a story only works if something happens. Yes, in real life, sometimes nothing happens. ?Nothing? happens in real life as often as ?something? does. But it?s not interesting to watch something be static, stagnant. Transformation is intriguing. Journeys are interesting. Connected sequences of events are interesting. Cause and effect. My Dinner with Andre is just two men sitting and having dinner, telling stories. No plot, but by the end, there is change in the characters and you see it. You know there has been a change made. If your characters learn nothing or do nothing, or have some new thought in their heads, then they are stagnant, unengaging, and not worth anyone?s time. Lost in Translation commits all the above sins. It looks and smells like a great movie, but it fails to do the aforementioned ?walking the line? trick. It does, however, appear convincingly lifelike, with even some real moments along the way. But I was taken aback by how many alarming cliché moments and characters popped up throughout what was supposedly an original film. True, there?s nothing new under the sun, but the trick, again, is to make it seem new. And there was nothing new I could find here, and nothing old that seemed worth saying again. There are those who?ve criticized the stereotypes in the film and considered them bordering on (if not altogether) racist. Let?s forget that for a moment, since I don?t feel that stereotyping is the film?s fundamental flaw. Frankly, it barely registered, and not due to any cultural insensitivity on my part, but only because the stagnant nature of the characters left me so busy searching for any reason to care, I didn?t really notice. Many ?10? point givers here speak of the depth of the insight and the genuine expression of the actors in their roles. Well, they?re certainly trying to get that across, but what do they do about it? They seem intelligent enough to do something about it, yet do nothing. They don?t ring true. Either they should have been even deeper in their own holes of depression, or enlightened enough to do something. In other words, something shoulda gave, and nothin? did. Score: 1. Expand
  8. AlexW.
    Feb 20, 2004
    2
    This has got to be the most overrated movie ever. The fact that it's nominated for a Best Picture Oscar alongside fantastick movies like Mystic River and Seabiscuit is just WRONG.
  9. N.Nottingham
    Sep 29, 2003
    0
    Racist and Self-indulgent .
  10. AK
    Jan 12, 2004
    0
    Never....ever.... have I seen a movie that is as bad as Lost In Translation. In my opinion, being able to act, as Bill Murray can, does not make up for a film where the story ultimately could have been told in 15 minutes. Obviously, a director needs to use a few scenes of padding to fill out a full length movie, however, this film had a few scenes to fill out the padding. I would have Never....ever.... have I seen a movie that is as bad as Lost In Translation. In my opinion, being able to act, as Bill Murray can, does not make up for a film where the story ultimately could have been told in 15 minutes. Obviously, a director needs to use a few scenes of padding to fill out a full length movie, however, this film had a few scenes to fill out the padding. I would have gotten more out of watching a travel documentary on Japan. I think there was 15 minutes of dialogue in the whole film, all of which was completely mundane and irrelevant to whatever it is the film was trying to be about. A story of a week in my life could be of more interest than this was. Before i went to see it I was told it is a little slow. That is wrong. I film actually has to move to be slow. This film does not go anywhere from beginning to end. On top of its lack of story, the film is also badly editted and the contrast and colours are way off on all the scenes shot indoors. I believe a better title for this film would have been 'Lost in Frustration' as that is what I felt throughout the entire film. Afterwards, curious to find out if anyone could possibly enjoy that tripe I asked a few of the patrons at the cinema what they thought. People told me they thought it was good but when asked if they knew what it was about they didnt have a clue. They also couldnt tell me one reason for saying they liked it. Which leads me to believe that all their responses were completely pseudo intellectual. Expand
  11. AnnR.
    Jan 28, 2004
    0
    Wow, a movie about real life: go on vacation and everything seems surreal, come home and it's crap. I hate movies where the big twist is that nothing happens.
  12. KelR.
    Feb 11, 2004
    1
    I honestly don't understand the reason this movie got such great reviews. The ONLY reason this movie got higher than a zero is because it was shot in Japan, with some beautiful scenery. Other then that it was just plain boring, not to mention offensive. Sorry, but I'm sick of all the films that are degrading to marriage, which was the crux of this film. So in conclusion THIS I honestly don't understand the reason this movie got such great reviews. The ONLY reason this movie got higher than a zero is because it was shot in Japan, with some beautiful scenery. Other then that it was just plain boring, not to mention offensive. Sorry, but I'm sick of all the films that are degrading to marriage, which was the crux of this film. So in conclusion THIS MOVIE BLOWS. Expand
  13. J.Daco
    Feb 26, 2004
    1
    I'll give it a one rather than 0 because it isn't the worst I've seen. But please, this film is a waste of time. Not that smart, nor that true to life. It is unfathomable that it got a best picture nomination.
  14. SamG.
    Feb 28, 2004
    3
    Possibly the most overrated movie of all time. Certainly the most overrated movie of 2003. Want three words that describe "Lost"? How about vague, vague, and VAGUE. Coppola wrote a vague and misguided screenplay, got two wonderful actors, a great DP, and now...she's a GENIUS! I think it's a total slap in the face to all women in filmmaking that Coppola gets this history-making Possibly the most overrated movie of all time. Certainly the most overrated movie of 2003. Want three words that describe "Lost"? How about vague, vague, and VAGUE. Coppola wrote a vague and misguided screenplay, got two wonderful actors, a great DP, and now...she's a GENIUS! I think it's a total slap in the face to all women in filmmaking that Coppola gets this history-making nomination. It's obvious to me that the film gets by in appealing to pseudo-intellectuals, who find some fun in trying to bring Coppola's ambiguous story together in their own minds. It's kind of a novel concept actually: 1. Make a vague movie with no point. 2. Market it to self-important pseudo-intellectuals. 3. Have them decide for themselves what they would like the movie to be about. 4. Get rave reviews. 5. Collect the awards. The funny thing is, this isn't really a bad movie, it's kind of cute in a sleepy-annoying sort of way, but you would think it's the next "Citizen Kane" the way it's being lauded by the press. It's not. It's not even close. Some have said it's a "love letter" to Japan. Wrong again! Not only does Coppola miss the boat with her narrow view of modern Japanese society, I found her characterizations to be somewhat racist, and completely two-dimentional. Having spent a great deal of time in Japan the past several years, I can't help but wonder why she didn't bother to get to know the culture a little better before taking it upon herself to define it for the American public. In the end I would have to say "Lost" is a boring, ambiguous, and misguided exercise in filmmaking and I would hazzard to guess that nepotism has a great deal to do with this film's success, let alone produced. Expand
  15. SethB.
    Feb 28, 2004
    3
    This would've and should've been a song rather than a movie. I give it 3 because Scarlett Johasson is just lovely, but that is all I can say good about this movie. Murray, whom I usually like looks 80 years old! His performance is fine, as usuall but my problem is not with the actors-it's the movie. Don't worry, I the the movie: fame, loss, searching to find This would've and should've been a song rather than a movie. I give it 3 because Scarlett Johasson is just lovely, but that is all I can say good about this movie. Murray, whom I usually like looks 80 years old! His performance is fine, as usuall but my problem is not with the actors-it's the movie. Don't worry, I the the movie: fame, loss, searching to find life's meaning, blah, blah, blah. I mean this is not, and does not make a good film. The movie is boring because while the movie has some promising points, it's story is told all wrong. Don't even get me started on the fact that this is marginally wose rip-off of "Leaving Las Vegas", another overrated film. Expand
  16. KeithW.
    Mar 15, 2004
    0
    I had to watch this film in small half hour segments to keep from collapsing into deep suicidal depression. I guess my problem is that I am supposed to care about these characters and what happens to them. These characters are so self-absorbed that I don't believe that they really made the emotional connection that the movie supposedly portrays. P.S.-To "Lorna" don't feel bad I I had to watch this film in small half hour segments to keep from collapsing into deep suicidal depression. I guess my problem is that I am supposed to care about these characters and what happens to them. These characters are so self-absorbed that I don't believe that they really made the emotional connection that the movie supposedly portrays. P.S.-To "Lorna" don't feel bad I despise you for wanting to know what he finally said to her too. Expand
  17. JoeS.
    Apr 15, 2004
    0
    No sex cursing and killing. I hated it.
  18. JJDidier
    May 25, 2004
    2
    If you were to take each scene from this movie and show them to me individually, i would say that these scenes probably say that this movie was a great success. However, the fact that nothing happens and this is just Coppola's weak attempt to make a movie so powerfully driven by character development makes it dull and lame. I have to admit i enjoyed the movie when i was watching If you were to take each scene from this movie and show them to me individually, i would say that these scenes probably say that this movie was a great success. However, the fact that nothing happens and this is just Coppola's weak attempt to make a movie so powerfully driven by character development makes it dull and lame. I have to admit i enjoyed the movie when i was watching it... waiting for something... anything to happen. Then it ended, and I was ashamed I had spent $6 on it. When this one is over, it will really want to make you pull some hair out. I couldn't believe how critically acclaimed this movie was...and still is. Expand
  19. JeffC
    Jan 23, 2005
    3
    Nice cinematography....a lot of nice eye candy and "trick" camera angles, but, the story was stuck in neutral from start to finish. Nothing ever grabs your will to be interested. How it rated so high with critics makes me wonder if it was because of the director's last name.
  20. mikes.
    Jan 31, 2005
    0
    The first 20 minutes was only interesting because of the excellent photography. But this has to be the biggest case of 'The Kings New Clothes' I have ever witnessed. I was really looking forward to a Bill Murray film (Groundhog Day is one of my top favourites), but this is dull, dull, dull. I almost walked out after 45 minutes, but just had to see if the film really would get The first 20 minutes was only interesting because of the excellent photography. But this has to be the biggest case of 'The Kings New Clothes' I have ever witnessed. I was really looking forward to a Bill Murray film (Groundhog Day is one of my top favourites), but this is dull, dull, dull. I almost walked out after 45 minutes, but just had to see if the film really would get interesting. It did not. I wish I had gone to find some paint drying somewhere. Not trash, just dull beyond anything ever witnessed on the big screen. Sorry. NIL points. Expand
  21. TonyB.
    Sep 18, 2005
    2
    Easily the most overrated film of 2003, this is yet another indication that critics' views often cannot be taken seriously. I was warned by friends that this was a dreadful bore, but I listened to Roger Ebert and many of his colleagues instead.
  22. BobA.
    Jan 15, 2006
    3
    A nice concept with good performances but in the end, its a meaningful ending slapped onto a film that never thematically gets us there. (like being walked to third base, and thinking the movie had hit a triple). In essence a less stylized, less meaty version of In the Mood for Love. Would have worked great as a short.
  23. Elvist.
    Oct 9, 2003
    1
    Boring! Once again the professional critics miss the mark as they do not understand the audience they report to? How do they get the job?
  24. [Anonymous]
    Sep 22, 2003
    3
    Although Bill Murray's performance was wonderful, and the story line was realistic (2 lonely and bored people were drawn to each other in a foreign country), I was unable to enjoy the movie due to its racism. What the director and the majority of my audience thought funny, I thought was racist. And, I felt that the audience was to view Tokyo as a strange city. But, the city was very Although Bill Murray's performance was wonderful, and the story line was realistic (2 lonely and bored people were drawn to each other in a foreign country), I was unable to enjoy the movie due to its racism. What the director and the majority of my audience thought funny, I thought was racist. And, I felt that the audience was to view Tokyo as a strange city. But, the city was very much like NYC, with the tall buildings, flashy and always available resources and strange behaviors of its citizens. Expand
  25. KimB.
    Jan 4, 2004
    0
    The opening shot should have been the clue: Nothing! For all the critics are gaga with Bill Murray I must say it is difficult, no impossible, to sympathize with this dull and cyncial character. His slight ability to realize his own dull atrophied life and relationships doesn't save the film. What's happened to cinematic storytelling? It needn't be traditional but it has to The opening shot should have been the clue: Nothing! For all the critics are gaga with Bill Murray I must say it is difficult, no impossible, to sympathize with this dull and cyncial character. His slight ability to realize his own dull atrophied life and relationships doesn't save the film. What's happened to cinematic storytelling? It needn't be traditional but it has to allow us to participate on some level. Boredom and ennui is not enough. Expand
  26. JoannaJ.
    Feb 25, 2004
    1
    Too boring. I have never seen such a ridiculously boring film all my life.
  27. Harry&KarenS.
    Feb 8, 2004
    0
    We simply cannot believe this "bomb" was nominated for the Academy Award as Best Movie! Wednesdays are movie nights for us and this was the very worst movie we viewed in 2003. It was downright senseless and boring!!
  28. GB
    Mar 1, 2004
    3
    Dull, glacially paced, pseudo-profound commentary on the alienation of modern life. If you want to see a truly interesting and thought-provoking movie on this topic, try American Beauty instead. At least some of the characters in that movie occasionally find some meaning in their existence.
  29. A.S.
    Oct 7, 2003
    0
    Two americans wandering around in the soulless world of all the negative american stereotypes about japan. the only people in tokyo capable of self reflection and dignity are the bored white visitors. oh and coppola inserted some slow motion crap about traditional ceremonies and flower arranging set to newagey music. only a racist could enjoy it.
  30. GuyB.
    Sep 16, 2003
    3
    Xenophobe chases pregnant teen bride : Lost In Translation After all the hype about this film I was happy to sit in Chelsea on Sunday to enjoy this as a beautifully photographed string of witty scenarios but it didn't reach me as a great new piece of cinematic history that critics had promised. I assume that the film was very autobiographical but it failed for me on two counts. Xenophobe chases pregnant teen bride : Lost In Translation After all the hype about this film I was happy to sit in Chelsea on Sunday to enjoy this as a beautifully photographed string of witty scenarios but it didn't reach me as a great new piece of cinematic history that critics had promised. I assume that the film was very autobiographical but it failed for me on two counts. Firstly, (correct me if I'm wrong) but the actress was obviously pregnant. I spent the rest of the film unable to believe that Bill Murray was really interested in chasing a pregnant wife so instead I spent a lot of the time fascinated with how the director shot scenes and directed the actor in order to hide the podgy belly and fattening but. My second issue was about the jokes about how odd/strange/different the Japanese are. The film moved from parody to xenophobic tabloid mirth to racist slurs. I seem to remember that most films that take the piss out of a country's differences normally go through an arch to show how beautiful/clever/cultural/etc that country actually is a to and more worryingly. I think I saw 2 shots where they showed an endearing image of Japan and the 'witty' jokes soon relied on the main premise of 'look - aren't the Japanese small!' and this was repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated. Yes there was a countermeasure by making a tiny piss-take about blonde bimbo yanks (how many are there left) but this was insignificant. The film really reflects how even 'cultured' Americans view the rest of the world and exemplifies current US foreign policy. The film demonstrates that all Americans think foreigners are odd, silly, physically weaker and tells us that wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all Americans. Expand
  31. PravitC.
    Sep 17, 2003
    3
    As nice as the movie is shot, I'm pretty sick of every movie featuring Asians to have to make racial jokes about them in some way or another. If someone made a movie about Blacks or Hispanics that made fun of them as much I'm sure all the civil rights groups would be in an uproar and boycotting the movie and whatnot. As an Asian I'm pretty sick of all these movies depicting As nice as the movie is shot, I'm pretty sick of every movie featuring Asians to have to make racial jokes about them in some way or another. If someone made a movie about Blacks or Hispanics that made fun of them as much I'm sure all the civil rights groups would be in an uproar and boycotting the movie and whatnot. As an Asian I'm pretty sick of all these movies depicting us like this. Besides that I'm sick of the "white guy gets overwhelmed by foreign land and gets grossed out by weird food" stuff. Expand
  32. BobbyG.
    Sep 22, 2003
    1
    This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Besides depicting Tokyo as a hell on earth, the two leads -- Murray and Johansson -- have absolutely NO chemistry. And they lay around in bed all day, then go out to the clubs and just get more bored and tired so they can go back to their rooms and lay around in bed again. Murray does well with what little script he's given, but This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Besides depicting Tokyo as a hell on earth, the two leads -- Murray and Johansson -- have absolutely NO chemistry. And they lay around in bed all day, then go out to the clubs and just get more bored and tired so they can go back to their rooms and lay around in bed again. Murray does well with what little script he's given, but this movie moves so slowly and the rare dialogue is so vapid, I can't believe most of the critics are raving about it. Truly a huge disappointment. Expand
  33. MedeaT.
    Jan 12, 2004
    0
    A film about nothing. Stultifyingly dull, its characters are self-absorbed, racist, one -- no -- half-dimensional cardboard cutouts, who, rather than saying a whole lot with a few words, manage to say absolutely nothing of any value while appearing about as involved in their non-existent roles as Bob is during the painfully obvious commercial shoots depicted in this pretentious piece of A film about nothing. Stultifyingly dull, its characters are self-absorbed, racist, one -- no -- half-dimensional cardboard cutouts, who, rather than saying a whole lot with a few words, manage to say absolutely nothing of any value while appearing about as involved in their non-existent roles as Bob is during the painfully obvious commercial shoots depicted in this pretentious piece of twaddle. There is absolutely no narrative, no artistry and no there there although it does make a beautifully panoramic picture postcard for the city of Tokyo and its undoubtedly thrilled traveler's bureau. Expand
  34. AnnU.
    Jan 27, 2004
    0
    The movie was a complete waste of my time. I expected to be entertained, not bored to death. I kept waiting for something to happen to liven it up, but it never happened. I could have stayed home, saved $8.00 and would have been allot happier. Noone in the audience seemed to have enjoyed it either. It was obvious by the look on each of their faces. I think everyone was in a state of shock The movie was a complete waste of my time. I expected to be entertained, not bored to death. I kept waiting for something to happen to liven it up, but it never happened. I could have stayed home, saved $8.00 and would have been allot happier. Noone in the audience seemed to have enjoyed it either. It was obvious by the look on each of their faces. I think everyone was in a state of shock after seeing this film. We expected more. Expand
  35. JoeyB.
    Dec 7, 2004
    3
    I'm not an american. I rated it low because I was not surprisingly impressed with the japanese culture and atmosphere. The movie was silently run-on and lacked interesting points. Really suprise how it was well rated by critics.
  36. GerardS.
    Feb 10, 2004
    2
    This movie only just came out in Britain. What a rip-off. 105 minutes with scarce wisdom, sparse humour, and long pregnant pauses. Two Americans depressed by life and the irrelevance of their marriages to their happiness, encounter each other in a Tokyo hotel and get relief from sharing platonically their depression. Poor portrayals of Tokyo, ridiculous references to the cultural This movie only just came out in Britain. What a rip-off. 105 minutes with scarce wisdom, sparse humour, and long pregnant pauses. Two Americans depressed by life and the irrelevance of their marriages to their happiness, encounter each other in a Tokyo hotel and get relief from sharing platonically their depression. Poor portrayals of Tokyo, ridiculous references to the cultural differences between Japan and the West, no cinematic visual scenery, so who paid the critics to rate highly this plagiarism of Sleepless in Seattle? Expand
  37. DeloresH.
    Feb 17, 2004
    1
    I dont understand all the praise surrounding this directionless chick flick. Now it's up for a bunch of awards including Best Picture. I just don't see the big deal. A far more deserving nominee would have been Cold Mountain, the truly great movie of thos year.
  38. mg
    Nov 10, 2006
    0
    Translation, please I
  39. Kathleen
    Feb 20, 2004
    1
    After my boyfriend said he thought it was almost over, I looked at the clock and told him it had only been on for 40 min. The only reason I give it a 1 is because I didn't fall asleep. All the people in the movie did was stand around or sit near a window in their underwear.
  40. SueH.
    Feb 26, 2004
    2
    This movie is proof positive that you can't believe a thing the critics say. I think the fact that the name Coppola was connected with the film greatly influenced the reviews. This was without a doubt the most boring movie I have seen this year. Bill Murry, who I dearly love, appeared awkward and out of place as indeed he was. The story was lame and slow with a disappointing end. The This movie is proof positive that you can't believe a thing the critics say. I think the fact that the name Coppola was connected with the film greatly influenced the reviews. This was without a doubt the most boring movie I have seen this year. Bill Murry, who I dearly love, appeared awkward and out of place as indeed he was. The story was lame and slow with a disappointing end. The few amusing moments were extremely lame! The only redeeming value in this movie was the study in contrast of Tokyo and the Japanese Culture in general......from geisha to punk rock, it was a sad picture of a beautiful culture going Western and loosing its beauty. Don't waste your money renting this one unless you are really into two hours of boredom. Expand
  41. NoreenM.
    Feb 7, 2004
    2
    I've never fallen asleep in a movie before. What is all the hype about? Bill Murray being Bill Murray. We are tempted with the notion of forbidden fruit which never happened thank goodness. Boring scenes of her sitting in front of a window. Don't waste your money.
  42. Jifu
    Mar 2, 2004
    0
    John gave it a 10 and says that this film requires you to use your brain? Oh, so this film is full of metaphors and similies? That's why it seems to utterly boring and pointless to this double-college-degree idiot; thanks for clearing that up John. I've been to Japan 3 times and don't speak Japanese; I get the humor, the point, and empathize with the situations. Yet I am John gave it a 10 and says that this film requires you to use your brain? Oh, so this film is full of metaphors and similies? That's why it seems to utterly boring and pointless to this double-college-degree idiot; thanks for clearing that up John. I've been to Japan 3 times and don't speak Japanese; I get the humor, the point, and empathize with the situations. Yet I am sitting here waiting for the darn thing to end so that I can do something exciting, like clean the bathroom. Expand
  43. CurtP.
    Mar 4, 2004
    1
    Movie should never have been put on DVD, should have been on tv. A very simple movie inspite of what anyone wants to build it up to be. If this movie didn't have Copola involved the critics wouldnt have given it anything above a 2 on a scale of ten. I regret I could have been doing something else rather than waiting for it to become interesting. I like Bill Murry even though Movie should never have been put on DVD, should have been on tv. A very simple movie inspite of what anyone wants to build it up to be. If this movie didn't have Copola involved the critics wouldnt have given it anything above a 2 on a scale of ten. I regret I could have been doing something else rather than waiting for it to become interesting. I like Bill Murry even though he's a smart ass I felt sorry that even he got stuck in this political rip off -come on does anyone really think this was deserving of a acadamy nomination? If critics think this is such a great movie why are all the copies waiting to be rented in the store could it be because no one is recommending it?This was a good opportunity to see what critics are full of b.s. I will not read those that gave this a steller review in the future. Why did I spend the time to write this? Hoping that I will save someone the money and time! Expand
  44. Swerve
    Mar 6, 2004
    3
    Furhter proof that movie critics need to take their heads out of their collective butts.
  45. MichaelS.
    Dec 30, 2003
    0
    A pretentious waste of time and money. the worst sin: who cares about either of these folks? answer: daddy coppola.
  46. G.V.
    Feb 28, 2004
    0
    Yuck. It's embarassing, thinking that if I ever went to Tokyo myself I'd have to be at least in name "American" like these guys. I don't want their apathy and narcissism rubbing off on my reputation. I think the biggest point of this film despite whatever it was actually trying to prove was that for people that spend their entire week in a foreign country doing practically Yuck. It's embarassing, thinking that if I ever went to Tokyo myself I'd have to be at least in name "American" like these guys. I don't want their apathy and narcissism rubbing off on my reputation. I think the biggest point of this film despite whatever it was actually trying to prove was that for people that spend their entire week in a foreign country doing practically nothing but drinking and whining, they will forever be "Lost in Western Paradigm" and will have no choice but to seek out and relate to people just as close-minded and dull as they are. I was shocked at the portrayal of Japanese people as such oddballs and psychopaths. What on earth was with that woman that came storming into Bill Murray's room??? Was she supposed to be schizophrenic? A person with no knowledge of the Japanese will definitely get the wrong impression about who they are from such strange portraits. Most people do not act that way on a normal day to day basis. Very unfair representation. I also agree with the opinion that this movie was boring and slow. It was. There were so many things the characters could have done in such a rich setting, and yet they randomly decided to stick on each other. Who goes to Japan of all places to meet and fall in love with a big, old, hairy American guy? Point in short: People are people no matter where you go, humanity does have a certain inalienable element despite its diversity and it's almost impossible to go somewhere and be completely misunderstood. Everyone has human experience. It's up to you to bring it out in the people you meet, to be the one that connects to your surroundings, not to complain that your surroundings aren't more like you. With that said, let's throw this monstrosity in the trash where it belongs. Expand
  47. Mar 6, 2015
    0
    an a very boring film. it just about talking, talking, talking, and really talking. i still wonder why this movie got nominated for best picture in so many awards.
  48. JenniferN.
    Jan 6, 2004
    3
    While there were some funny parts and some lovely scenes, this movie was boring -- the scrip was too sparce and the result was not entertaining.
  49. SueM.
    Oct 11, 2003
    3
    Bill Murray was great, but that's pretty much it. I don't know what film the critics saw, but the one I paid 8 bucks to see was the slowest moving vehicle this side of "The English Patient." Sure, the romance was sweet and had to build very slowly, but the whole thing seemed like real time to me. Bottom line -- very disappointing.
  50. B.C.
    Oct 10, 2003
    0
    The most boring movie I've ever seen. Nothing happens, and the "atmosphere" is cloying and tiresome, not as clever as the director and her admirers seem to think. I couldn't wait to leave the theater -- so I walked out 15 minutes before the ending. If this hadn't been directed by a Coppola, it would have sunk without a trace. Don't waste your time.
  51. Mickey
    Oct 18, 2003
    0
    Downright boring and awful. If you are thinking about seeing this dull film you can save yourself the money and stay home and watch the paint dry!
  52. MarieH.
    Jan 27, 2007
    3
    The creepy angst that pervades this film is uncomfortable to watch, and frankly doesn't tell me anything except that Bob is a bored, and vaguely meaningless person. I must have missed the funny parts.
  53. BryanT.
    Oct 5, 2003
    1
    Two lonely people meet in Tokyo, and wonder around the town in travel channel fashion; Could of seen the same thing on the travel channel. Spent the entire movie wonder when it was going to get funny and when the movie was going to accomplish something. The humor is nonexistent. Don't waste your money on this turkey.
  54. AriB.
    Jan 24, 2007
    0
    Skip this movie! There are too many other films much better than this over-rated bore.
  55. JosephB.
    Jan 11, 2008
    2
    I could not believe when I saw this film that it was the same thing all the critics had been raving about. Overlong, underplotted, little or no character development, overtly racist...it's well acted and shot, but the film has no heart.
  56. 2roads
    Nov 2, 2003
    3
    Good Title as the storyline was evidentially "Lost In Translation." A better art house film with story included is found in "The Magdalene Sisters." You won't walk out of the theater thinking that you just wasted two hours in a bad seat.
  57. BigShooter!
    Oct 2, 2003
    1
    Had a few funny bits, but otherwise very dull, my partner and I took turns dozing-off...."is it over/do you wan to leave?"
  58. LeroyL.
    May 7, 2004
    2
    I can appreciate artsy-fartsy films, I worked in video stores for eight years, but this was just crud. Vain and pretentious. Bill Murray was the only saving grace in this stinker.
  59. Catherine
    Jan 13, 2007
    0
    What a shame to waste money on such a bland, uninteresting, cliché movie. My family has not yet forgiven me for bringing this video home one evening. Humour? Where? I am not quite sure where the Oscars came from and I wonder what the critics have been watching lately. It must be one of the worst films I have ever seen and I normally like Bill Murray!
  60. JackB.
    Nov 1, 2007
    3
    There are a few redeeming qualities to this movie: (a) scarlett, (b) bill, (c) the ending. Why there are more non-redeeming qualities are as follows: (1) it's frankly not believable, (2) cliche' typical daddy save me complex-fantasy, (3) creating boring mood is plain boring (4) annoying by design to group Japanese culture as boring & silly, (5) it's pretentious & works hard There are a few redeeming qualities to this movie: (a) scarlett, (b) bill, (c) the ending. Why there are more non-redeeming qualities are as follows: (1) it's frankly not believable, (2) cliche' typical daddy save me complex-fantasy, (3) creating boring mood is plain boring (4) annoying by design to group Japanese culture as boring & silly, (5) it's pretentious & works hard to be clever (6) it's devoid of making a connection (7) effectively leaves audience empty. The most frustrating part is this movie has more potential. Both these characters could have pulled off so much more, could still keep that somber mood & developed more mystery & intrigue. I kept wanting more of Bill to step out, and needed more of Scarlett to bust. I have no patience for shallowness. This girl is in Tokyo. He is in Tokyo. Hard to be lost (souls) That is not believable. If they were in the middle of the Guam - maybe. If they can't bring energy to Tokyo, then they can't bring energy at all, and therefore these characters are frankly hopeless and that is the most unattractive part of this film. Why waste time with people that cant barely save themselves in the best of world-class circumstances. Yawn..ZZZZZzzzz. Expand
  61. JoeB.
    Jan 8, 2009
    1
    This may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm only giving it a "1" because I love Bill Murray. This movie is an hour and some odd minutes of my life I will never get back. Unfortunately, it is highly representative of a generation that needs to stop complaining and get off it's ass and get a life. No real plot, no drama, no climax, no deep discovery culminating in a social This may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm only giving it a "1" because I love Bill Murray. This movie is an hour and some odd minutes of my life I will never get back. Unfortunately, it is highly representative of a generation that needs to stop complaining and get off it's ass and get a life. No real plot, no drama, no climax, no deep discovery culminating in a social statement. It's about two pathetic souls that don't even know how to amuse themselves let alone each other. Expand
  62. StanM.
    Mar 19, 2004
    0
    It was Horrible. It wasn't funny. It wasn't interesting. Just like another person on this site "I had to watch this film in small half hour segments" - it was so boring...
  63. Jun 17, 2011
    1
    This movie is a poor piece of film, over-hyped by critics for no other reason save that the director's father is Francis Ford Coppola. Features Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson in Tokyo for separate reasons. Japan and the Japanese are portrayed in a poor (and stereotyping) fashion, (video games, karaoke, gadgets, and the misprounciations of "Ls" as "Rs").

    There is borderline racism in
    This movie is a poor piece of film, over-hyped by critics for no other reason save that the director's father is Francis Ford Coppola. Features Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson in Tokyo for separate reasons. Japan and the Japanese are portrayed in a poor (and stereotyping) fashion, (video games, karaoke, gadgets, and the misprounciations of "Ls" as "Rs").

    There is borderline racism in this movie, as the way these two lead roles act, as if lost, estranged, abandoned, or stranded on the moon surrounded by Aliens. I've been to Japan (I'm a western European) and found no such culture shock. That is really the premise that this movie is built on - culture shock of White Western people finding themselves in Japan. And that is where it fell down for me. In terms of comedy, it was billed as "Bill Murray - comedy genius - at his best." Far from it. I like Murray (Quick Change, Stripes, Caddyshack, etc.) This was just not funny, and I do not think there is any attempt for him to be funny.

    Scarlett. Well she does not do anything wrong, but does not do anything right either. All in all, a very poor script. Very poor direction. A complete lack of substance, with ignorance and racism creeping in at times.

    Such a time sink.
    Expand
  64. DonD.
    Oct 20, 2003
    1
    Along with Leaving Las Vegas, this has to be one of the most overrated movies of recent years. It's an incredible bore. There's no story to speak of, the characters are boring and very little of interest happens. The Japanese are reduced to stereotypes. I just didn't care about anything in this movie. Why is Bill Murray's performance deemed to be so wonderful? He Along with Leaving Las Vegas, this has to be one of the most overrated movies of recent years. It's an incredible bore. There's no story to speak of, the characters are boring and very little of interest happens. The Japanese are reduced to stereotypes. I just didn't care about anything in this movie. Why is Bill Murray's performance deemed to be so wonderful? He pretty much sleepwalks through everything. Call this "Leaving Tokyo." I should have left during the opening credits. Expand
  65. BrandonM
    Oct 30, 2008
    0
    Nothing happens. Honestly, this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a long movie where a guy goes to Japan and meets a friend. Theres no humor, no drama, no climax, no resolution, no theme, nothing. NOTHING! It's not like I'm missing some underlying plot, or missing the subtleties of the love/friendship these 2 lonely people share in a foreign land, but that Nothing happens. Honestly, this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a long movie where a guy goes to Japan and meets a friend. Theres no humor, no drama, no climax, no resolution, no theme, nothing. NOTHING! It's not like I'm missing some underlying plot, or missing the subtleties of the love/friendship these 2 lonely people share in a foreign land, but that entertainment lasts all of 5 seconds. I implore you, don't see this movie and then later pretend it meant something, because it certainly did not. Expand
  66. NigelM
    Jul 26, 2009
    0
    Don't listen to the pretentious reviews here, this is a bad film plain and simple. Boring, meandering tosh.
  67. Jimmy
    Oct 20, 2003
    1
    For all of you who loved this movie don't take it personally, but I think we saw two different movies. I found this one tedious and hard to stay awake through. Now Groundhog Day; there's a good flick.
  68. EdF.
    Jul 17, 2008
    1
    A film should have one of the following: Good plot/story Good dialogue Visually good looking Action Lost in Translation has none.
  69. AllanO
    Dec 3, 2008
    0
    Both me and my Asian wife thought this was way too slow with no real content. Very boring. I see very little humour, most of which plays on the Asian culture, which was not funny to one familiar with it. No real plot, no finish, no point.. I got all the subtleties, but I was expecting some amount of entertainment, I want the two hours of my life back.
  70. maw
    Nov 8, 2009
    0
    I didn't get this movie. Is there something wrong with me?
  71. PeteM.
    Jun 15, 2006
    3
    i guess i didnt get it or something but it was not that good.
  72. Mike
    Feb 5, 2004
    1
    This movie is flat out boring... I couldn't wait to see it and it just was ugghh...bad. The "look at the funny Japanese people" jokes got old quickly. Good acting, but the storyline moves like a drunk snail. I dont know it just stunk!
  73. GregT.
    Feb 9, 2004
    1
    At the risk of sounding irresponsible in my evaulation of this movie, I and a friend watching this movie were bored sick. Bill Murray looked dissolute and old and bored and played the part of a dissolute and old and bored actor. The young and very pretty woman in this movie (I don't know her name) was supposedly 20 years old with a busy and not bad looking husband, who stared At the risk of sounding irresponsible in my evaulation of this movie, I and a friend watching this movie were bored sick. Bill Murray looked dissolute and old and bored and played the part of a dissolute and old and bored actor. The young and very pretty woman in this movie (I don't know her name) was supposedly 20 years old with a busy and not bad looking husband, who stared vacantly out of high rise hotel windows, searching for something that Bill Murray was also searching for by staring into the bottom of a whiskey glass. So, they are bored and unfulfilled and unhappy. And I paid $5.40 to rent a DVD to find this out! I could see this for free by looking at my friends and coworkers. Don't waste your time renting this movie if you are looking to be entertained. Expand
  74. GageW.
    Mar 1, 2004
    1
    Payola is alive and well in hollywood. Critics get their money, Writer/Directors of little talent get their statuettes, and we the people get to pay for it all (again). What a waste of a movie. Not worth the price of the negative it was shot on -- and that's being kind.
  75. BarbaraW.
    Mar 14, 2004
    3
    Boring. Highly overrated.
  76. DougR.
    Mar 24, 2004
    3
    Perhaps the most over-rated movie of all-time. The only jokes were cheap shots about the Japanese. Bill Murray plays himself, and I kept waiting for a plot which never came.
  77. JasonT.
    Mar 27, 2004
    0
    This was not a movie but some kind of crappy video daydraem. Whatever.
  78. RockC.
    Mar 2, 2004
    1
    Very telling that the positive reviewers for this movie seemingly only want to put down the "little people" who didn't like it. As if whether you like this movie is a barometer of your intelligence. I consider myself a very bright guy, and enjoy a wide variety of films (XXX and Gigli not included), and I hated, hated, hated this movie. I find it funny that Coppola won best screenplay Very telling that the positive reviewers for this movie seemingly only want to put down the "little people" who didn't like it. As if whether you like this movie is a barometer of your intelligence. I consider myself a very bright guy, and enjoy a wide variety of films (XXX and Gigli not included), and I hated, hated, hated this movie. I find it funny that Coppola won best screenplay for this, since I don't imagine it could have been more than 30-40 pages long, and I'm sure a lot of the "dialogue" was nothing more than the brilliant improvisations of Bill Murray. Coppolla doesn't know how to write a compelling story. Period. She appeals to the snob in all of us; making films that are about as intellectually challenging as a game a tic-tac-toe, and passes it off as "introspective", "ground-breaking cinema". Don't believe me? Read the "10s". They either don't have much to say about why they liked it, or insist upon telling us, "it's not XXX, you morons". Well, duh. Of course it's not, but two wrongs don't make a right, and I am puzzled as to how a crappy introspective drama is any better than a crappy action movie. Anyone? Expand
  79. JorgeSanchez
    Apr 10, 2004
    2
    AWFUL! If I rate this movie as a drama I would have given it an eight, but as a comedy....please. The only funny part was the part when Bill Murray was shooting the commercial and he actually got "lost in translation" and that has been done before in better movies like Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (that's right, i said it).
  80. JohnM.
    Jul 17, 2004
    3
    I really don't understand what the fuss was about with this movie. It made no sense, had no plot, and went nowhere. Even though some say it was "supposed" to be this way, I still believe that good intentions don't make a good movie. This movie didn't make me want to go to Japan or sing Karaoke or try to understand why Bill Murray constantly plays aloof characters. The only I really don't understand what the fuss was about with this movie. It made no sense, had no plot, and went nowhere. Even though some say it was "supposed" to be this way, I still believe that good intentions don't make a good movie. This movie didn't make me want to go to Japan or sing Karaoke or try to understand why Bill Murray constantly plays aloof characters. The only thing this movie did for me was wish I didn't listen to critics in picking my friday night movies. Expand
  81. OlegM
    Aug 30, 2004
    1
    No story; no conflict. Must reflect the eventless life of the maker. Poor attempt.
  82. TA
    Feb 20, 2005
    3
    This movie doesn't have a point. The plot drags on and on, and doesn't really develop.
  83. ErikN.
    Oct 19, 2006
    1
    Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. It's hard to put it any more bluntly than that. 2 hours of my life I'll never get back.
  84. A
    Oct 7, 2003
    1
    Man, coppola family, why do you hate asians so much, first brando the worshiped white king in apocalypse now, and then this. stop making movies please.
  85. Jason
    Oct 7, 2003
    2
    Boring and fragmented. I don't see what all the raving is about Murray's performance. Which performance? Most of the movie he maintains the same bored expression on his face.
  86. MarkD.
    Sep 22, 2003
    2
    Slow. If you like French films, or you liked the old Amos and Andy TV show where all the jokes are racial, you'll like this. It's ok as a travel log, but poor as a movie. It basically has niether a plot nor a message.
  87. HiroS.
    Jan 22, 2004
    0
    Those who claim this movie is not racist are not actually Japanese. If 9 out of 10 Japanese people find a movie offensive, there is something wrong with the movie. As a Japanese, I am sorry, but I have to say that "Lost in translation" is the case. TV Guide's reviewer rightly notes that "humor is too often based in stereotypical perceptions of Asians (they're short, they're Those who claim this movie is not racist are not actually Japanese. If 9 out of 10 Japanese people find a movie offensive, there is something wrong with the movie. As a Japanese, I am sorry, but I have to say that "Lost in translation" is the case. TV Guide's reviewer rightly notes that "humor is too often based in stereotypical perceptions of Asians (they're short, they're laughably polite, they eat weird food, and Coppola shamelessly invites us to laugh along with Murray's character, who, believe it or not, thinks it's hilarious when his hosts get their "r"s and "l"s switched...", If a Japanese director made a movie like "Lost in translation" and its humor was based in stereotypical perceptions of Americans (they are fat, they're laughably self-confident, they only eat hot-dogs and hamburgers), those who gave 9-10 to "Lost in translation" would probably give it 0-1. Expand
  88. GudbjorgE.
    Feb 26, 2004
    3
    Boooring! It was difficult for me staying awake. In a way I felt ashamed for supporting a film (with my admittion fee) with so much racism in it. No one was heard laughing in the cinema that evening (in Iceland). Usually 4 Oscar nominations mean good entertainment, but watching two Americans beeing totally helpless, because everybody around them does not speak their mother tongue, is Boooring! It was difficult for me staying awake. In a way I felt ashamed for supporting a film (with my admittion fee) with so much racism in it. No one was heard laughing in the cinema that evening (in Iceland). Usually 4 Oscar nominations mean good entertainment, but watching two Americans beeing totally helpless, because everybody around them does not speak their mother tongue, is probably only entertaining for those who have never been in a similar situation. I didn't walk out of the film that evening, because I was waiting for the main character to find a solution of their problem/boredom. I wanted them to make the best of the situation, not the worst! I have been in a similar situation myself a few years back and to this day I am not happy about the fact, that I didn't use the once in a lifetime chance to be part of another culture than my own, not a bored bystander. Expand
  89. TimB.
    Feb 28, 2004
    3
    Only mildly interesting for what you think might happen, but never does; and I don't mean sexual tension because there was none. Only Tokyo was exciting. Johansson was beautiful. Murray was laconic.
  90. JohnG.
    Feb 28, 2004
    1
    BORING ! I cannot believe it's nomination for best picture ! Wait for the DVD; then fast forward so he can watch in only a few minutes instead of wasting an hour and a half.
  91. GaborA.
    Feb 6, 2004
    2
    The most overrated movie possibly of all time places you into a hotel for the majority of the scenes where murray's and johansson's characters cling onto one anothers patheticness. I see murray's excuse but the premise of johansson's character doesnt make sense. If you cant occupy yourself in a foreign country even if you are alone then maybe you should take off your The most overrated movie possibly of all time places you into a hotel for the majority of the scenes where murray's and johansson's characters cling onto one anothers patheticness. I see murray's excuse but the premise of johansson's character doesnt make sense. If you cant occupy yourself in a foreign country even if you are alone then maybe you should take off your two inch thick glasses and stop being a dork. bup a doo. Expand
  92. TristenL.
    Feb 6, 2004
    1
    It is a shame when you read such awesome reviews for a movie and then end up bing totally disappointed. I thought I would give the movie a chance but after 40 mins I could not take the boredom anymore.
  93. ChristopherP.
    Feb 9, 2004
    1
    The "message" here does not deserve to be made into a boring movie like this. the romance is ridiculous and false, the existential patheticness of the characters is horribly unlikable, and with these being the only two characters in the film you really see it gets old very, very fast. not recommended for anyone with the mental capacity to realize this movie's triteness.
  94. RichF.
    Apr 14, 2004
    0
    One word... BORING, SENSELESS, TOTALLY LACKING MERIT OR MEANING. Ok, so that was more than one word. Don't get me wrong, I tried, OH how I tried to find something interesting about it. I wanted to believe the hype because I wanted to believe that Bill Murray was alive and well. Unfortunately after seeing this, I think they've heavily medicated Bill. Come to think of it, it seems One word... BORING, SENSELESS, TOTALLY LACKING MERIT OR MEANING. Ok, so that was more than one word. Don't get me wrong, I tried, OH how I tried to find something interesting about it. I wanted to believe the hype because I wanted to believe that Bill Murray was alive and well. Unfortunately after seeing this, I think they've heavily medicated Bill. Come to think of it, it seems most of the critics must have been heavily medicated when they saw it. My wife is an extremely intelligent, over-educated double MBA with class to spare and even she was dumbfounded as to how this movie was being hyped. So, just as we have come to realize...movie critics aren't worth their weight in gummy worms. Expand
  95. AndrewWD
    Jul 13, 2004
    1
    The critical resopnse to this film has got to be the biggest case of 'Emperors New Clothes' ever. It really is dire. It's pretentious, unfunny, borderline-racist, and above all, incredibly dull. The sentiment of this movie could surely only appeal to the most nauseating brand of priviliged indie bedwetter; the angsty, adolescent, faux intellectual introspection is truly The critical resopnse to this film has got to be the biggest case of 'Emperors New Clothes' ever. It really is dire. It's pretentious, unfunny, borderline-racist, and above all, incredibly dull. The sentiment of this movie could surely only appeal to the most nauseating brand of priviliged indie bedwetter; the angsty, adolescent, faux intellectual introspection is truly cringe-worthy. I hated it. Gets a point for the soundtrack though. Expand
  96. IrishLadLad
    Nov 10, 2005
    0
    Horrible. A contrived piece of rubbish. Billed by the critics as "Comical Genius" and "Murray at his best", but nother could be further from the truth. Absolutely, the worst movie I've seen since Vanilla Sky. The only explanation as to why it got an nominations/awards is because Francis Ford Coppola's daughter made it, and so the critics felt obliged to sing its praises. Rubbish Horrible. A contrived piece of rubbish. Billed by the critics as "Comical Genius" and "Murray at his best", but nother could be further from the truth. Absolutely, the worst movie I've seen since Vanilla Sky. The only explanation as to why it got an nominations/awards is because Francis Ford Coppola's daughter made it, and so the critics felt obliged to sing its praises. Rubbish from start to finish. Expand
  97. JamesM.
    Nov 19, 2005
    0
    I think the most frustrating thing about this awful film is that in all of its tedious scenes of nothingness and disposable dialogue, nothing at all is being said. The director was not trying to make a film that meant anything, she obviously wanted to make art for the sake of art. Forget the hype, this film is a complete and utter failure, and practically unwatchable.
  98. Al
    Jan 5, 2005
    2
    I'm in the "boring and incredibly overrated" camp. I don't think it's because I don't appreciate intelligent films either. I loved "American Beauty" as one example.
  99. ChrisS
    Jan 5, 2005
    2
    Slow, boring, tedious, and pretentious. Bill Murray sleepwalks through yet another role. He's not an actor so much as a con artist. The one person with real ability, Giovanni Ribisi, is on screen for a paltry 3 mins.
Metascore
89

Universal acclaim - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 43
  2. Negative: 0 out of 43
  1. 80
    Not much happens, but Coppola is so gentle and witty an observer that the movie casts a spell. [15 September 2003, p. 100]
  2. Coppola both wrote and directed, and there’s a pleasing shapelessness to her scenes. She accomplishes the difficult feat of showing people being bored out of their skulls in such a way that we are never bored watching them.
  3. Reviewed by: David Rooney
    80
    The film's unhurried pace will target it for discerning audiences only, but its wry humor and coolly amused observation of contemporary Japan should score with smart urbanites.