instant music
https://forum.pirouzu.net/

Lost in Translation
https://forum.pirouzu.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3911		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  sonic3305 [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:32 am ]
Post subject:  Lost in Translation
Anybody love this movie as much as I do?

I've seen it... six times maybe, and I've cried each godamn time.

There are some movies like this (I suppose people might use that "indie film" term that actually means nothing) where off the bat I go "Wow, this is freaking awesome," like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine, but get old after a couple viewings, but LiT gets better and better every time I see it.

Also it's a CRIME that douchebag Sean Penn got the Oscar that year over Bill Murray. Seriously. The up-and-comer with a really good performance beats the old comedic actor on his way out who literally had the performance of a lifetime?
Author:  Moppi [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:23 am ]
Post subject: 
This film is awesome. The only thing I keep wondering is that some of my friends consider the girl (Scarlet Johansson if I remember correctly) hot. That's weird. She's nice and all but... Well, it's not the subject here, is it.

I don't know why this movie is so great. The actors do good stuff, of course, but probably it's the directors part that counts here. And Tokyo. No place other could fit so well.
Author:  h2orowe [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I traded my friend (To borrow) this movie for Little Miss Sunshine. D: I haven't gotten it back yet and I miss it. I keep wanting to watch it again. Such a good movie. The setting was perfect, not because it was Japan, but just because of the cultural differences and such; the acting was awesome; the music was awesome; the way it was shot was awesome; the whole movie was just awesome.
Author:  skoolyardpunk [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
yeah good movie. I'm not sure what the whole Scarlett Johansson craze is about (cute, yes. sexiest woman in america? :|:|:|:|:| come on, esquire) but i enjoyed it very much. worth buying/renting.
Author:  Jono [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Just saw it today on tv. Pretty good, but I missed the ending :cry:
Author:  sheerheartattack [ Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
The movie itself was boring, but anything with Bill Murray in it is bound to be worth watching. Really, if he wasn't in the movie, it would seriously blow - instead, it was good.
Author:  skoolyardpunk [ Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
there aren't many films that can get away with a having a plot so...uneventful. But yeah, I think having Bill Murray in the film added some star power and ultimately made it easier to follow. I didn't find myself straining to pay close attention at all throughout the entire film, despite the plot summary looking so boring on paper.
Author:  h2orowe [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote="sheerheartattack"]The movie itself was boring, but anything with Bill Murray in it is bound to be worth watching. Really, if he wasn't in the movie, it would seriously blow - instead, it was good.[/quote]
It's not really a boring film. Not very action-filled, of course, but there was a lot of just like... things in there that were cool and kept you watching the film besides Murray. I liked the scene where Scarlett's character is at the arcade and there's flashing lights everywhere, and she's just observing the people playing all these random games that simulate real life. Then there's the karaoke scene and the scene leading UP to the karaoke scene, which are funny.
Author:  sheerheartattack [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:20 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm not stupid, it's not like I expected a car chase with machine guns and explosions...

Like SY said, the entire plot (if you could even call it a plot) was simply uneventful, and pointless even. There were entertaining scenes, but it really was a poorly written film.
Author:  omnistry [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Personally, I loved the movie. It was what really wanted me to go to Japan. The scenes were beautiful; and the plotline, though not exciting, was quite interesting. I watch it whenever I need to relax.
Author:  sonic3305 [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Movies don't need to have a plot in the traditional Hollywood sense.

I was thinking about it, and what I feel when I watch LiT is, well, love. I don't know if I've ever seen another movie that brings out an emotion like that so powerfully and so simply.

I think it's definitely one of those movies that gets better depending on experiences you've had.

And Scarlett is just about the hottest thing on the face of the earth (in this movie at least), mostly because she's not that generic "hot" look model-types have, more of the really cute look, and yet she manages to be hot anyway without really trying or seventy pounds of makeup...
Author:  sheerheartattack [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:16 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote="sonic3305"]Movies don't need to have a plot...[/quote]

And tennis doesn't need to have a net.
Author:  Blank [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:02 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="sonic3305"]Movies don't need to have a plot...[/quote]

And tennis doesn't need to have a net.[/quote]

I dare you to watch Slacker and tell me there's a plot in there.
Author:  Marekenshin [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:48 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote="Blank"][quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="sonic3305"]Movies don't need to have a plot...[/quote]

And tennis doesn't need to have a net.[/quote]

I dare you to watch Slacker and tell me there's a plot in there.[/quote]

I think what Sheer means is movies need to have a (good) plot (among other things) to actually be good.

I for one am in wholehearted agreement.
Author:  sheerheartattack [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Movies can be good for several reasons. They can be completely devoid of a plot and still be worth watching. However, if you want to make a great movie, you have to have it all - including a good, solid plot. If you don't have a plot, you can make up for it in other areas. However, in no way is a lack of a good plot a positive thing, and in every way it is a negative thing.

To continue the tennis analogy, Roger Federer is great because he can do everything. Andy Roddick is good, but he will always get his ass kicked by Federer because all he can do is hit the ball really hard. Rafa Nadal is good, but he will also always fall under the shadow of Federer because all he can own on is clay. Get the picture?
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/