Lost In Translation

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"The best part was in the hospital when Bill Murray was sitting next to that weird Japanese Kid-Dude-Adult-Thing. The extra's in the back were not maintaining."

They were supposed to be laughing. The comments he are making to Murray are obviously humourous, yet he, and we, can not understand them.

[Studio8]

No, that scene was improvised and those ladies were extra's who couldn't control their laughter. Seriously.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Well, obviously Coppola wanted them to be laughing in the final cut of the film or she would have shot it until they weren't. It worked, therefore it was supposed to be in the film, and they are doing nothing wrong.

[pjalne]

I saw it yesterday, and I really liked it.

Thought you all might like to know.

[Studio8]

Dude, I never said they were doing anything wrong.

[FartinMowler]

Little snippets of funny do not make a great movie. I would like to hear why people thought this movie was good. It's full of cliche's and there is absolutely no sexual tension between Bill Murray's Character and the girl and in the end... what are we suppose to asume?

[Protoclown]

That was a fucking beautiful movie. I loved it.

[Rongi]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...686621-7465469

What the fuck???

[FartinMowler]

Coppola - who directed this with an intriguing focus on environment - has a great movie on her hands. She has little more than a hotel and two characters to work with--

It took place in Japan :/ I know because they kept looking out the window for half the movie

[O71394658]

I got it today, and thought it was great. Very cool movie.

Scarlett

[Hugh_Bristic]

I think perhaps I was expecting too much out of this film; somewhere along the line of reviews, I thought it would be... I don't know, good. I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad film, but certainly not something I'd watch more than once or would feel the need to have a conversation about (save this one right here, right now).

If Coppola's objective was to make the viewer feel dismal in the sense that they identified with... weariness or mediocrity, or that sick, empty feeling, then she easily accomplished that feat. But it could easily be said that the film was essentially just that: vacuous. It's like identifying with depressing nonsensical lyrics because they somehow apply to your life at that point. The only way, that I can humbly conceive, someone would find this a good film is if they identified with that despondent nothingness and/or looking for “something” (read: one’s place in life). Does that make sense?

P.S. Responses are welcome, except for those of Tenenbaum. On behalf of AT&T, thank you for calling.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"Does that make sense?"

No, because the film does have substance, yet you were just to ignorant to understand it. You wanted a message rammed down your throat, so when the film didn't present itself clearly on one viewing you immediately assumed it was bad. In reality, it is you who is bad.

[FartinMowler]

Thank god for ignorance if it means that I don't have to watch this twice. Better film to watch is "The Professional" with Jean Reno/Natalie Portman and the brilliant Gary Oldman. [/quote]

[Bennett]

YEAH THAT MOVIE HAS GUNS!


fucking twit

[Rongi]

Originally Posted by *FARTINMOWLER*

Thank god for ignorance if it means that I don't have to watch this twice. Better film to watch is "The Professional" with Jean Reno/Natalie Portman and the brilliant Gary Oldman.

Fucking idiot

[FartinMowler]

Rongi will be speaking at conferences this week that will include his thought's on episode 3 and 6 of Futurama and why he is a big homo.

[Rongi]

Oh snap.

[Studio8]

Tenebaum, you are the kind of snob that most people hate discussing film with because you like to label people as close-minded when it's really you is being close-minded. Just because someone has to watch a movie twice to absorb everything can mean many things - not always that they are an idiot or "bad."

FartinMowler = 1
Rongi = 0

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Originally Posted by Studio8

Just because someone has to watch a movie twice to absorb everything can mean many things - not always that they are an idiot or "bad."

I agree, the problem is the closeminded idiots that label it crap before giving it another chance. I often watch films that I didn't like on the first viewing because I believe it will have more to offer. For example, the first time I saw Punch-Drunk Love I thought it was fairly medicore, the next time I watched it I realized it was indeed a minor masterpiece.

[pjalne]

While Royal is a bit snobbish, I usually agree with him. I don't think films should be dumbed down for everyone to understand them the first time around. If you try to appeal to everyone, you're losing the audience members you want to reach.

I'm noticing I'm getting more and more picky when it comes to films, and one of the things that usually put me off is the underlining of every fucking point. I've experienced far too often that a film is about to touch upon something brilliant and understated, only to hammer it in at the last second. This is one of the reasons Lost in Translation appealed to me, a lot was left hanging and unsaid, and you could still connect the dots by looking at the slight shift in a camera angle, a glance from a character or the timing of a cut. You know, instead of having bill Murray just say "I am kind of attracted to you, but I'm married and so are you, but I'll hang around with you anyway because I like your company and because I'm completely lost on my own. In addition to this, I am more than a bit too old for you. We'll see how things work out." If that's what you want, watch a damned Sandra Bullock movie.

There are still times when I need to watch a movie a second time to appreciate it, but at least I have the common sense to realize it's not necessarily the movie's fault I didn't get much out of it. Perhaps I was in the wrong mood that day, perhaps I wasn't well enough aquainted with the genre to pick up all the information I needed, perhaps the people around me distracted me. Like when I first watched Magnolia. I was tired, I expected a completely different film, someone had given away the ending earlier that day, and the girl next to me in the theater really hated it and kept moaning and muttering until she finally walked out. Of course I didn't get anything out of that. But at least I gave the film another shot later. I liked it a lot that time around.

[Bennett]

well played pj

well played.

[FartinMowler]

I understand your points and this is why they have alternative festivals that create buzz and hopefully good film filters through and we get to see it. I have sat through many subtle beautiful films that the mass audience have rejected and I understand your point that it is subjective but I get really tired of being subjected to "Rave review's" of films like Lost in Translation and Punch drunk love and being let down.

[Bennett]

go see "you got served"

[FartinMowler]

Boston Globe, Wesley Morris
"You Got Served is part soap opera and part thriller, and it has the unique characteristic of being both undeveloped and overwritten." more... C
Cincinnati Enquirer, Margaret A. McGurk
"Though only and hour and a half long, the movie feels like a long, hard slog when the music stops." more... C+
E! Online,
"...inept..." more... C-
filmcritic.com, Pete Croatto
"...this is a pretty awful movie." more...


:/

[Esuohlim]

I'M SORRY FARTINMOWLER, YOUR PREVIOUS POST WAS LOST IN TRANSLATION.