Lost in Translation movie... wow

[Rashak Mani]

Just saw this movie and was dissapointed in not finding any threads here about it !

Well what a nice movie... funny, charming, touching and food for thought all in one. Scarlett Johanson was so so good... good acting. Bill Murray too. Scarlet is so adorable and plays the "need cuddling" role so well... Those full lips of hers are extreeemeellly attractive.

I guess people who have never experienced travelling, jet lag and cultural shock won't appreciate the film as much...

[Civil Twilight]

I just saw Lost in Translation (at the theater, no less) and I have to agree that it is very good. You are probably right about how those who have not travelled would be less likely to appreciate it. I am one of those people and, while I did enjoy it, I probably can't relate as well as international travellers can. As soon as I get a legitimate reason to do some travelling I'll have to watch it again.

[Tars Tarkas]

It's an awesome movie, there should be two or three threads on it (one by Cervaise), but search is still wonky.

I think it was the best picture last year, but LOTR also needs a win for what was accomplicshed, i will be happy if either win. (if any of the other three win..... )

[Snifit]

I just saw this movie again tonight with my parents. I saw it for the first time in November with my girlfriend. I thought it was a great movie the first time, but I came away tonight liking it even more.

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

I guess people who have never experienced travelling, jet lag and cultural shock won't appreciate the film as much...

I don't think so. Surely, you can identify more easily with Bill Murray's character if you've experienced culture shock. However, it seems to me that Scarlet Johannson's character is more alienated by her lack of direction than her being in Tokyo (and, of course, Bill's going through a mid-life crisis of sorts).

[Doctor Who]

I'll chime in and say that I liked this movie as well.

My absolute favorite part --- the part that positively made the movie for me is when Bill Murray calls home after that first wild night out. He's half-drunk, wearing that gaudy yellow T-shirt and he tries to say "I love you" when his wife hangs up.

As he's hanging the phone up he says, "That was a stupid idea."

I felt that. I've done it. Stupid drunk phone calls made real.

Bravo.

--- Peter Wiggen

[audiobottle]

This movie just blew me away. It had such a perfect dream-like atmosphere throughout. The characters, their relationship... very well done. All the shots were like little moving photographs - a video collage sort of thing. I think I'll definitely have to buy the DVD when it comes out on the 4th. I'm only afraid that three months later, they'll release the super special edition DVD, and then 8 months later it'll be the uber-mega-feature packed DVD with 9 extra discs worth of scenes.
Slight hijack: has anyone seen Johansson's other film? The one about the painting? Girl With The Pearl Earing I think it's called. I was wondering if she was as good in that. I keep seeing her in the commercials for that new teeny-bopper flick about the SATs and I think, "I hope she's only doing it for the easy money."

[Cervaise]

Here's the previous thread I started on Lost in Translation.

I saw Girl with a Pearl Earring earlier today. I liked it — not overwhelmingly, as there are many other movies of the season I liked much more (Altman's Company, for example, and Triplets of Belleville is friggin' brilliant), but my reaction to Pearl Earring was positive. Johansson is very good in it, but the script is a little thin. The reason to see it is the cinematography: It's a painting come alive.

[Short Guy]

Great film. Great performances. I've slowly come from hating Bill Murray's guts to taking quite a liking to him in the past few years, and this film was another leap in that journey. Every look, every word, every gesture is perfect. Loved it.

[Rashak Mani]

I just know I am hot for this new actress Johansson. Those lips and her sad puppy face during the film just captivated me.

As for the no sex involvement... it gave a purity to their relationship. Its a love story and not a love story. More maybe a companionship and marriage story. Both ? In the end they just needed someone to talk to... to relate too. Sex would have been incidental ?

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by audiobottle

Slight hijack: has anyone seen Johansson's other film?

Sounds like you think that's the only other film she's done.

Check out "The Horse Whisperer." She was excellent in that.

[Knowed Out]

Not to mention Ghost World.

While watching Lost in Translation, I felt bored. Afterwards I got to thinking about the movie, and the parts that bored me started to make sense. There were a few scenes were the two major characters would try to converse with each other but not say anything. I understand now it's the awkward silence similar to what first-time daters expereince. In their case, they knew they couldn't throw away their marriages for a one-night stand, and started to respect each other as close friends rather than lovers.

If it weren't an independent production, it would have had zillions of lines of dialogue and Bill Murray and Scarlet Johannsen bonking each other like bunnies.

[Gadfly]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

I just know I am hot for this new actress Johansson. Those lips and her sad puppy face during the film just captivated me.

See The Man Who Wasn't There. Just as gorgeous a film as LIT, and with a supporting role from Johansson.

[jsc1953]

I saw it last night on DVD, and while I enjoyed it and recommend it -- I'm not sure what the fuss is about. A pleasant film, sure....but Best Picture? Best Actor? I just don't see it.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally Posted by Knowed Out

If it weren't an independent production, it would have had zillions of lines of dialogue and Bill Murray and Scarlet Johannsen bonking each other like bunnies.

So very true ! I would naturally watch it only for the sleaze and Johanson.

[Dioptre]

Lost in Translation rates as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I just
don't understand the hype about it at all.

In particular:
The "lost in translation" parts are quite hilarious, but only if you understand Japanese.

The endless shots of people in elevators, people in bars, people in window-sills. Sure - they're bored - can't we convey this in a less boring way?

The badly cut, incoherent "night on the town", which lasted for forty minutes, was like attending a party sober whilst everyone else is drunk. Intensely painful. What was it with the fake machine gun, and since when has a karaoke scene been the height of cinema?

The one night stand with the singer. What the heck was that about?

Complaining about the shabu-shabu - it's an incredible meal, and a great experience. Typical American whining about foreign culture just because it's foreign.

I think the real test is that you could cut any scene from the picture, and it would still be the same picture. Repeat ad infinitum until you're left with 15 minutes of Bill Murray making faces for the camera.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by Dioptre

Lost in Translation rates as one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

You really need to see more movies.

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see it get so many Oscar nominations, especially the best actor for Bill Murray. Surprised because the awards always seem to go to the obvious choices and not to the people that really should win -- for example, everybody in Oscar Bait, I mean, Mystic River. That was just an amazing performance; he didn't lose himself in the part but he didn't just play up his schtick, either. The movie just wouldn't have worked without him.

I was a little surprised to see it get nominated for best picture as well. Even though Return of the King was my favorite movie of last year, I wouldn't be disappointed if Lost in Translation won, because it was so well made and didn't seem to have any ulterior motives. It wasn't constructed to win awards or tug heartstrings or showcase breathtaking performances; it was pretty subtle and realistic. I still think that there was a lot of overplayed, distracting stuff going on -- the L vs R joke, the "lip my stocking" escort, the ditzy Hollywood actress -- but the movie as a whole has stuck with me.

It took a good bit of courage to take a movie like that, with real dialog instead of big, emotional showcase scenes; with moments of introspection instead of sudden epiphanies and big climaxes; with a realistic relationship developing instead of a montage of goofy scenes at Tokyo Tower; and trust the audience to be able to get it.

[bifar]

You really need to see more movies.

Nah, it really is okay not to like Lost in Translation, I know plenty of people who didn’t.

It’s a cute little movie, but IMHO not worth all the hype. The jokes are a little cheesy and could be construed as racist (not to open a can of worms or anything). Murray’s performance goes a long way to save it, and I’d be happy for him to get the best actor Oscar, but if it gets anything for direction or screenplay (much, from what I’ve heard, improvised by Murray and Johanssen) I shall be bloody annoyed.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally Posted by Dioptre

Lost in Translation rates as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I just
don't understand the hype about it at all.

Why do you date only blondes ? Why don't you drink tea ? Taste is taste. Some people love Citizen Kane and I thought it was extremely boring. Normal.

It's ok for you not to like LIT... maybe it just didn't touch you as it did others... or you didn't get it (happens sometimes to me) or you were in a bad mood. My brother and his wife didn't like it either and they lived and travelled abroad a lot.... go figure.

[BobT]

This happens every year with every AA-nominated film. Ask me about The English Patient, I'll rip your head off with criticism of it. That's just the nature of entertainment. We don't all like the same thing. If we did, there would be even less variation in the offerings from Hollywood.

[Cargogal]

Originally Posted by bifar

Nah, it really is okay not to like Lost in Translation, I know plenty of people who didn’t.

Not liking it is one thing, but if it's the worst movie you've ever seen, you need to see more movies. There is some godawful excrement out there.

[HBby]

Probably because I could relate to ever aspect in the movie:
-sitting on the windowsill in the hotel in the middle of the night, staring down on the life below, surrounded by millions of people, but feeling the most alone
-smelling the laquered bar, with the too-loud jazz singer, bored and trying hard to entertain myself
-finding an affinity with a person, whom I would never be friends with normally, because I'm in such a foreign place
-surprising myself by having an incredibly wonderful time in a karaoke booth

I could go on and on.

But I can see if a person doesn't get it, then the person won't like it.

Kudos to Bill Murray.

[Somnambulist]

Saw it at the weekend and I thought it was a wonderful film. We reluctantly left Tokyo about a year ago and it made us so homesick! Ms Somnambulist had a lot of time on her hands while we were in Japan and she related intimately with Johanssen’s character.

We have a lot of cherished memories of Tokyo and Japan ranging from those as bemused outsiders to proud residents. The one thing that sticks more than anything else is the fact that we met and befriended the most unlikely of people. Folk that for whatever reason (mostly trivial) we would probably not have socialised with back home have become the dearest of friends. There is something curious about being strangers in a strange land that forges bonds quickly and often deeply. On that level I think the movie struck a resonant chord.

[raizok]

Originally Posted by Somnambulist

Saw it at the weekend and I thought it was a wonderful film. We reluctantly left Tokyo about a year ago and it made us so homesick! Ms Somnambulist had a lot of time on her hands while we were in Japan and she related intimately with Johanssen’s character.

We have a lot of cherished memories of Tokyo and Japan ranging from those as bemused outsiders to proud residents. The one thing that sticks more than anything else is the fact that we met and befriended the most unlikely of people. Folk that for whatever reason (mostly trivial) we would probably not have socialised with back home have become the dearest of friends. There is something curious about being strangers in a strange land that forges bonds quickly and often deeply. On that level I think the movie struck a resonant chord.

I must say, you've ended this thread on a very smart and well-appreciated note.





Oops.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Dioptre

The "lost in translation" parts are quite hilarious, but only if you understand Japanese.

Assuming you mean the scenes where Murray is shooting the commercial and is being directed via translator, you're incorrect. I don't speak a word of Japanese, and I thought the scene was hilarious.

The endless shots of people in elevators, people in bars, people in window-sills. Sure - they're bored - can't we convey this in a less boring way?

The movie isn't trying to tell you what the characters are feeling, it's trying to make you feel what the characters are feeling. The movie isn't about telling a story, it's about creating a mood. So, if the scenes were less boring, they wouldn't be conveying the proper mood. Doesn't help much if you don't like it, but it was necessary to what the movie was trying to accomplish.

The badly cut, incoherent "night on the town", which lasted for forty minutes, was like attending a party sober whilst everyone else is drunk. Intensely painful. What was it with the fake machine gun, and since when has a karaoke scene been the height of cinema?

I think a night on the town drinking ought to be filmed in at least a slightly incoherent manner. I didn't find it poorly edited, but that's purely subjective. I can tell you two things: First, the fake machingun is an AirSoft gun: a hyper-realistic, gas-powered toy gun that fires plastic pellets. They're enourmously popular in Japan, and it's not uncommon to see people (often adults) firing them at each other in public. It's just another part of Japanese culture, same as the Buddhist temples or the shabu shabu. Second, great cinema is not defined by its subject matter, but by how it approaches its subject matter. Besides, Bill Murray's song, in addition to being a clever reference to his SNL lounge singer character, was also fucking heartbreaking.

The one night stand with the singer. What the heck was that about?

It was necessary to create the crisis which precedes the climax of the film. Johansson had been close to Murray because he was safe. He seemingly had a good marriage, and had been offering her tips on how to make sure her marriage lasted just as long. All of a sudden, she's confronted by the fact that he's clearly not happy in his marriage. Further, she becomes jealous, because he decided to cheat on his wife, and he didn't do it with her. This throws their entire relationship into relief: that there's something more going on between the two of them than simple friendship, but also forces the realization that they can't act on it.

Complaining about the shabu-shabu - it's an incredible meal, and a great experience. Typical American whining about foreign culture just because it's foreign.

I had shabu-shabu once, albiet in L.A. and not Japan. My reaction: I just paid restaurant prices to cook my own food? Being open-minded means trying new things. It doesn't mean you have to like them.

I think the real test is that you could cut any scene from the picture, and it would still be the same picture. Repeat ad infinitum until you're left with 15 minutes of Bill Murray making faces for the camera.

You could cut almost any scene from the picture and it would still be the same story, but it would not be the same picture. Every scene has a point, every scene shows us something different about the characters, even if what it tells us is very subtle. Every scene influences every other scene, even if there's no narrative connection between them. I can't think of a single scene whose removal would have made the movie better.

[look!ninjas]

Just saw this last night. I'm not going to run around shouting from the rooftops about how fantastic it was, but it was very sweet, very funny, and very thoughtful. And as long as Rashak Mani is going to crush on Scarlett Johansson (sp?), I'll come forward and say that I find Bill Murray to be extremely sexy. I don't know why, but he's sexy anyway.

[Marley23]

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled moderate opinions.

This was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Top ten, maybe five. I saw it for the first time a few weeks ago, went back the next night. I loved the LOTR movies (though I think Return of the King was the weakest of the three), but I'm hoping Lost in Translation wins Best Picture- I think it deserves the awards it was nominated for and more. [Scarlett was robbed.]

Rashak is right on - the fact that this was an indie picture let them make brave choices like avoiding cliched dialogue and an unnecessary sex scene. I think the point about travel is well-taken... I've never been to Japan, but if you understand culture shock, this movie captures it. Likewise, I think it depicts loneliness and those unusual moments people share with a nuance you don't very often see.

Somebody said the night out was like being sober when everyone else is drunk... I think that's exactly what it was supposed to feel like. Bob and Charlotte just couldn't relate to the people around them, they were fundamentally aliens and they only connection they could make was to each other. I'm not sure there's any film I'd compare it to... The Graduate is about one guy who's lost and alone, but two people is rather different. I've never seen another movie say so much with so little, and in such unusual ways. Beautiful looking, too.

I said a lot in the other thread, so hopefully I didn't repeat myself. I'm not a fan of watching movies repeatedly, but this is one I can see myself watching many times over the years.

[HPL]

I saw it last night and it was nicely done, but it personally didn't do anything for me. I got what it was about, but for some reason, I couldn't really get into it. Maybe if it see it again, I'll enjoy it more, but from the one time I saw it, I don't think I'd give it a best picture.

I felt the same way about The Hours when I saw it. Nice movie, but not really something I'd give best picture to. I give it kudos for trying to be different, and for trying to be real, but It just didn't do much for me. YMMV.

[ftg]

It's interesting. So here we have all the posters who just saw it (and several people I know IRL).

It's still in the theaters, #12 box office last weekend. And the DVD came out Tuesday.

All I can say is: C'mon people, get with the program. See the great films when they first come out.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

What did Bill Murray's character whisper to her at the very end of the movie--when they're hugging? I couldn't hear!

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

What did Bill Murray's character whisper to her at the very end of the movie--when they're hugging? I couldn't hear!

He's telling her what's really in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.

[LorieSmurf]

Meh. This movie didn't do anything for me either. I was expecting something different. I was NOT expecting Bill Murray slapstick or anything, just something different than what i saw. Kinda boring. I, too, did not understand all the hype.

My boyfriend called it "a shitloaded crapfest", but I wouldn't go that far.

[GuanoLad]

It was sweet. And I laughed at some of it. But I dunno... it's not that good.

It unfortunately had way too many shakey-cam shots that distracted me a lot, and at one point made me woozy for a second or two. A couple of the characters I found to be a bit too cliche. And it sure wasn't much of a good advertisement for visiting Japan.

It seemed like an amateurish low budget film, which I suppose it was really, through no fault of its own, but if it just was a little more professionally edited, filmed, and post-produced, I may have liked it more.

But it was certainly enjoyable.

[gallows fodder]

Originally Posted by Miller

It was necessary to create the crisis which precedes the climax of the film. Johansson had been close to Murray because he was safe. He seemingly had a good marriage, and had been offering her tips on how to make sure her marriage lasted just as long. All of a sudden, she's confronted by the fact that he's clearly not happy in his marriage. Further, she becomes jealous, because he decided to cheat on his wife, and he didn't do it with her. This throws their entire relationship into relief: that there's something more going on between the two of them than simple friendship, but also forces the realization that they can't act on it.

I interpreted this a little differently -- I thought she was disappointed with him for cheating on his wife, but not jealous. I don't think she (at least, consciously) wanted to sleep with him herself, but I think she was hurt that he was disloyal to the bond developing between them. The two of them were in this confusing place together -- "we're all each other has, right?" -- and then he turns to someone else. I would have felt the same way. She brings up his age -- something like "the two of you must have a lot in common, like growing up in the '50s" -- because she's conscious of how much like a little kid she must look to him, and it embarrasses her. She scowls when he says something like, "Don't you have anyone else to shower you with attention?" because that's not what it's about at all -- she doesn't want attention, she just wants to be the person he turns to, just as he's that person for her.

He did right when, at the end, he ignored the blonde babe to say goodbye to her.

I loved this movie, probably because I very strongly identify with Charlotte. I don't know what to do with my life, either, and I often feel lost, and I haven't seen any other films that captured this feeling so well as Lost in Translation.

[Futile Gesture]

I liked it.

It conveys the extreme 'otherness' of Japanese culture without being patronising or insulting. (Well, I thought so. I suppose the Japanese are the best to judge that.) Just don't watch it for plot, it's more like sharing an experience.

And Johanson is extremely easy on the eyes. But what exactly she's supposed to see in Murray is another question.

[look!ninjas]

Originally Posted by ftg

All I can say is: C'mon people, get with the program. See the great films when they first come out.

Believe me, I wish I could! Because I live in a fairly rural area, they don't come anywhere near me, and I can't make a four-hour drive every time I want to see an independent film, so I have to wait for the DVD to come out. It sucks.

At least Lost in Translation came out pretty quickly. The wait for The Station Agent is killing me.

[Grousser]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Just saw this movie and was dissapointed in not finding any threads here about it !

Well what a nice movie... funny, charming, touching and food for thought all in one. Scarlett Johanson was so so good... good acting. Bill Murray too. Scarlet is so adorable and plays the "need cuddling" role so well... Those full lips of hers are extreeemeellly attractive.

I guess people who have never experienced travelling, jet lag and cultural shock won't appreciate the film as much...

Sorry to disagree, but I don't have experience in jet lag and cultural shock (long travels, as well), but I appreciatted this film very much, in fact, it is one of my favorites now.

I was about to start an opinion of this matter, but this is about the movie, so I'll do it in IMHO, I think.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by gallows fodder

I interpreted this a little differently -- I thought she was disappointed with him for cheating on his wife, but not jealous. I don't think she (at least, consciously) wanted to sleep with him herself, but I think she was hurt that he was disloyal to the bond developing between them. The two of them were in this confusing place together -- "we're all each other has, right?" -- and then he turns to someone else. I would have felt the same way. She brings up his age -- something like "the two of you must have a lot in common, like growing up in the '50s" -- because she's conscious of how much like a little kid she must look to him, and it embarrasses her. She scowls when he says something like, "Don't you have anyone else to shower you with attention?" because that's not what it's about at all -- she doesn't want attention, she just wants to be the person he turns to, just as he's that person for her.

I completely agree. That's more or less what I meant when I said she was jealous. I do think there was a sexual component to her jealousy, although I think it came as a surprise to her. She didn't consciously want to sleep with him, and part of her anger with him stemmed from anger at herself for being jealous of him in that way.

[The Griffin]

I think the fact this sort of thing probably happens more often than most people think kind of makes the film a bit "so what?" in my view.

[KidCharlemagne]

Beautiful movie, though not for everyone. The only thing I would have done differently is, in the end, I would have had Bill Harris just hug (rather than kiss) Charlotte.

[AnnaLivia]

Well, the office reaction is mixed...

Most of us thought that bits could be construed as vaguely racist...and those were supposed to be the "funny" parts.

But as someone who is still feeling the effects of culture shock and not bonding well with the people I'm supposed to be friends with, I found it ringing much too true. I've found the other lonely person and gone on some mad adventures. I've spent nights drinking too much and singing.

I've gotten jealous in spite of myself.

There are things about LIT I don't want to like, but have to- because I'm living them. I was the only one out of five of us who enjoyed it. I didn't care that much for "Girl with a Pearl Earring" because it was too much like trying to inhabit a picture- the opposite situation.

AL

[AnnaLivia]

Well, the office reaction is mixed...

Most of us thought that bits could be construed as vaguely racist...and those were supposed to be the "funny" parts.

But as someone who is still feeling the effects of culture shock and not bonding well with the people I'm supposed to be friends with, I found it ringing much too true. I've found the other lonely person and gone on some mad adventures. I've spent nights drinking too much and singing.

I've gotten jealous in spite of myself.

There are things about LIT I don't want to like, but have to- because I'm living them. I was the only one out of five of us who enjoyed it. I didn't care that much for "Girl with a Pearl Earring" because it was too much like trying to inhabit a picture- the opposite situation.

AL

[Rashak Mani]

Originally Posted by look!ninjas

And as long as Rashak Mani is going to crush on Scarlett Johansson (sp?), I'll come forward and say that I find Bill Murray to be extremely sexy. I don't know why, but he's sexy anyway.

Arrggh... Murray sexy ? Charming maybe... funny certainly ... sexy ?! No way

Sorry to disagree, but I don't have experience in jet lag and cultural shock (long travels, as well), but I appreciatted this film very much, in fact, it is one of my favorites now. I was about to start an opinion of this matter, but this is about the movie, so I'll do it in IMHO, I think.

Feel free to talk about it... I didn't mean to imply that "limited experience" would limit or make impossible enjoying the film... but more frequently those who have had these experiences would be amongst the "fans".

I did say: "I GUESS ... won't appreciate AS MUCH."

The film isn't only about jet lag and feeling alienated... its got much more to it and anyone can enjoy it.


Anyone from Japan here ? I'm curious to know how this film went in Japan. Sucessful ? Did they like or hate it ?

[MaxTheVool]

It takes a truly dedicated fan of Scarlett Johannson, or else someone who is bored out of their skull and has nothing better to do, to watch her in one of her earliest, most career-defining roles...



as the big sister in Home Alone 3

[Stephe96]

Count me down as one who was quite underwhelmed by this inexplicably over-hyped movie. Here are a few things I had a problem with:

1) Why, exactly, was Bill Murray's character so interested in this girl if he didn't want to have sex with her? She seemed a bit on the boring side to me.

2) Was I the only one watching this movie and thinking that Tokyo looked like a DAMN interesting place to be? Are you telling me that a Yale graduate couldn't find SOMETHING fun to do for a week there? Again, this would indicate to me that the girl was a bit on the dull side.

3) Was I also the only one thinking that the movie would've been far more interesting had it followed her photographer husband to wherever it was HE was going? Shooting rock stars on tour on Japan? Sounds OK to me.

4) Finally, did anyone else find it odd that the Anna Farris character (Cameron Diaz?) and the Bill Murray character (Harrison Ford? Sylvester Stallone?), two big Hollywood stars in the same hotel, didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE each other? Correct me if I missed something, but wouldn't the young starlet have been swooning over a big action movie star instead of some nobody rock photographer?

Oh well. It's not that this movie was all that BAD...it was just....nothing special.

[Charlie Tan]

It just opened here in theatres, but with sick doggie at home, I can't get off to the movies, and nicely enough, it's been released on DVD in the US, so I downloaded it.

I'm totally blown away.

Without a doubt the best movie I've seen in quite a while. It's a moving painting and Ms Coppola uses water colors with a feather-light touch. I can't really add anything that hasn't been said before in this thread, but I'll try to answer Stephe96, not because I'm gonna change the minds of people who was bored out of their skulls (and I can see why), but mostly to sort out my own thoughts.

1. I don't know your age, but when men reach a certain age, all interactions with women don't have sex as a goal. I'm sure he was tempted, seeing that she's gorgeous, but like me who's 23 years older than Ms Johansson, and 20 years older than her character, I'm sure that the thought of being a 'dirty old man' crossed his mind.
And for her being boring - she was real. She looked real, acted real. If you find that boring... I dunno, there are so many movies and shows with contrived conflicts and cardboard (or cardbored?) characters, I found it totally refreshing.
2. Yes, Tokyo did look interesting, but I think she was there at the wrong point in her life, hitching along with hubby, doubting her marriage and trying to find out what she was going to do with her life. Having all these emotions going through her mind, while arriving at such an alien place can be emotionally straining. I thought the movie captured her reactions perfectly.
3. I suggest you rent Almost Famous. I like Ribisi and think he's an excellent actor, but I think that there is a reason he and all other secondary characters are so two dimensional, as compared to the two protagonists: It's just like that when to people fall in love (even it the spiritual sense that we see here), everything else just fades away. Hubby's story is another story, which might be interesting. Hence mys suggestion for 'Almost Famous'.
4. I think that Anna Farris character is more of a young starlet: Jennifer Love Hewitt maybe. Someone flaky at least. And Bill Murray's character is definitly past his prime. An action star that haven't had a hit movie in a long time. I'd say more of Don Johnson. Then it makes perfect sense. No up'n'coming starlet would want to be connected with an older star, sliding into oblivion. And she'd want to act cool, like meeting big stars is so every-day for her, she won't even acknowledge that old fart, not even for what he was.

[look!ninjas]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Arrggh... Murray sexy ? Charming maybe... funny certainly ... sexy ?! No way

Funny + charming = sexy. Especially when combined with restraint (i.e. carrying a lovely young thing up to her hotel room, tucking her in bed, and then walking away.) That is sexy. Everything else is window dressing.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Stephe96

Count me down as one who was quite underwhelmed by this inexplicably over-hyped movie. Here are a few things I had a problem with:

1) Why, exactly, was Bill Murray's character so interested in this girl if he didn't want to have sex with her? She seemed a bit on the boring side to me.

Boring? I didn't find her at all boring. She was smart, educated, had a nice understated sense of irony. She seemed a lot like Murray's character, just younger and less sure of herself.

2) Was I the only one watching this movie and thinking that Tokyo looked like a DAMN interesting place to be? Are you telling me that a Yale graduate couldn't find SOMETHING fun to do for a week there? Again, this would indicate to me that the girl was a bit on the dull side.

What she wanted to do was have fun in Tokyo with her husband. That's why she went with him, but once they get there, she finds that he's more interested in his rock'n'roll friends (whom she doesn't like) and too busy with work to spend any time with her. Tokyo is a great city, but not when you're worried that you're marriage is falling apart. Note that Murray is just as bored as Johansson is, and for similar reasons. Does that make his character dull, too?

3) Was I also the only one thinking that the movie would've been far more interesting had it followed her photographer husband to wherever it was HE was going? Shooting rock stars on tour on Japan? Sounds OK to me.

Ugh. Sounds like Entertainment Tonight: The Movie. Honestly, is there anything on Earth less interesting than a rock musician?

4) Finally, did anyone else find it odd that the Anna Farris character (Cameron Diaz?) and the Bill Murray character (Harrison Ford? Sylvester Stallone?), two big Hollywood stars in the same hotel, didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE each other? Correct me if I missed something, but wouldn't the young starlet have been swooning over a big action movie star instead of some nobody rock photographer?

Neither of these characters are big Hollywood stars. Anna Farris is the sort of manufactured ingenue who do one marginally watchable movie, gets a lot of coverage in the tabloid press, and vanishes completely from the public consciousness inside of a couple years. Bill Murray's character hadn't been a big action star in more than a decade. Otherwise, he wouldn't be pimping cheap Japanese whiskey. He's not supposed to be Harrison Ford. He's not supposed to be Sylvester Stallone. He's not even supposed to be Charles Bronson. At best, he's John Saxon. Twenty years ago, the Anna Farris's of the day might have been swooning over him. The fact that in the present day, she doesn't even recognize him is another dig at his ego, another example of how much of a has-been Murray is supposed to be.

[Stephe96]

Originally Posted by Miller

Bill Murray's character hadn't been a big action star in more than a decade. Otherwise, he wouldn't be pimping cheap Japanese whiskey. He's not supposed to be Harrison Ford. He's not supposed to be Sylvester Stallone. He's not even supposed to be Charles Bronson. At best, he's John Saxon. Twenty years ago, the Anna Farris's of the day might have been swooning over him. The fact that in the present day, she doesn't even recognize him is another dig at his ego, another example of how much of a has-been Murray is supposed to be.

Except that people like Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Brad Pitt, etc. all do ads in Japan NOW. The Japanese will pay these people millions of dollars to endorse their products BECAUSE they are huge stars at the moment. John Saxon? Why would anyone give him $2 million to endorse anything? I'd bet that the Murray character is VERY closely based on someone like Harrison Ford or Sylvester Stallone. And I read somewhere that Anna Farris is basically playing Cameron Diaz in the movie.

So my question stands: why would these two Hollywood megastars not even acknowledge each other?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Stephe96

Except that people like Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Brad Pitt, etc. all do ads in Japan NOW. The Japanese will pay these people millions of dollars to endorse their products BECAUSE they are huge stars at the moment. John Saxon? Why would anyone give him $2 million to endorse anything? I'd bet that the Murray character is VERY closely based on someone like Harrison Ford or Sylvester Stallone. And I read somewhere that Anna Farris is basically playing Cameron Diaz in the movie.

So my question stands: why would these two Hollywood megastars not even acknowledge each other?

The movie made this absolutely and abundantly clear: the Bill Murray character is not a megastar. He's past his peak, a has-been, a joke, a forgotten bit of B-movie trivia.

Maybe he is based on Sylvester Stallone, after all.

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by Stephe96

And I read somewhere that Anna Farris is basically playing Cameron Diaz in the movie.

Sofia Coppola has been saying to anyone who asks that this is not true and she doesn't know where the rumor started.