(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
Lost in Translation
SW score: 37
3.7 out of 5 octopi
++ Among film snobs, this was the buzziest movie of 2003. Sofia Coppola’s sophomore directorial effort was an atmospheric love letter to Bill Murray, her self-proclaimed muse. Murray’s career acting arc is pretty interesting. He went from a smarmy BUT FANTASTIC comic actor to the avatar of life’s cumulative despair. At this point, his torn soul style of acting has become rote. Like Al Pacino, he is simply playing his personality now. But in Lost in Translation, he mastered this persona. Scarlett Johansson was no mere shadow, though. Her understated and delicate performance belied her young acting career. Coppola guides their platonic romance deftly and lures the audience into the age-old trap of fully believing the mismatched leads will fall in love. But they don’t. And the delicious and endless analysis of the whispered message between the two will continue to infuriate film enthusiasts. It’s no random choice to set the movie in the aesthetically unmatched landscape of Tokyo. I’m not saying powerful stories can’t be told in simple settings. But why not add that powerful partner? Go ahead. Lose your bearings.
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)