I saw it on an airplane the other week - now I enjoyed it and it was refreshing to see a “different” film to the Hollywood norm but (and this is probably going make the “it was so boring” crowd smile) I must have missed the bit were they actually committ adultery!!
Now I hope I was simply in the queue for the loo at the time and didn’t drop off ( ) but perhaps it said something that I could enjoy it with the idea that even less happened by way of plot development than was actually the case!
I went away thinking it was a modern take on “Brief Encounter”, over might-have- beens, hey maybe I’m going to have to see it again :D. I was chuckling out loud at the opening scenes of Murray’s arrival which I tried to avoid on airplane nightflights…
I bloody loved it. It doesn’t have a plot - that’s the point! It’s about atmosphere and character. I almost resented some of the slapstick moments. Are people disappointed because it was marketed as a comedy or something?
And it accurately reflected my experience of Tokyo.
I’ve noticed a trend of movies lately in which it’s hip to say, “Don’t impose your wishes on the film, just watch it for what it is.” And I have to say, I could nearly enjoy it on its own terms that way.
However.
As my own personal preference, I need a movie to contain more than simple character development in order to retain my interest. It is entirely possible to make a movie with personal character development that actually manages to weave in some semblance of a plot.
I’m not getting down on people who DON’T require a plot. I’m just saying, I do. And I think the people who are the loudest detractors of the film feel the same way, although some might also be unhappy about the lack of car chases and explosions. To each his own, I s’pose.
The film felt unfinished. It had some character development, sure…but it was neither satisfying nor insightful in any way.
I’m not dumber for having seen it or anything. I’m frankly a little flummoxed about the movie it could have been.
“People who don’t like this film just enjoy explosions.”
“If you don’t like this movie, you don’t like character development.”
“This movie perfectly translates the emotions of lonliness and jet lag.”
Yeah? Well there’s a guy in Toronto who has developed a machine that perfectly translates the emotions of being kicked squarely in the scrotum. It’s called his foot. I’m not signing up anytime soon, simply because getting kicked squarely in the nads is not enjoyable. Lonliness and jet lag are also not enjoyable, and there’s no reason to endure a 23 hour movie to sympathize with those emotions.
Granted, but sometimes people do dislike movies because the movie is over their heads. Criticizing LiT for not having a plot indicates that person did not, in fact, understand that movie. LiT is about two lost people adrift in an alien world who manage to make a brief emotional connection.
And watching Lit made me miss Japan, especially when Scarlett Johanssen visited the Heian Shrine in Kyoto.
I finally saw it last week, I liked it, but was not blown away or captivated the way the some have been.
I thought Murray and Johannson were good, especially Murray. It was a movie driven by the characters rather than a structured plot, so the acting has to bee good for it to work. It was a tale of two lonely foreigners finding a bond of friendship while stuck far from home in a country where neither spoke the language and they had too much time on their hands.
At least the story didn’t follow the usual formula of having the leads fall into bed as has been pointed out. I did think the one night stand with the singer was believable, I just wish the movie hadn’t then turned to formula by having the leads have a falling out when Johannson found out about it the next morning. I was also a little disappointed when he went back and found her when he was leaving to say goodbye and whisper whatever he idd in her ear, that struck as too formulaic as well. And count me in on resenting the overt slapstick moments.
I liked the extra on the DVD with the extended version of the goofy “Mathew’s Best Hit TV” talk show segment. The interview with Coppola and Murray was okay, but she has all the charisma of a paper sack full of mud.
I have one background question about the movie: Was Charlotte’s husband John, played by Giovanni Ribisi, supposed to be based on Sofia Coppola’s own (now ex, I think) husband Spike Jonze? His performance reminded me of interviews I’ve seen of Jonze.
Just wanted to say that the folks who are claiming Bill Murry was playing himself got that idea from the article in Rolling Stone, where thats pretty much exactly what they wanted us to think.
I agree. My favorite movie of the year. An absolutely stunning film, IMO. Bill and Scarlett were just incredible. I soo wanted it to win Best Picture, but alas, I knew it was not meant to be.
But I’m confused about the ‘adultery’ parts. WHAT adultery parts? That was the whole point… they don’t sleep together, they are just incredibly close friends for that week.
The adultery in question was Bill Murray and the lounge singer.
Oh, and I don’t know if you’re married or not, but do us a favor – you try explaining to your wife or S.O. that you’ve met, been hanging out in bed with, and occasionally kissing a woman some 20+ years your junior whilst on a business trip. :eek:
I didn’t have regular japanese friends. I lived on a US air force base, where there are quite a few japanese people, but since they are either military spouses or base employees they’re caught up in that Little America thing too.
I have to disagree with you there, gobear. Not about the quality of the movie, or what it was about, but about wether not liking it for not having much in the way of a plot means the viewer didn’t “get it.” I loved the movie because I’m a firm believer that character is king when it comes to movies, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only way to appreciate it. If someone likes plot-driven movies, they’re not going to like LiT. It doesn’t mean they don’t get it, it just means they don’t like what they’re getting. If someone said, “Bill Murray should have totally nailed that chick! She was totally hot!” that would be an example of “not getting” the film. Saying, “I didn’t like the lack of plot,” is just preference.
Again, I was disappointed in the movie, but there was some depth to it and it certainly was not the typical Hollywood movie, at least. I guess it was different than what I expected and different from most other movies that came out last year, so for that I give it credit.
I disagree that it has no plot. It is not just about two random strangers sharing some lonely moments. There is more to it than that. There is some symmetry to their lives. Bill Murray is the husband on a business trip in Tokyo, while she is the wife left behind while her husband goes on a business trip. I viewed it partially as a chance for them to peek into the lives of their spouses while they are apart. They are also at opposite ends of life. She has a whole future ahead of her and does not know what to do with her life. To make matters worse, it seems her husband is making strides in his career while she cannot even pick a career. He is a "has been" actor that is left doing spot gigs in foreign countries. It makes you wonder which one of them is in the worse situation. None of this is "verbalized" in the movie, but at the same time it does not go "unsaid." I'll give it credit for communicating all of this quietly, but at the same time they went to a bit of an extreme in the lack of dialogue. It went a bit overboard in the akward small talk category.
Bill Murray should have totally nailed that chick! She was totally hot!
No, not really… I got the movie. It just bored the hell out of me and Astrogirl, to the point where, mid-movie, she turned to me and said, “Interesting?” I replied, “God no! What was that other movie we rented?”
We watched The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen instead of finishing LiT. All-in-all, I’d have to say that was one of our less-successful trips to Blockbuster.
Children of Heaven. It’s an Iranian film about a boy who loses his sister’s shoes, so that they have to share his shoes to go to school. It’s a pretty simple film, but very well done.
There was depth in this film only in comparison to the average Hollywood fare. LIT can be seen more than once, it is definitely entertaining in parts… I just don’t see where the profundity and great character development kicks in. You want to watch character development, pick a Mike Leigh film (e.g: Secrets and Lies) or see a sadly under-watched beaut, My Beautiful Laundrette.
Add me to the “disappointed” camp. Maybe it’s because I like movies with a little plot. Any plot. Maybe it’s because the movie spends almost an hour with the two main characters moping depressingly about before they even meet. Please, that could have been reduced to 10 minutes…I got the picture, they’re both bored in a place they can’t relate to. Maybe it’s because the dialog is so sparse and difficult to hear over the din of Tokyo life that I felt like I was missing something the whole time. Heck, maybe it’s because I like Roger Moore’s James Bond and it’s very, very clear (in that one little scene) that we the audience are expected to think of that as one of the eccentricities of Japanese culture while someone from a normal culture would know that Connery is superior.
All I know is that I rented it last night to view with my wife, parents-in-law and sister-in-law, and not only did none of us enjoy it, I was unexpectedly embarrassed by a scene in a strip club where the music booms “If you wanna suck my titties” over and over.
So much for me ever trusting in film critics ever again.
) but perhaps it said something that I could enjoy it with the idea that even less happened by way of plot development than was actually the case!