User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 783 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. Aug 27, 2010
    10
    If "Titanic" was the iconic bloated romance novel of movies, then "Lost in Translation" is the quiet, poignant poem that is all the more affecting because of that.
  2. Dan
    Feb 7, 2004
    5
    I lived in Tokyo for 5 years and I think LiT conveys pretty well how the city looks and feels, but I don't think it went far beyond that. What I didn't understand was the contradiction in that Coppola obviously has a great affection for the city and wanted the audience to find it alluring, and yet the two main characters seemed indifferent. I also think she confuses being lost I lived in Tokyo for 5 years and I think LiT conveys pretty well how the city looks and feels, but I don't think it went far beyond that. What I didn't understand was the contradiction in that Coppola obviously has a great affection for the city and wanted the audience to find it alluring, and yet the two main characters seemed indifferent. I also think she confuses being lost and lonely with being bored. I found Bob and Charlotte fairly realistic but very unengaging. I didn't really care for them at all. And to John S: Tokyo is full of caucasians - thousands of students, tens of thousands of English teachers, thousands of business people. And plenty of people speak English, if not fluently, especially professionals such as the doctors in hospitals. Expand
  3. JasonK.
    Feb 6, 2004
    9
    to say this movie is unworthy of recognition because it's "degrading japanese culture" is kind of ridiculous. thats like saying "chicago" shouldnt have won an oscar because it, in fact, needled american culture. this movie was excellent. the characters acted how real people would probably act if dropped in the middle of a strange environment.
  4. DavidB.
    Oct 20, 2003
    6
    Easily the most overrated film of the season. I knew going in that it was meant to be a "film about nothing" but it turned out to be a film that lacked purpose instead. It is not so much a film as a collection of scenes, some of which are very good. On the whole, it is mildly diverting, but I put a strong emphasis on the qualifying adverb. The critical gushing is hard to understand. Easily the most overrated film of the season. I knew going in that it was meant to be a "film about nothing" but it turned out to be a film that lacked purpose instead. It is not so much a film as a collection of scenes, some of which are very good. On the whole, it is mildly diverting, but I put a strong emphasis on the qualifying adverb. The critical gushing is hard to understand. Murray is good, great in a few scences, but is generally given very little to work with, as is Scarlett Johansson, a relative newcomer and the granddaughter of the former heavyweight boxing champion Ingemar Johansson. The direction is first rate in some scenes, but most of the film is essentially background for a feature on Japanese hotels. This could have been a terrific short film of 20 or 30 minutes, but it turned into an overlong exercise in ambience creation. After reconciling the reviews with the film I have to ask if this is a case of grade inflation for a trustee's daughter. This is the kind of overselling reserved for the cute foreign film perceived to be the intelligent alternative to the usual blockbusters. Expand
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. N.Nottingham
    Sep 29, 2003
    0
    Racist and Self-indulgent .
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. JoeS.
    Apr 15, 2004
    0
    No sex cursing and killing. I hated it.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Mar 14, 2012
    10
    Frail, dreamy, beautiful, with the most gorgeous Scarlett yet to be displayed on screen. Leaves you shaking with hyped sensitivity. Too bad so many people associate Bill Murray with goofyness; this was a piece of humanity, shy with desire to experience closure. Unfortunately, beauty, like many other things these days, needs to be exagerated for people to get it.
  28. MarcK.
    Oct 10, 2003
    5
    I was glad I checked out other Metacritic opinions made by "regular" moviegoers before I saw this movie, because I noticed that the response was not as overwhelmingly favorable as the critics. Well, add me to the list of dissatisfied, and I'm completely clueless as to why the critics slobbered all over this one (as well as American Splendor, but that's another board!). I kept I was glad I checked out other Metacritic opinions made by "regular" moviegoers before I saw this movie, because I noticed that the response was not as overwhelmingly favorable as the critics. Well, add me to the list of dissatisfied, and I'm completely clueless as to why the critics slobbered all over this one (as well as American Splendor, but that's another board!). I kept waiting and waiting for something to happen. Then I realized that this film had just about no plot to speak of. If you're a great writer like John Sayles (see "Sunshine State") then you can get away with it. This film needed a Sayles-like screenplay to succeed. It wasn't even close. Expand
  29. M.Meadows
    Oct 4, 2003
    5
    Lost in Translation is an average rather depressing movie that seems to have captured the attention of the paid critics. Watch them all jump on the bandwagon.
  30. D.M.
    Oct 7, 2003
    4
    What a pretty movie to look at. And the music was good. I can see so many L.A. hipsters rushing to Amoeba to buy the soundtrack. But I don't understand the hype. Lost in Translation was good, but it wasn't ground-breaking or cathartic or pitch-perfect or like manna, like the critics are leading us to believe. Were they all taken by the Coppola mystique? Scarlett Johansson was What a pretty movie to look at. And the music was good. I can see so many L.A. hipsters rushing to Amoeba to buy the soundtrack. But I don't understand the hype. Lost in Translation was good, but it wasn't ground-breaking or cathartic or pitch-perfect or like manna, like the critics are leading us to believe. Were they all taken by the Coppola mystique? Scarlett Johansson was the biggest let-down, for starters. Not only did the story fail to establish why she was so taken by Bill Murray's character, her performance amounts to an 18-year-old flirting with a tired, droopy old white guy. It didn't seem like acting (Isn't she 18 anyway?). Murray though was very good. But was he acting? His performance was the same we've seen from him, and he might have been better in Groundhog Day. Worse, the way he interacted with the Japanese and how they were portrayed in general reinforced backward cliches and didn't seem to shed any light or nuance on stereotypes. This is something this movie should probably have been conscious of as Coppola put it together, because, look, you've already got one critic saying she can't wait to fly to Tokyo, presumably to meet those, nudge-nudge, wacky Japanese and be a lost, wandering, (privileged) American misfit. That's just lame. Expand
  31. 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?
  32. [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
  33. 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
  34. JoannaJ.
    Feb 25, 2004
    1
    Too boring. I have never seen such a ridiculously boring film all my life.
  35. 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!!
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. ClaireM.
    Sep 15, 2003
    4
    Nicely shot but ultimately vapid. Self-indulgent. No one would see this movie if it weren't for the Coppola hype machine.
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. GimmeabreaK.
    Sep 20, 2003
    4
    Read the Dallas Observer review above for a dead-on capture of this way overrated farce. I think Scarlett is hot, don't get me wrong, but the only person who would 'dig' her acting is similar but worse former actress Sofia. Sofia: you're no writer. Hire one please, and a good one by the way. Your story started somewhere, went nowhere, and refused to end. This movie is Read the Dallas Observer review above for a dead-on capture of this way overrated farce. I think Scarlett is hot, don't get me wrong, but the only person who would 'dig' her acting is similar but worse former actress Sofia. Sofia: you're no writer. Hire one please, and a good one by the way. Your story started somewhere, went nowhere, and refused to end. This movie is a rough draft. Expand
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. CindyS.
    Apr 23, 2004
    4
    I guess it comes down to what you think film should do. to me this movie fails, because i think film is about appealing to the viewer instinctually. the beauty of the medium is that it communicates to the audience instantaneously. i don't want to have to THINK about a film. i don't want to have to struggle to get inside it and get inside the characters. a good film does these I guess it comes down to what you think film should do. to me this movie fails, because i think film is about appealing to the viewer instinctually. the beauty of the medium is that it communicates to the audience instantaneously. i don't want to have to THINK about a film. i don't want to have to struggle to get inside it and get inside the characters. a good film does these things FOR us. it uses imagery to tell the story, but not to excess. and in the end, the imagery needs to be balanced with dialogue and feeling. i'm betting this story was semi-autobiographical and has some meaning to coppola, but to an outsider it's just flat. almost like it's a story she's so intimate with that she forgets that we the viewers are out of the loop and will be until she clues us in. if that was her point, then great, she made her point...just like a lot of modern or rather "post-modern" art that says "haha! i don't have a point! i am art because i am not art and i refuse to play by traditional art rules!" how boring. the only other thing that might have saved the film or at least made it a bit more watchable for me would be a different female lead. maybe it was sofia's direction, but i found scarlett totally unreal and lifeless. Expand
  49. mg
    Nov 10, 2006
    0
    Translation, please I
  50. b00
    Dec 19, 2003
    4
    Let me just say that this movie is nothing more than a gimmick. There is no real character development, there is no real emotion, there is only a gimmick, the stereotypical view of Japanese culture. How much time was spent exaggerating quirks in japanese culture to an extreme? Becoming nothing more than a slapstick comedy? And now think about how much time was spent dealing with the Let me just say that this movie is nothing more than a gimmick. There is no real character development, there is no real emotion, there is only a gimmick, the stereotypical view of Japanese culture. How much time was spent exaggerating quirks in japanese culture to an extreme? Becoming nothing more than a slapstick comedy? And now think about how much time was spent dealing with the relationship Bob and Charlotte, which could have been so delicate yet compeling? I think Coppola should have learned about Japanese culture and delicate human relationships before trying to make a movie about it. Expand
  51. Aug 25, 2011
    10
    There is something to be said about the kind of quiet elegance that Lost In Translation slowly sweats out over the course of 102 minutes. Most art films claim to be visual poetry. If that is true, the films of Sofia Coppola are visual songs, with quiet, melancholy guitar strings, and fuzzy, indistinct feedback.
  52. SteveB.
    Oct 1, 2003
    9
    Great! Beautifully filmed and acted. Funny, poignant and thought-provoking. Go see it.
  53. ChadK.
    Oct 13, 2003
    9
    Coppolas' writing and direction is solid. I loved the juxtapostion of a growing, simple friendship with the fast paced, busyness of life in Tokyo. Murray and Johansson are fantastic! Other than freeing two Junior Mints stuck in the bottom of the box, my eyes never left the screen. This is a great movie!
  54. JoshH.
    Nov 4, 2003
    10
    I feel that this would qualify as both one of the bests movies I have seen in a long time, and a movie worthy of several oscars. I would like to respond to some of the criticisms of it first. Some argue that it is unrelated to "real life," and that an "ordinary" person could never enjoy it, only an "artsy" critic. Frankly, that statement is flat out bogus. Look at the reviews posted here. I feel that this would qualify as both one of the bests movies I have seen in a long time, and a movie worthy of several oscars. I would like to respond to some of the criticisms of it first. Some argue that it is unrelated to "real life," and that an "ordinary" person could never enjoy it, only an "artsy" critic. Frankly, that statement is flat out bogus. Look at the reviews posted here. None of them are professional critics, and at least 70% of them have awarded this movie a 9-10 rating. Second, it has been said that the movie has no plot, or is exceptionally boring. In case you didn't notice, life doesn't have a plot. This isn't a typical movie; you should have realized that before you got to the theater. This movie is about the characters, their lives and emotions and pain. Certain posters have stated that the movie is racist and that it portrays Japanese in a stereotypical manner. I've never been to Tokyo, or Japan for that matter, so I cannot in good conscience respond to that allegation. There is an obvious disparity in the reviews here. Some have found it excellent and beyond compare (such as myself), and others have found it just so much garbage. One of those who felt the movie was not all it was cracked up to be commented that people who liked this movie (and I am paraphrasing) "are those who spend more time whining than actually doing things." In a sense, this is true. People who enjoy this movie probably are more contemplative than not. They can look back on their lives, and forwards as well, and feel regret and the sense of roads not taken, or raods that could not be taken. Look at the ending - they part and go their seperate ways, leaving this strange and isoltaed incident in their lives behind. And yet they had a powerful connection; they had each found someone they could relate to on a very deep level. Can you imagine forming a relationship like that, knowing that it's only for a few days? Could you leave it? And that bried incident will stay with them throughout their lives. Yes, people who enjoy this movie are those who can look beyond this moment and reflect on their lives, times both happy and sorrowful, and feel a sense of melancholy. Perhaps those who have a personal experience that they can somehow relate to this movie found it enjoyable. In case you couldn't guess, I feel some melancholy at times. However, this does not mean that I sit around all day whining about my life and how much it sucks. That's the part of that comment I find offensive. Though I may feel regret, I still live my life, and am not a whiner. Before I sign off, one last comment - I'm sixteen. Just thought it should be known that people from the younger demographic do not universally find this movie worthless. Even people my age can find something to relate to in Lost in Translation. Expand
  55. JohnP.
    Oct 15, 2003
    9
    The majority of the negative reviews seem to emphasize the current of (non-existent) racism in the film. Does everyone work for the ACLU now? Have any of these naysayers been to the 24-hour Tim Burton nightmare that is Tokyo? When a film is set in New York and some of its inhabitants are portrayed as rude or careerist or trendy, no one complains because they know it's pretty The majority of the negative reviews seem to emphasize the current of (non-existent) racism in the film. Does everyone work for the ACLU now? Have any of these naysayers been to the 24-hour Tim Burton nightmare that is Tokyo? When a film is set in New York and some of its inhabitants are portrayed as rude or careerist or trendy, no one complains because they know it's pretty accurate. Anyway: brilliant music, muted and poignant cinematography, human performances. Great movie. Expand
  56. TRutt
    Oct 19, 2003
    6
    So, the movie itself was ok, but the biggest problem was that it was a really cliched (and inaccurate) depiction of Tokyo and Japanese life. You name the cliche about the Japanese, , it was there -Those Japanese love Karaoke! -Those crazy Japanese dance games! -Those crazy Japanese TV shows with their crazy hosts -Those Japanese can't R's -All those crazy Japanese streets with So, the movie itself was ok, but the biggest problem was that it was a really cliched (and inaccurate) depiction of Tokyo and Japanese life. You name the cliche about the Japanese, , it was there -Those Japanese love Karaoke! -Those crazy Japanese dance games! -Those crazy Japanese TV shows with their crazy hosts -Those Japanese can't R's -All those crazy Japanese streets with their neon! -They love American pitchmen! ...If only Tokyo was that interesting. The movie was ok, obviously semi-autobiographical (based upon Sophia Coppola and Spike Jones) and, amazingly enough, the character based on her is smart, sensitive, etc. I never bought the romance angle between the two protagonists. An ok film...not worth the backlash, but not the greatest movie either. I can't understand why the critics are all fawning over it. Expand
  57. Ryan
    Dec 13, 2003
    10
    So good.
  58. ScottE.
    Dec 20, 2003
    9
    This film is actually a fascinating study of human nature. While Sofia Coppola has given us two completely characters to study, she pushes them toward each other in a steady "Matchmaker" type of way. This movie definitely marchs to a different drummer, as we're allowed to voyeuristically become the observer as these two personalities intermingle and react to each other. This film is actually a fascinating study of human nature. While Sofia Coppola has given us two completely characters to study, she pushes them toward each other in a steady "Matchmaker" type of way. This movie definitely marchs to a different drummer, as we're allowed to voyeuristically become the observer as these two personalities intermingle and react to each other. Coppola's deliberate pace will not please everyone, as she deftly manages to inch forward in character development by small steps instead of leaps and bounds. And while this May-December romance seems doomed to failure from the start, we are allowed the privilege of watching these great actors work their magic as they try to connect with each other on a more personal level. For example, while Murray labors at his obligation to shoot a whiskey commercial ("More like Roger Moore, please"), Johannsen tries to cope with the solitude of being stranded in a foreign city. And yet, this strange concept ends up working in the end. It's not that Murray's performance is such a departure from his typical physical slapstick, but because we begin to accept these characters as human beings with real needs and emotions. Is this what we were expecting from a regular night out at the movies? Probably not, but it's almost certainly one of the most pleasant surprises of this moviegoing season. Expand
  59. Meat
    Oct 27, 2003
    8
    Don't know why, but the shot of her ass at the beginning set the tone... Very entertaining throught-out and Murray was really engaging to watch (good witty humor). Also, you have to love any movie with Peaches and My Bloody Valentine in the music score. Too cool!
  60. JZslawosky
    Dec 7, 2003
    10
    Not for the Adam Sandler crowd. Subtle and full of charm and at times outrageous. It was worth the price of admission to hear a karaoke version of Sex Pistols " God save the Queen."
  61. ChadD.
    Apr 6, 2007
    8
    It took me a 2-3 views to really appreciate all this movie has to offer. There is so much that is unspoken and even unseen. If quiet, visceral films are not your thing; if you prefer stories that are more linear and "eventful," you should probably skip this one. It requires a little patience and for you to allow some personal investment, but will reward you for allowing it to seep in.
  62. 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.
  63. 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
  64. 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.
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Swerve
    Mar 6, 2004
    3
    Furhter proof that movie critics need to take their heads out of their collective butts.
  68. MikeH
    May 27, 2008
    10
    Not to sound pretentious, but the people who don't understand the film are the ones to give it low scores. The only thing that the movie has going against it may be it's inaccessibility. It's funny, artistic, sensitive, endearing, subtle, and powerful. It's film at it's best, and if you like pop-garbage movies than I'm sorry, you won't like this. Not to sound pretentious, but the people who don't understand the film are the ones to give it low scores. The only thing that the movie has going against it may be it's inaccessibility. It's funny, artistic, sensitive, endearing, subtle, and powerful. It's film at it's best, and if you like pop-garbage movies than I'm sorry, you won't like this. It's not "action-packed!" or "sexy, kinky, shit" it's genuine and calm. Expand
  69. 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.
  70. 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
  71. JohnB.
    Dec 22, 2008
    10
    Actually, Brandon, you missed a lot. This is a wonderful movie. It's a simple, slow-moving character study of two people in a foreign land who have little more waiting for them at their homes. They are lost and find one another. It's not plot-oriented in the cliched sense (hence, the numerous low scores, many, though not all, from people like Ed F. who need plots or action Actually, Brandon, you missed a lot. This is a wonderful movie. It's a simple, slow-moving character study of two people in a foreign land who have little more waiting for them at their homes. They are lost and find one another. It's not plot-oriented in the cliched sense (hence, the numerous low scores, many, though not all, from people like Ed F. who need plots or action spoonfed to them). I agree with Alex, it's not mindless entertainment, but a soulful, beautiful film that touches on much deeper feelings than most films. Believe me, as someone who loves all movies, from silly comedies and action thrillers, to the most obscure highbrow art flicks, this is a fantastic movie. Expand
  72. Feb 14, 2011
    10
    Lost In Translation is a great romantic beautiful that I ever seen recently. The storyline is great and Bill and Scarlett are great actors. It doesn't matter how old they are, the chemistry just works and they do belong together in the end.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. J.Spurrier
    May 2, 2004
    4
    I agree with many that the movie showed a more shallow view of part of Japanese culture but part of our American culture is just as shallow. I think the movie brought out both aspects of shallowness ? although it might not have intended to do so. However you do get the impression that Charlotte and Bill think they are above it. Being Bill's age I thought he was somewhat a weak I agree with many that the movie showed a more shallow view of part of Japanese culture but part of our American culture is just as shallow. I think the movie brought out both aspects of shallowness ? although it might not have intended to do so. However you do get the impression that Charlotte and Bill think they are above it. Being Bill's age I thought he was somewhat a weak character. OK, he isn't too thrilled with his life and it lacks meaning and depth. That's life with no truth. Not being Charlotte's age anymore maybe the movie/character 'spoke more'. I could be too old to hear anything. She definitely found no answers in Bill. You're left with a "what is it worth" view of life. If our deepest questions (Charlotte) are left with liquor, one night stand and a miserable marriage (Bob) what's the use. Kids - He mentioned kids change your life completely but it is worth it. His kids didn't even want to talk to him on the phone. He missed a birthday. Those things happen but what life is he or his wife giving his kids. Are his kids destined to Charlotte's question or Bob's life in a glass? No, we get some "hope" by what is whispered in Charlotte's ear. Expand
  76. LucG.
    Oct 11, 2003
    6
    If it weren't for Bill Murray's brillant acting, this wallflower of a movie would be a waste of two hours. Coppola is a still-immature director who has gotten undeserved fame on account of her family name. In this she does pointless exercises, such as opening the movie with a shot of Johansson's panty-clad derriere. For no good reason. The movie is also heavy on stereotypes If it weren't for Bill Murray's brillant acting, this wallflower of a movie would be a waste of two hours. Coppola is a still-immature director who has gotten undeserved fame on account of her family name. In this she does pointless exercises, such as opening the movie with a shot of Johansson's panty-clad derriere. For no good reason. The movie is also heavy on stereotypes of Japanese. Expand
  77. 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.
  78. 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.
  79. 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!
  80. 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.
  81. Mar 11, 2014
    10
    One of the best movies ever created. Period. I would not be writing a freakin' review for this movie if it wasn't. The chemistry between Murray and Johansson is the most realistic ever thought of in a film. It's that believable.
  82. 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.
  83. AriB.
    Jan 24, 2007
    0
    Skip this movie! There are too many other films much better than this over-rated bore.
  84. 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.
  85. KenG.
    Feb 5, 2004
    10
    A masterpiece; a stunning film of 2 lost souls finding some salvation with each other, in a super neon-lit Tokyo crammed with colorful characters and a wondrous cacophony of arcades, parties, strip joints and hotel bars. Bill and Scarlett are perfect, as is everything else about this movie.
  86. 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.
  87. 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?"
  88. 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.
  89. JohnA
    Jul 2, 2009
    6
    lost in translation is one of those movies that makes a person feel good for watching it. most of its viewers love its small "Anti Hollywood" feel, but BELIEVE me, aside from being a respectable piece of art (at best), lost in translation really doesnt offer much more to its viewers then that nice little indie feel. the problem with the movie is that there isnt enough character lost in translation is one of those movies that makes a person feel good for watching it. most of its viewers love its small "Anti Hollywood" feel, but BELIEVE me, aside from being a respectable piece of art (at best), lost in translation really doesnt offer much more to its viewers then that nice little indie feel. the problem with the movie is that there isnt enough character development involved. at no point did i as a viewer have a specific feeling for anyone in the movie because theres really not enough that i knew about them as people. its hard to say this movie does much more then offer the occasional chuckle. the characters are too distant to be relatable so of course when they say something funny it feels like a sad attempt to be witty. im not asking that every movie have characters that i can identify with, but its really important that at some point in a movie the audience member has a see where the character is coming from. this movie is beautifully acted. the only problem is that they play roles of people that no one really wants to see. these are 2 very distant people who eventually come together to make sense of it all, but its hard to think that the director does a very good job in showing the audience any of that. at no point later on in the movie are these characters really more developed then they were to begin with. for what its worth the movie did have a small amount of its dry humor, but in NO WAY is this movie a comedy. (NO SPOILERS AHEAD....) the ending is much different from the rest of the film and just for a second the audience gets a little piece of emotion. and you really see the characters for who they are. problem is the entire rest of the movie never set us up for such an ending. nobody wants a romantic happy ending garbage heap, but this movie was just so fixated on trying to be real that it just ended up being boring. as a viewer i felt that i was finally given the ending only because the director knew its what i wanted to see, and NoT because it was the actual direction the movie was meant to take. life doesnt always have a clear cut road and there arent always yes or no answers. this movie tries so hard to convey that message, but from actor to audience, somewhere in between the message seems to have been Lost in Translation. Expand
  90. 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!
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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...
  94. 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
  95. BarryR.
    Oct 1, 2003
    9
    "Lost In Translation" is an interesting and satisfying film. It is a second film made by Sofia Coppola who both wrote and directed it. There is tenderness, sensitivity and pathos throughout this extraordinary film with kudos to Bill Murray and a very charming and talented Scarlett Johannson who literally own this picture. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing Murray's character. "Lost In Translation" is an interesting and satisfying film. It is a second film made by Sofia Coppola who both wrote and directed it. There is tenderness, sensitivity and pathos throughout this extraordinary film with kudos to Bill Murray and a very charming and talented Scarlett Johannson who literally own this picture. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing Murray's character. His timing, his subtleties and his genuine film presence alone make this a movie worth seeing. Nothing is overdone in this picture and each movement and iota of dialogue is used sparingly and with precision. It is filmed beautifully and written and edited with a maturity and seasoning far beyond Ms. Coppola's years. There is always a burden on the offspring of a celebrity to try to approach the talent and creativity of the parent who in this case is daddy Francis Ford. Ms. Coppola need not worry. She has done a really fine job which proves that the apple, especially the "delicious" kind, does not fall far from or off the family tree. Although the film moves slowly throughout, it is paced like thehe lives it is describing and always keeps your interest. This is not a comedy but it has comedic moments just as does life itself. I recommend this film and give it 9.0 Expand
  96. RichardE.
    Jan 30, 2004
    9
    Great movie for people who don't want to see cars blow up. It is a mood based film, and most of us Americans are too lazy and impatient to understand it.
  97. PatC.
    Jan 5, 2004
    9
    A gem of a movie that limits itself to telling a small touching story very well. Most world travelers should recognize the phenomenon where, after returning from a foreign land, one suddenly realizes he/she has no idea what was said to them or how they came across. And yes, sometimes mature guys don't pursue sex with very sexy women in sexually tense situations and risk breaking the A gem of a movie that limits itself to telling a small touching story very well. Most world travelers should recognize the phenomenon where, after returning from a foreign land, one suddenly realizes he/she has no idea what was said to them or how they came across. And yes, sometimes mature guys don't pursue sex with very sexy women in sexually tense situations and risk breaking the spell of the moment, a spell that can exist guiltless in spite of domestic commitments at home. This movie is about such a spell, which seems quite plausible on Planet Jet-Lag populated by quirky aliens. As for stereotypical racism, one with a limited worldview might dwell on this non-issue. It is not prejudice to not pretend one simply does not connect with a different people or their culture. Murray is tolerating the Japanese, not judging them. Overall, this is a movie without a single pretense, and its main characters are just people as they cope in the real world (including the mundane non-entertaining moments). Expand
  98. DavidG.
    Oct 13, 2003
    10
    Another excellent example of the lofty, artistic opinions of most critics differing greatly from those of the average viewer - but they are right. Beautifully directed, amazingly acted, and incredibly moving, this is the type of movie that deserves the word "cinema".
  99. DakotaP.
    Jan 4, 2005
    10
    Most of the kiddies are NOT going to get this one, due to the fact that it's an honest to goodness MATURE film! ::GASP:: Not in the sense that it's filled with senseless gore and #!#@$ profanity, but in the sense that it takes an older mind, filled with doubts and grown up fears, to appreciate some of the issues dealt with and reflected upon. One person offers another some of Most of the kiddies are NOT going to get this one, due to the fact that it's an honest to goodness MATURE film! ::GASP:: Not in the sense that it's filled with senseless gore and #!#@$ profanity, but in the sense that it takes an older mind, filled with doubts and grown up fears, to appreciate some of the issues dealt with and reflected upon. One person offers another some of those fears, in the form of the aging actor played by Bill Murray, reinforcing the hopeless cliches of lost happiness upon one's mid-life -- but also some hope and encouragement. All the while, we're thrown through a topsy-turvy culture not our own, feeling lonely, out of place, and confused. These aren't themes that make up a Bill Murray comedy... but that's probably because this isn't a comedy. But it IS a fantastic film. Expand
  100. 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
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.