Delila's Reviews

On first viewing, this movie has a great payoff in that final scene on the street. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) has been more or less emotionally isolated though this whole story. She spends much of her time alone, and her one attempt at reaching out, on the phone with her friend, is entirely missed. Bob (Bill Murray) spends most of the story befuddled behind the facade of his own stardom. He looks like he might cry during that photo shoot, yet his public image is the epitome of "good times". And he seems like a man whose life is passing him by with very little real involvement on his part. So that scene on the street, when Bob escapes from his limo and makes unapologetic, direct, serious contact with Charlotte... and she's moved to tears by it... is a major breakthrough for both characters. GREAT stuff! Yay for both of them! That was enough for me to walk out smiling, after the first time through.


For days after, I kept turning over the title in my mind: "Lost In Translation" and asking myself what was lost. The second time through, I took notes, and now, after 4 views, I have a list. Writer/director Sofia Coppola has created a movie with the charm of a 'little' movie, but with great depth. The crux of it is laid out in the Suntori shoot, disguised as comic relief: the director has a great deal to say about exactly what he wants from Bob. What comes through the translator is so brief and basic that Bob asks, with understandable doubt, "is that all he said?"

It's the sort of missed communication that happens around every one of us, daily, but is poignantly illustrated with the medium of film:
Put LIFE through the filter of a camera lense, and
ART becomes Entertainment
Whiskey becomes iced tea
Reality becomes image
NY becomes LA
Culture becomes couture
Johnny Carson becomes that scary little tv man
Charlotte’s curves become Ana Faris’ anorexia
Friendship becomes sex, in many movies, and we wonder if it will here…

In similar fashion, Bob's question is echoed later in Charlotte's question to him: "what about marriage? Does it get any easier?" She's asking "is this all there is?"

The answer to the question of what is lost is: detail. Detail is what is lost in translation. The appreciation for the details in a partner's life fades with familiarity and after 25 years.. or after only 2.. we fail to notice that they're smoking again, or what color the carpeting is. We stop caring if her scarf is long enough or what kind of shelves go into the study. This is pointed up pretty clearly several times, but especially in Bob's response to Lydia's probes about the carpet samples: “Whatever you like. I’m completely lost.”

Given that there's that much profundity in this little movie, I have to laugh that there are people who claim it's not about anything happening.

Additionally, I have to say: I'm in love with Bill Murray's performance in this film. The moment when he and Charlotte first start talking in the bar, and she says, "25 years (of marriage)... that's impressive." The look on his face, before he even says anything... is worth a paragraph of subtext. It's just heartbreaking. Similarly, at The Worst Lunch, before either of them speaks, that defensive "I didn't do anything" look on his face is just priceless. I'm shocked at my own admiration. I really would have never thought he could pull that off, and seeing it from such an unexpected source is wonderful.

Charlotte herself is played to perfection by Scarlett Johansson. Having seen her previously only in Ghost World, it was great to see her range in this. The ten year career of this 20 year old actress serves her well, here.

Of no suprise is Giovanni Ribisi's turn as Charlotte's husband. This kid is brill and a fine piece of casting. He adds weight to Charlotte's side of the equasion.

The last thing I love about this movie is Japan. Of course the language provides comic relief. Beyond that, the two giggling local ladies in the back row of the waiting room were awesome. The contrast of cultures provides obvious meaning to the title, as our American protagonists are starkly contrasted against the locals. On a slightly deeper level though, this is an ancient culture which values honor... which is what this movie is about at its core. So, the happy ending, as I see it, is that that basic and valuable thing is not lost.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I think she is reading the life-lines on her palms, and she can tell that she's been in that coma for however long it was. Nice reviews by the way.

__________________

Ah!
Thank you.
And, thank you!

Director Andrew Jarecki's documentary of the effects of trial-by-media on a typical middle-class family is was one of the most provocative movies I've ever seen. It's hard to believe it's not staged. Any student of body language or psychology will find this fascinating. The bulk of the footage for this 107 minute film was shot at the time, by the family in question. We're shown a typical-seeming american family (obviously dysfunctional, but it's unclear just how much) under a microscope during a horribly stressful time, yet only once does any of them decline to appear on camera. The whole thing raises very intriguing questions about what is true, what is compromised, what is denial and the role of our legal system in skewing the whole mess into an unsolveable puzzle. This is by far the best documentary I've ever seen.

This is a really pretty movie, right at the edge of "visually dazzling", even. If you haven't seen it, it's a period piece set in 1900, about a few girls who vanish during a field trip/picnic. The acting is pretty good, if a little melodramatic, but then we're talking 1900, when melodrama was the order of the day. The costumes were excellent, as was makeup and hair. (Unusual in 70's films!)

The meaning of the movie is kind of an enditement of the conservatism of the day, which (perhaps) contributes to the hampering of the investigation of these girls' disappearance. Despite being laid out in the poem in the opening scene, that theme is pretty muddled, though. I was ok with that when I thought it was a depiction of an actual event. In that case, I'd think there would be facts they might want to include, even if it was a little unclear how those facts contribute to the story. But you get to the end, and there's the disclaimer that "any resemblance to anything real is a big coincidence" and I start asking "why did I watch this again??"

They're not so much telling a story as laying out a lot of possibilities, none of which are really solidified. I get that it was Victorian times and people were very careful about what they presented to society, but as the unseen watchers, we're really not privy to much, either. For example, there's all this wierd lesbian energy that's hinted at, and sort of expressed, and MIGHT be a motivation in a murder, or else that girl just killed herself, or maybe she killed herself because she was a lesbianand we don't actually know which it is. It's entirely unclear what the story is. I think if it's fiction, then someone ought to decide which it was and tell the story.

It was fun to watch, though.

Whhhhooooaaaa! Odd little flick, but I really liked it. It's dark and twisted and had Tori Spelling. Freaky. My only complaint was that I think it needed more rehearsal, or a better director - not sure which - but the cue pickups were a little lacadaisical, which threw off the beats. Great writing, very funny stuff and the plot was cool. That business of JackieO's family kinda Gaslighting her into keeping mum... Good story! I think my favorite moment was the mother's line, "well of course I can MAKE chicken noodle soup, I mean it comes in a can..." hee! Parker Posey was awesome and Freddy Prinze, Jr was suprisingly good. He's not just pretty.

Meh.
I find it interesting that as soon as anyone says they didn't like this movie, they get bashed for not appreciating an "intelligent" film. How "intelligent" is the idea of a snarling attack poodle? How much more art appreciation do I need to value a storyline that chokes repeatedly with graphics of cells mutating? The same cells... mutating the same way... every ******* time? Is it because I'm stupid that I find it unlikely that all those guys survived helicopter crashes? Cause it does. Seem unlikely.

Also, David Banner ran amok. That scene at the end with the black backdrop looked like it was from "A Very Special Family Ties". And really, since he was plucked from nowhere and all the blame for this tragedy pinned on his ratty old shirt... I guess he should be allowed to run amok. But why make such a wacky change in the story? (If it's like that in the Marvel strips, my bad, but I think it's a stronger story when the scientist's own self-interest brings about the creation of the monster. It's a little more symbolic. It could have worked having his father be a symbolic representation of unmitigated ambition, but then the wheels fall off that later in the story. So we're left with crap, basically.)

I guess you could call it art that every part of the movies seemed to mutate out of proportion, like the cells in the exploding frogs. That works, I reckon. The name "Betty" though... that didn't work.

Remove all sharp objects from your home before viewing this film. My god, what a sad movie. My condolances to whoever had to try to pick one defining genre for this one. Tony Colette's performance is excellent. The writing... I'm of two minds. They did a perfect job of presenting what it's like to grow up a geek, but good lord, did it have to be so painful to watch? It's really a well-done movie, but it's so depressing... She does grow some ovaries at the end and show some character, and I was damn glad to see it, after all the cringing I'd done through the rest of the story. I'm not sure to whom I would recommend this as an evening's entertainment, despite the fact it was done beautifully.

Gorgeous! The town they shot this in, the people in the film, the lighting, the costumes, the fruit... everything was absolutely a visual treat. Which it kinda needs to be because the story is so sad. And it's so sad because there's so much truth to what this film has to say about beauty. Excellent performances from Giuseppe Sulfaro, who plays the 13 yr old kid, and from Monica Bellucci whom, inconcievably, I didn't recognise til the end of the film.

On second viewing: This movie attempts to operate on a lot of levels, and some of them are a bit swiss-cheesy. Bellucci's character, for instance, is a real woman who misses her husband, who needs money to get food, who is a living breathing person, but is very sketchily drawn as far as her passions and her desires. She's everybody's fantasy, on a second level... and in that, the fact she rarely speaks and makes so little contact makes sense and works. And she also represents the beauty and the innocence of Italy, and the prostitution, rape and decimation of that country by WWII. And on that level, her character makes sense all the way through. It would be a better movie if all three could somehow work all the time.

Eh.... There's been a lot of buzz on the boards about this one, and as horror genre goes, it's respectable. It capitalizes a bit on stereotypes (the drunk irish, the small town smalltownishness, the trampy girl, the brazen woman as the cause of trouble for her mate) but it's cool when Hoffman's character grows a pair and takes over. Hoffman was, as always, rock solid. Has anyone ever seen a movie where he wasn't?? I enjoyed it, overall. There's a decent build, and the story centers on the psychological, which is scarier than any monster, if you ask me.

I will admit to giggling at the beginning... when Nemo's dad is almost sucked into the propeller of the boat... only because I thought what a short movie it would be if that happened. But shortly after that, I was sucked in myself, and had a great time watching this one. The plot is compelling, the supporting characters are varied and vivid. The animation is gorgeous. But the high point for me was Ellen Degeneris' expertly acted character - a fish with no short term memory. Nevermind that she reminded me of my mom, she was ****ing hilarious. I was in tears from giggling over her attempts to speak "whale". Overall, a very touching, sweet and fun movie. I highly recommend it.

If you haven't seen it yet, do NOT look at the following pic:

It's been a long time since I've had the impulse to applaud at the end of a film. I've seen some great stuff lately, but this is one of those that ends on such a high note. Really fabulous build, through the whole thing. Joan Fontaine was so meek for most of the movie that I wanted to shake her, but she grew 'nads finally, which was rewarding to see. Lawrence Olivier was really ahead of his time, stylisticly... he had a great sense of drama, but scaled it down well to the requirements of film. This story has a ton of great plot twists. I thought I knew what was coming, and we veered a whole lot from that, into almost a fresh story in the last act. Very fun writing. It's dated, only in the fact that no woman today would fail to fire that brooding hag of a house mistress. God, I loved hating her. Overall, this one's just excellent.

Ooooooo....have you read the book by Daphne DuMaurier? I haven't seen the film yet though - oh but did you know that 'Rebecca' was the only film of Alfred Hitchcock's to win best picture?
Did they use Joan Fontaines's characters first name in the movie?

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

HATED it.
The only reason to see this is for Gene Hackman. Mr Puffy-Face was in incredibly great physical shape, delivered a stand-up performance and was all-around impressive.

Otherwise... let's see:
Screeching tires? check!
Incessant car horns? check!!
Sexism? And how!!
Racism? BIG time!!!
Ridiculous fashions and enormous cars? You betcha!!
Machismo and not much else? BINGO.

Also, during the scenes where there was ANY conversation of any import, there was this sound effect of sustained violins that I swear I could feel in the fillings in my teeth.

I didn't want to turn it off, because it's a "classic" and I don't want to be ignorant about the classics, but all in all, I'd rather eat a live kitten than ever watch this again.

They didn't use her name, and they were pretty slick about it. I haven't read the book, but I bet it's awesome. I'd be interested, if you see the movie, to hear what you think about how they compare.

Hitchcock is one of those filmmakers who really was ahead of his time. I took a class from someone who actually went with 'Hitch' and his friends to the premiere of Psycho. She said they were all excited before the movie, with the usual pre-show buzz, and afterward, no one knew where to look or what to say. They all thought he might be insane. haha! It seems like only by amassing a huge body of work was he able to establish that he wasn't nuts and did, in fact, know what he was doing.

That scene is taken right from Rostand's play. A couple of those insults are even from Cyrano himself ("Kindly: Ah, do you love the little birds, So much that when they come and sing to you, you give them this to perch on?"), with hardly any modernizing.

It's odd that you don't even mention Roxanne is an ingenious and witty updating of Cyrano de Bergerac. Steve Martin's script is wonderful and literate, and even with the happy ending keeps the heart and wistful soul of the original great work, all while adding his own take on love. I think L.A. Story is an even better screenplay, and Picasso at the Lapin Agile is better than it, but Roxanne is such a well written piece.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

great reviews a nd i love the i found nemo sushi picture!!! keep up the good work...

I didn't know that..... very cool!

Uhm... I guess I thought that was as plain as the nose on his face.

I loved LA Story. The other I have not seen, but with your recommendation, I will see if I can Netflix it.

Hey, susan! Thanks!! Yeah, that pic came up when I was searching for a Nemo pic and it killed me. hee!

Netfilx won't have it. Nobody will. It isn't a movie, it's a play. A great one too.

It premiered in Chicago in 1993, and had successful runs all over the country. The plot concerns a young Pablo Picasso and a young Albert Einstein having a chance meeting in a Parisian bar in 1904, before either had gained fame and accomplishment. It also has a surprise cameo near the end of the play from another key 20th Century figure (hint: he wears blue suede shoes). It's about art and love and the thrill of new ideas. It's very witty, very funny, and just a great night at the theatre. I saw productions of the original cast in New York, most of that cast in San Francisco, and a new touring cast in D.C. Good times, good times.

There have been rumblings of a film adaptation here and there, but nothing serious. Until then, you can read it anyway....