Maybe because if you did like it, those who don’t assume you only liked it to bolster your hipster cred.
The fact that it was never made clear what they were to each other was one of the things I loved about the movie. And Murray looking out of place in her haunts? Makes perfect sense. I loved their chemistry.
Different strokes…
I guess I shouldn’t complain too loudly about what a terrible movie “Lost in Translation” was, with nothing happening at all, and being completely boring, because that is the most common complaint about BBM, and I think it is the best movie I have ever seen. I’m always explaining to people how Jack and Ennis’ attraction is extremely subtle, how it’s played out in quick glances and little throwaway sentences, but if I have to keep explaining it, maybe it’s a little too subtle.
Well, It’s just my opinion, but that WAS the point of the movie: Bill Murray & Scarlett Johanssen were two people who really should never have met, never have clicked, never have had anything to talk about…but because they were lost in a culture where they couldn’t connect with anyone else, couldn’t even speak the language, they were forced to…step outside the box a little. It’s not that they were born soul-mates, they just sort of forged a relationship out of sheer desperation. They created chemistry where there shouldn’t have been any.
Alright, alright. Anyway, how about for non-sexual chemistry, Patsy & Edina from Absolutely Fabulous? (Although it was hinted at at least once that maybe Patsy wouldn’t have minded making it sexual…)
You can see great classic movie chemistry in Wuthering Heights between Laurence Olivier & Merle Oberon. And in City Lights between Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill (the blind girl).
I liked it for the very reason people are complaining about it. The characters weren’t terribly likeable, had little in common, were out of place in a foreign country without any sort of passion for the adventure. It was an absurdist movie in a completely ordinary way. And the chemistry between the characters was completely appropriate for the circumstances. But it was definately “Art Film” and not “movie” and if you were expecting “movie” I can see where you wouldn’t like it at all.
Ah, but I have the Hipster Shield; when the hipster army advances on my position, I just start babbling about how much I love the Science of Sleep (I really do). Slays 'em all.
To their credit, the film acknowledged that, in the scene where Murray’s character (who is a famous actor himself) is approached by two starstruck 20somethings who prattle on about how awesome his stunts were in some action movie, and how they wish they could do that, and he’s so jaded he can hardly smile and nod. But yeah, that’s still pretty irritating–granted, being strangers in a strange land was an important part of the plot (to the extent there was one), but the way they completely ignored Japan and the Japanese nearly smacked of racism. And then there was the opposite issue when they were hanging out with Johansson’s character’s Japanese friends and singing karaoke–for someone who seemed to keep to herself in foreign countries, how the fuck did she get to know all of these Japanese people? None of it was ever explained.
It’s easy to find LiT haters now, but back when it came out the critics were practically jumping through hoops and doing tricks for it, and every hipster around just couldn’t shut up about it.
That part would’ve been OK, even pretty cool, if the movie had some kind of direction. I mean, nobody grew, nobody learned anything, Murray and Johansson’s spurned lovers never found out or even cared what was going on, they themselves gave no thought to the consequences of their actions, and they really didn’t even do anything important in the entire movie. The whole time I was just waiting for the plot to develop, for anything at all of any substance to happen. And I’d keep getting my hopes up: “They’re going to a club! Something will happen!” “He’s lost in Tokyo! Something will happen!” “They’re drinking! Something will happen!”. Nope.
I love “Art Film”, personally, I just hate Lost in Translation.
Yes. And had the movie started like this, and together they grew to appreciate and love the beauty that is Japan, I could have maybe liked it. But they didn’t. They were content to live their humdrum lives and then whine about them.
:dubious: … 
… :eek:
…Well, now I can’t unsee it… goes to scrub out brain
For a completely non-creepy one: best–Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder in the original Superman movie. Worst–Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth in the new Superman Returns movie (compounded by the fact that Kate Bosworth, while undeniably a decent actress, is not Lois Lane).
Oh dear. I am so sorry. Honestly, no sarcasm. Here, I’ve got some spare brain bleach handy.
Margot Kidder was a great Lois Lane but I never found Lois Lane & Clark Kent to have any chemistry at all. I agree with you on the second, but I didn’t like the Superman Returns movie much at all…too angsty. Tho that Brandon guy was smokin’.
This is something I liked about it.
And for me, this sounds like something I wouldn’t have liked much. Well, I suppose it could’ve been OK, but not as interesting as what we got.
Again, different strokes…
I’m not going to defend the whole movie but this part was explained, at least to my satisfaction…one of the Japanese people was someone she and her husband knew before they went to Japan. When her husband was leaving the hotel to go on his photo shoot or wherever he encouraged her to “hook up with those guys” or something like that.
Re: Star Trek TNG: I think the Picard-Data chemistry started pretty good and really clicked in the last couple of movies. The heck with Wesley, Data is Picard’s real surrogate son.
I like the chemistry between Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany in both Master and Commander and A Beautiful Mind. I think because they are both intense actors, but in different ways.
Speaking of Smallville, the steaminess between the Kents and Luthors must skip a generation–the scenes beteeen Martha and Lionel are so painful I have to leave the room.
They’re like watching your parents make love. Martha Kent talking to Clark about Lionel; “Yeah, I know he’s a piece of shit, and your father wouldn’t have crossed to the street to piss on him if he was on fire, but for some completely unexplained reason, I like to hang out with him. Maybe it’s his huge…bank account.”
I think Lois Lane is an extremely difficult role to cast. She’s not a particularly likeable character, but the actress playing her still has to find a way to make it believable that Clark would b so madly in love with her. And make you care that she doesn’t get killed from one of the endless incredibly stupid things she does. I think Teri Hatcher may have been the best Lois ever, and my one criticism of her would be that she played down Lois’ negative points. Kate Bosworth’s Lois - don’t send a girl to do a woman’s job.
I agree completely with this.
If one thought that Coppola tried to create a typical Hollywood romantic couple, then I see how one could think they had bad chemistry. But I felt their chemistry was always borderline sexual, borderline passing friendship with a hint of loneliness and alienation. The scene in which Murray’s character is discovered to have had a one night-stand highlights this, as it evokes a lot of confusion for the characters.
It also helps to know that the kiss in the ending of the movie was all improvised from Murray’s part. It was an interpretation that could have gone either way.
Worst:
George and Callie from Grey’s Anatomy
George and Izzie from Grey’s Anatomy
Geoge and… maybe its George.
Good chemistry: Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer in Two and a half men; Spader and Shatner in Boston Legal; Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie in A bit of Fry and Laurie, Jeeves & Wooster and anything else they did together; Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd in the LOTR trilogy.
And for great chemistry, let’s not forget the boy and the Black Stallion. (That chemistry helped make this one of my top five movies of all time.)
Best on-screen chemistry? I nominate Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, Bringing Up Baby. The movie is great through and through anyway, but the two leads are obviously just having a whale of a time with one another.
I’m with the ‘Lost in Translation is great and the on-screen chemistry worked brilliantly’ crowd. I like the fact that it’s one of those movies that tends to polarise opinion. It’s quirky and interesting, imaginative and different, and intentionally strays from the expectations we have of more orthodox standard Hollywooden fare. And I thought Bill and Scarlett were terrific together.
Is it too late to give a quick mention to Laurel & Hardy? Now that’s chemistry!
Forgot one–Colin Mochrie and Ryan Stiles on the American version of Whose Line is it Anyway? They just seem to click together.
… as Nick and Nora Charles. I just wanted to mention that, since we’re family and all.