Author Topic: Lost in Translation (2003)  (Read 2211 times)

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2019, 08:05:03 PM »
Phwoar!

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2019, 08:10:02 PM »
Popcorn, I am immensely jealous of your location.

It is an exciting place to live but I pay a million pounds a month to live in a tiny cube. My fridge is next to my pillow.

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2019, 08:12:41 PM »
But I think we can all agree that Johansson has got even better looking as she’s gotten older.

She peaked about 5 years ago.

I, however haven't even began to peak but you will know when I do! Oh yes you will all know when I do.

chveik

  • who's gonna feed them hogs?
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2019, 08:29:54 PM »
Find me a Scandinavian under 9/10 and i'll buy you a pint.

Anders Breivik?

mothman

  • I don't know why
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2019, 08:46:24 PM »
Anders Breivik?

DAMN! And I had to go with Vidkun Quisling...

a duncandisorderly

  • the rough and tumble of the internet
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2019, 08:53:23 PM »
My fridge is next to my pillow.

like that's a bad thing.

I went to see LiT with the then g/f, a japanese woman. almost all of the humour in the flick was therefore wasted, & what remained was probably unintended by copaloadathis. I also couldn't ignore the feeling that this was very close to the actuality of murray's existence, & that saddened me because I've quite liked some of his flicks.
not 'ghostbusters' though. that's tosh.

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2019, 11:26:56 PM »
I think it's neither great nor shite. It has a nice atmosphere, good music, good performances. It's nice to look at. But there is an arrogance about it on the part of Coppola that comes through, though maybe knowing the film's backstory informs that perception. Overall I think it's a fairly enjoyable if middle of the road romantic comedy; something that you might expect Netflix to produce nowadays. I can't understand having strong feelings about it one way or the other.

mothman

  • I don't know why
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2019, 07:44:44 AM »
This is CaB. It’s what we do.

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2019, 07:52:11 AM »
I think it's neither great nor shite. It has a nice atmosphere, good music, good performances. It's nice to look at. But there is an arrogance about it on the part of Coppola that comes through, though maybe knowing the film's backstory informs that perception. Overall I think it's a fairly enjoyable if middle of the road romantic comedy; something that you might expect Netflix to produce nowadays. I can't understand having strong feelings about it one way or the other.
Sums up my feelings. Watched it maybe 10/12 years ago, barely anything of it sunk in. Not that I disliked it, but only sat through it because I had nothing else to do at the time.

I did wonder if that whole unheard whsiper at the end was because somebody realised the film as a whole lacked any kind of real substance to make people talk about it. 

icehaven

  • I will be in the bar, with my head on the bar
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2019, 09:52:54 AM »
Their attitude to Japan/Tokyo changes across the course of the film though. The more egregious culture clash moments occur earlier on, then she goes flower arranging and Murray phones his wife and asks if they can eat less pasta (partly because he wants to hot up for Johansson but also partly because of Japan etc.). It's admittedly not that well handled but there is supposed to be some development of their 'American Abroad' attitude. I mean the title's a bit of a clue that that's going to be a theme anyway.

   

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2019, 12:05:20 PM »
Also, when I found out that it was based on Coppola's experience of being in Japan for the premiere of hubby Jonze's Being John Malcovich I kind of went off the entire thing.

She'd also had to accompany her dad on promotional trips to Japan. Japan Times film reviewer Donald Ritchie mentions meeting her at a party of mostly film industry people when she was 19 and didn't really have anyone to talk to.

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2019, 08:29:00 PM »
A good film

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2019, 11:02:17 PM »
Its a fine film, but it has all the ingredients to make it a victim of CAB scorn, chiefly a focused depiction of upper and middle class people.

Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2019, 11:09:49 PM »
I like it well enough.  I have a soft spot for films where really not very much happens, and if you combine that with a kind of languid depressive feel about the whole thing, you're onto a winner.  Made it easier to overlook the obvious flaws anyway.

imitationleather

  • "The French... are famous... for their kissing"
    • http://last.fm/user/ImiLeathr
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2019, 12:16:11 AM »
It is an exciting place to live but I pay a million pounds a month to live in a tiny cube. My fridge is next to my pillow.

So you don't even have to sit up to get your next can? Living. The. Dream.

TwinPeaks

  • didn't choose a very distinctive username did i
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #45 on: July 17, 2019, 01:25:36 AM »
something that you might expect Netflix to produce nowadays

I wouldn't expect Netflix to make anything good

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #46 on: July 17, 2019, 02:13:38 PM »
It has one half-decent new My Bloody Valentine song in the soundtrack, but features much less of Scarlett Johansson's bottom than the opening shot leads one to expect.

3/5

grassbath

  • Crocker was too green to see it
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2019, 11:50:15 PM »
I like it well enough.  I have a soft spot for films where really not very much happens, and if you combine that with a kind of languid depressive feel about the whole thing, you're onto a winner.  Made it easier to overlook the obvious flaws anyway.

I agree. It's not perfect but it's an effective mood film that presses some of my more childish and yearning emotional buttons. I like the karaoke scene. I like sitting in a bar in an unfamiliar setting and imagining that I'll get into a deep conversation with a random stranger. I like unanswered questions. I like city lights on a car window. I like 'Just Like Honey.' I like 'Sometimes.'

pigamus

  • Sex, death, mayonnaise.
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2019, 11:59:48 PM »
It has one half-decent new My Bloody Valentine song in the soundtrack, but features much less of Scarlett Johansson's bottom than the opening shot leads one to expect.

3/5

If the whole film is just an excuse for the opening shot then that alone buys it a free pass.

It's a yes from me, Clive.

Twed

  • I need you so, Medieval Zone, you don't need me
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2019, 12:34:57 AM »
I agree. It's not perfect but it's an effective mood film that presses some of my more childish and yearning emotional buttons. I like the karaoke scene. I like sitting in a bar in an unfamiliar setting and imagining that I'll get into a deep conversation with a random stranger. I like unanswered questions. I like city lights on a car window. I like 'Just Like Honey.' I like 'Sometimes.'
Sums it up for me.

DolphinFace

  • Put it in me
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2019, 08:47:06 PM »
My favourite scene was always Johansson sat on the windowsill, overlooking the beautiful cityscape while listening to sqarepusher's tommib. I was so in love with it, I've seen it a thousand times. To a lesser degree, that very much sums up how I felt about the rest of the film. I was in love with the scenery, the music, the isolation, the foreboding, the fantasy of meeting someone abroad. It probably appeals to a lot of people who might be lonely, like I may have been at the time.

Haven't seen it in ages but I reckon I'd still enjoy it.

up_the_hampipe

  • Crowd appeaser
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2019, 11:06:09 PM »
I like it well enough.  I have a soft spot for films where really not very much happens, and if you combine that with a kind of languid depressive feel about the whole thing, you're onto a winner.  Made it easier to overlook the obvious flaws anyway.

Aye, the old "nothing happens, but you won't be bored" formula. I believe Roger Ebert said that about Paranormal Activity, but we can apply it to better films as well.

TwinPeaks

  • didn't choose a very distinctive username did i
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #52 on: July 19, 2019, 12:30:12 AM »
My favourite scene was always Johansson sat on the windowsill, overlooking the beautiful cityscape while listening to sqarepusher's tommib. I was so in love with it, I've seen it a thousand times. To a lesser degree, that very much sums up how I felt about the rest of the film. I was in love with the scenery, the music, the isolation, the foreboding, the fantasy of meeting someone abroad. It probably appeals to a lot of people who might be lonely, like I may have been at the time.

Haven't seen it in ages but I reckon I'd still enjoy it.

Totally agreed, it's beautiful. That soundtrack is unbeatable. Can't believe I missed the Record Store Day vinyl release because I didn't feel like leaving the house.

Twed

  • I need you so, Medieval Zone, you don't need me
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #53 on: July 19, 2019, 12:42:14 AM »
My favourite scene was always Johansson sat on the windowsill, overlooking the beautiful cityscape while listening to sqarepusher's tommib. I was so in love with it, I've seen it a thousand times. To a lesser degree, that very much sums up how I felt about the rest of the film. I was in love with the scenery, the music, the isolation, the foreboding, the fantasy of meeting someone abroad. It probably appeals to a lot of people who might be lonely, like I may have been at the time.
Yep. It's a movie for people who prefer feeling and aesthetics to real stuff, I think. Whenever people sum it up qualitatively I think "yeah, you know what, it actually IS a shit movie" but then I remember the good feelings it gives me.

Former

  • Big Cock Salad
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #54 on: July 19, 2019, 12:48:43 AM »
Another vote for 'can't see what all the fucking fuss is about' here.

Saw it on a plane shortly after it came out and didn't think much of it. About five years later I was persuaded to 'give it another go' by a mate who raved about how groundbreaking and moving and fabulous it was. And airline edits can be shit sometimes and you're not fully concentrating in the sky etc. so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and took the time to view it properly.

Still didn't think much of it.

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #55 on: July 19, 2019, 11:52:20 AM »
I'm fairly sure the only time I ever watched it, we were stuck in the front row extreme left of the cinema, hence my memory of it is literally warped.

sardines

  • give a man a horse
Re: Lost in Translation (2003)
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2019, 07:55:04 AM »
It came out at a time of Eternal Sunshine, Adaption, Punchdrunk Love. All movies which made wankers like me consider that we were about to hit an age of 'alternative musicals'. These felt like mood pieces where narrative was to some degree being driven by the soundtrack. Also that arse shot.