Lost in Translation

[madbaker]

The film is slow. Glacially slow. If bonacorsi and I hadn't been both battling pneumonia, I suspect we would have turned it off after half an hour. Now, I'm not an automatic hater of slow films - I love Room With a View, for example; and the wife likes many of the Jane Austin adaptations, none of which can be considered "speedy".

On the other hand, the aforementioned movies all had something this one lacked: a plot. And characters!
My two-word summary of the film: Nothing happens.

It's not a bad film, but it is 90 minutes that was not spent well, and I'll never get them back.

For the record? Even if this film was screamingly bad, Sofia Coppola would still be a better director than she was an actress.

Comments

[ldyanna.livejournal.com]

It was a 20 minute movie for me. I don't even think I really lasted that long before I started doing something else.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Wow. You sat through the whole thing? I couldn't do it. I gave it half an hour, and stopped. (Glad to know it's not just me, either ... I didn't like it, never understood the praise for it ...)

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

I *love* that film. And normally I either despise, or fall asleep during, slow films. I really can't explain why, either, I just love it. [shrug]

[helblonde.livejournal.com]

That's a fair summary. I kept wondering when it would get to the point.

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

I remember liking the movie, but I have no particular urge to see it again.