See it, and ignore the reviewers...

Only if you tell me that it's as good/better than The Virgin Suicides and not a second rate WKW knock off.

Haven't seen The Virgin Suicides, and this has nothing in common with WKW (although I can see how Lost in Translation is a sort of shoddy 'homage,' even though I thought that film worked fairly well overall).

Yeah, TVS was the first of hers I'd seen, didn't even know it was her and I liked it, not the type of film most would make considering the content and title. I'll check this one out if, for nothing else, the New Order/80's new wave soundtrack.

P.S. Funny how even the shoddy "homage" of WKW still mturns out to be better than every pther supposed "progressive/inventive" film of the last 10 years.

quote:

I'll check this one out if, for nothing else, the New Order/80's new wave soundtrack.

There isn't as much of the '80s stuff (which I happen to like) as the ad copy leads you to believe. What's there works well.

The film has a formal clarity and rigor that is extremely rare in wide-release 'American' films... the only others recently that come close are A Scanner Darkly, The New World, and The Brown Bunny - films that are coherent realizations of a director's vision and offer something beyond simple narratives.

What's also unusual is the structure of the narrative. The pacing and storytelling avoid most of the typical movements in Hollywood films and achieve something startling in its simplicity.

I'm a fan of Lost in Translation and Sofia Coppola, but I have to say this lost me. It was quite beautiful and I think Evan's right in saying it's definitely a portrayal of the director's vision- but where he sees simplicity I see very little plot. Don't get me wrong, plot's not everything, but I wasn't engaged by film past a technical level- it was well done, but if I'm more conscious of the filmmaking than the story, there's a problem.

Stunning cinematography and the characters had depth but I thought the writing was poor.
I felt more the presence of Visconti´s perfecionism and mallick´s sensibility than KWK.
Now I understand why she dated Tarantino...
She also loves" homages" . Both are good directors but not groundbreaking.
She is young so I hope to see more of Sofia Coppola than Antonnioni, Visconti and Godard´s fan Work.
About the soundtrack...
Sometimes It felt like a good MTV Music video. The Strokes singing "I dont wanna be forgotten/I dont wanna be reminded" in the scene where the queen is running and crying felt like mtv.
I´m a huge Lost In Translation fan but I expected more of Sofia in this film.
Its a 3 stars film.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

quote:

Stunning cinematography and the characters had depth but I thought the writing was poor.

If they had depth, what was your complaint with the writing...? I was just about to post that I profoundly appreciated the film's emphasis on visual storytelling rather than dialogue. It's actually quite rare to see any movie in the multiplex that can go more than 30 seconds without dialogue.

It's funny that you preferred Lost in Translation; this is clearly a more mature work that's far less of a WKW ripoff. The use of detail and formal rigor is not quite close to Visconti here, and I really don't understand the Malick comparison. The whole point of 'Marie Antoinette' was that incredible interiority could be achieved without voiceover or monologues; just through visuals and acting. It worked for me.

"The use of detail and formal rigor is not quite close to Visconti here"

I was talking about the detailed sets and costumes.Of course, Luchino was ten times the director that Sofia will ever be.

About Malick...
I was refering to the last scenes. The ones on the fields and all that close-ups of bees, hands and faces etc...

Yes, Lost in Translation is not original at all, but I love story and the mood, what can I say ...

There are many beautiful shots and good acting but not a good script. Gattopardo or Barry Lyndon (My favorite Historical Films from another time) had a powerfull script to support the powerfull cinematography.


When we are young, we are self-centered and stuck to references, so I respesct Sofia.

There was something empty about it. I felt like I hadn't learned or gained anything at the end of it.

Two thumbs down from me.

of course you didn't learn anything, in the trailor they let you know you wouldn't learn anything. The trailor looks like French queen gone Molly Ringwald.

Very different from the usual Hollywood pace. A slow pace is made up for by stunning photography and well used visual storytelling. The characters are subtle, but interesting regardless. See this movie. 8 outta 10.

quote:

There was something empty about it. I felt like I hadn't learned or gained anything at the end of it.

now take that and apply it to Saw 3 and see what you get, in fact apply it to damn near every movie out there from ur saws to ur crashs and ull get the same thing

quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:

quote:

There was something empty about it. I felt like I hadn't learned or gained anything at the end of it.

now take that and apply it to Saw 3 and see what you get, in fact apply it to damn near every movie out there from ur saws to ur crashs and ull get the same thing

No.

Is the work that a film is supposed to effect to *teach* you something, or to *give* you anything? Not necessarily... learning is probably not best sourced from fictional movies starring Kirsten Dunst.

I just wrote a very lengthy post with some thoughts on the film on another forum, but I'll briefly add:

This is one of the only films I saw in a major theatre that *didn't* leave me feeling utterly disappointed and empty. The others this year were Miami Vice and A Scanner Darkly. Nothing else was as good as I hoped.

I gotta say, and I don't say this often, but that it seems like most people who like this movie like it mostly because its anti-hollywood. "It's so indie it must be good"? Not for me, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
Is the work that a film is supposed to effect to *teach* you something, or to *give* you anything?

No. But I like movies that do.

I was only expressing my own opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have the right to tell me that my opinion is wrong.

quote:

I was only expressing my own opinion. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have the right to tell me that my opinion is wrong.

Which is why I said 'not necessarily.' But criticizing the movie because you didn't learn anything seems to be sidestepping the issue, since it should be patently obvious that many well-liked movies don't teach anything either.

Palm Tree: have you seen the movie? I wouldn't say it's "anti-Hollywood." It's just itself. And I generally detest the 'indie-indie' crowd that probably loves Wes Anderson, etc. Good movies are good movies. This is a good movie.

I honestly dont see Lost In translation as a WKW rip off. I see influence, but not rip off.

In either case, I am still very excited about seeing Marie Antoinnette.

Any opinions on Dunst's performance? She always strikes me as an actress with potential that just hasn't taken enough challenging parts to really shine.

It's a very good performance. The part is sort of a lose-lose proposition since not everyone will ever be satisfied with such a startling interpretation of a historical character, but the performance is very good. Certainly more challenging a role than Mary Jane Watson.