TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Lost in Translation

The TVClubHouse: Movies & Library ARCHIVES: Movies: May 2004 - March 2005: Lost in Translation users admin

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through May 01, 2004Ophiliasgrandma25 05-01-04  9:47 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 9:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
LOLOL, Ophy :-) But that's just how the movie struck me. DREARY!

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 9:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Sometime movies such as this one reminds me of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. The grand, high critics rave about it and all the would-be intellectuals jump on board so as to look wise and all-knowing also. I say, 'Bah, humbug!'

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 1:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Well Cassie and Grandma, this pseudo-intellectual saw the Emperor and he was clearly wearing new clothes!

Dreary is exactly how Charlotte and Bob were feeling in this different world they were stuck in. I identified with Charlotte's feelings about this older friend she met.


Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 3:13 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Be that as it may, the Emperor I saw was buck naked.

Kimmo
Member

05-02-2003

Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 3:47 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Wow, OG...I really loved this movie! Not because I want to seem like I'm intellectual. Not going to repeat my effusive comments on this movie-- Just read my previous posts!

Meanwhile, I have tried to watch "Pirates of the Caribbean" 2 times, and while I love Johnny Depp in it, I have fallen asleep each time.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 5:49 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Wow, and I though Pirates was great! Go figure, huh!

I guess if we all liked the same thing we'd all be living in my house in Portland...LOL!

Mamie316
Member

07-08-2003

Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:38 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Well, I liked Pirates and I liked this movie which I finally saw this past weekend. I honestly don't think I would have liked it if it wasn't for Bill Murray. He was excellent in this.

Mssilhouette
Member

07-11-2001

Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 1:45 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I saw this "wonderful movie" and here's my opinion on the whole deal.

This movie at the potential to be great but it seems as if the writer/director thought she would make up for the lack of script with long drawn out visuals. They're alone in Japan, yeah we get it..they're fish out of water...yep we get that too. Now what! In place of dialoge there was shots of emptiness and nothingness. THere was a vision but somewhere it got a bit lost. I think if someone didn't have a famous director's last name this movie would have gotten all the accolades it has.

I think Bill Murray did his best with a flimsy script and very little direction. So his performance was not his best.

As to the whisper at the end of the movie, it seemed to me that the writer didn't know how to end it so it was easier to leave a mystery ending and let the viewer create their own ending. Which is a copout consider the story that was being shown.

I'd say this is something to rent if you need to add a 2nd movie choice or you're just curious about what all the hoopla was about.

Kimmo
Member

05-02-2003

Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 2:03 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Oh well, I don't think it was a copout movie-- I thought it was about what you don't know because you don't know what is being said (in silence or in another language), and trying to describe what gets "lost." Also asking questions about whether there are "translations" you need to make due to differences in age, or language, or the the type of work you do, or just how long you have known each other, etc.

I probably would not have liked this so much without Bill Murray in it; but she wrote it for Bill Murray. I'm not a Sofia Coppola fan (I didn't love "The Virgin Suicides"), either. I didn't even really like Scarlett Johannson much (and remember being bored by her walking around the city/shrine, etc because it seemed superfluous).

Still, I loved this movie! Maybe it just means I am a Bill Murray fanatic?

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 11:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I don't think it's a copout at all either. This movie is a perfect example of Ebert's Law: it's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it.

The "how" is having long periods w/out dialogue and not explaining everything (ie. what he said at the end). It created an atmosphere of being lost and it worked for me. But I can see why it doesn't work for others -- that doesn't mean the movie should be changed, IMO.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 8:58 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Kimmo <Oh well, I don't think it was a copout movie-- I thought it was about what you don't know because you don't know what is being said (in silence or in another language), and trying to describe what gets "lost." Also asking questions about whether there are "translations" you need to make due to differences in age, or language, or the the type of work you do, or just how long you have known each other, etc.>

OK, Kimmo, but if Sophia's goal was to express that there really is NO true communication even within the SAME language due to all the above differences, then I think she missed the mark. Look how poorly the young girl and her husband communicated and same with Bill Murray and his wife. Murray and the young girl communicated with each other "better" despite the age difference and short time they'd known each other. If this was really the premise of the movie (i.e. there is no true communication) then it was a great idea but poorly executed. Regardless, I just thought it was terribly dreary and I don't want to feel that way because the characters are. I could have been very mentally excited by all the possibilities in this movie; instead I was so bored I just became irritated.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 9:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Cassie, a big AMEN to everything you said. The same thoughts were in my head, but I just couldn't get them to flow out my fingertips onto the keyboard to express them.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 1:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
OG, I've found that when a movie is mind-numbing, it's sometimes difficult to articulate your criticism. I felt that way with Vanilla Sky. It just left me speechless.

Kimmo
Member

05-02-2003

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:13 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Cassie, I didn't think that the sole point of the movie was to say there is no point in communicating or "no true communication"-- I thought the movie was just illustrating how things get lost, with various examples as previously described. I don't think there was a "premise," just an exploration.

Everyone in the movie seemed to have their own level of communication problems; Charlotte and Bob had some difference with everyone they interacted with, including each other. I thought the movie was just exploring all the differences.

I also didn't think it suggested that there was a certain formula (such as being the same age, etc) to make sure you're really communicating-- That's why I found it so uplifting/emotional when the two characters finally seemed to connect at the end. At the end, I thought Bob and Charlotte really communicated and were an example of how things don't need to stay "lost." I thought the end was the complete opposite of dreary! Sigh.

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I agree Kimmo. I don't think the theme of this movie was that there's no true communication. I don't think it goes nearly so deep. I think it was a simple story of two people finding each other and unexpectedly connecting. Each person was feeling lost in this world due to language barriers, being away from home, spouse being too busy, etc. They stumble onto each other and understand each other. I thought it was beautiful.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:11 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Hey, Kimmo :-) I didn't think that was her sole point either; I drew that conclusion from reading your post which made me think I had perhaps missed a deeper theme in the movie. But as Brenda and you point out, it was a simple story of two people connecting for an instant. I think what the movie lacked for me was any sense that this brief connection led to any kind of awakening/change (profound or otherwise) in either character. I was left feeling that he would go back to his marriage (which he seemed to have no real "connection" with) and she would continue in her similar relationship. I am glad though that you both enjoyed it so much. I love it when a movie touches me as this one did you both. Perhaps Sophia's message was just too subtle for me.



Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:27 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I think the key word Cassie is subtle. Very subtle.

I liked this movie because I identified with how Charlotte was feeling, but this movie was not on my top ten list for the year.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:47 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Wow, Brenda, I'd hate to see you defend a movie that WAS on your top ten list, LOLOL. I think I'd run a mile in the opposite direction :-)

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:50 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
LOL Cassie. I can be pretty passionate about films.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Monday, May 10, 2004 - 3:58 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Passionate is the key word ;)

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 9:37 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I loved this movie and especially Scarlett Johanssen

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:20 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I liked her much better in Pearl Earring.

Ocean_islands
Member

09-07-2000

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 4:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I liked her in both.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 4:22 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
I think the girl has a good future in film.

When I saw 'Translation' I kept having the feeling I'd seen her somewhere before. It wasn't until 'Earring' that I finally got a handle on it. She reminded me of Richard Thomas...John Boy on the Waltons.

Moondance
Member

07-30-2000

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 4:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
She was in The Horse Whisperer... she is actually a childhood friend of a friend of mine. I have net her a few times and seems to be a nice young lady.

Cassie
Member

07-15-2000

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 5:04 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Was she the daughter in Horse Whisperer?

Moondance
Member

07-30-2000

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 5:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Yes:-)

Kimmo
Member

05-02-2003

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Sorry, Cassie! I can see how I sounded like I thought there was a point to the movie in my first post. I see what you mean about there not being a change-- After Bob and Charlotte finally connect, we never get to see what happened, which is kind of a downer when all you see of Bob and Charlotte's marriages is that they aren't connecting. I thought about the end as giving her hope that they could each take the same risk of being honest and open with their actual spouses (without talking around what they feel).

Gee, I'll probably watch this on DVD a month from now and ask, "What was I thinking?"

Scarlett Johannson was also in "Manny and Lo," another movie I really like!

Hippyt
Member

06-15-2001

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:29 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Ok,you guys,I rented this yesterday. Haven't watched it yet. Can't wait after reading this thread.
I think I will like it.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 2:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Do let us know!

Hippyt
Member

06-15-2001

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 4:26 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Well,I really like it! The performances were excellent. I agree with Newman,if it had been written by a man,they would have jumped in bed together. I like the fact that they didn't.
I can totally see why some people would not care for it though. The story line was slow. But I could relate to the characters,so I enjoyed it.
I will admit,I am a Bill Murray fan,so that probably had something to do with it too.

Hummingbird
Member

08-21-2002

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
This movie was a huge disappointment for me. I thought it would never end and when it did I was left wondering "what the heck was that!" Bill Murray was occasionally entertaining with his facial expressions and and all, but then he usually is. Remember that terrible bowling movie with the Amish kid and Woody What's-his-name? The only watchable scenes in it were Bill Murray's and he was hillarious! Anyway, I give Lost in Translation a great big thumbs down.

Yankee_in_ca
Member

08-01-2000

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post    
Nuance.