Posts by Mark Hughes36

blueranger12 said:I read her bad connection with Ribissi as nothing more than a metaphor for a rough patch in a marriage that shouldn't have been that bad. But there it is—he was too obsessed with work, she felt isolated, and BAM! enters Murray 😁 Sure, I caught myself trying to figure out what she saw in him, but I eventually just accepted that he’s a better man for her in some other time and place. What can you do? You just turn a blind eye.

Agreed.
From the movie, it's hard to tell if it's just a rough patch or a genuine life mistake.
Though the fact that she isn't enjoying the company of someone she clicks with so effortlessly isn't exactly trivial.

dustyscout53 said:It would be too easy to say she just fell for physical attraction. She fell for something else entirely, something he never quite uncovers. In my view, she didn't just fall for him; she moved all the way to Japan for his career, where she essentially does nothing. Where was her head at? What does she even do there? If she were just meeting someone through an app, I might get it. But where is he? Is he gone for a few days, or is he just working constantly? Who are these Japanese friends of hers? How did they even meet? I don't know. It doesn't add up for me.

Life is simple enough; people just overcomplicate it.😁

I think Japan is just a temporary stop for his job.
She hasn't really "sacrificed" anything to follow him on this business trip—from what I gathered, she just finished college and is still finding herself. She isn't quite sure what she wants to do with her life yet.

Mark Hughes36 said:Still, that opening shot where her backside stays on screen for about two minutes... there’s definitely room for debate there. 😁 maybe Sophia didn't realize she could have picked a more engaging opening shot?

Or perhaps Sophia is just trying to bring back the normal (non-model, non-anorexic 😁) figure that actually belongs in the spotlight.

dustyscout53 said:I think they missed an opportunity here. For instance, the fish mentions she doesn't really know her man at all, but if the director were actually a genius, he would have given the audience enough context to understand why she even married him. Let's just say she was blinded by something.

Just imagine instead of Giovanni, maybe someone like Brad Pitt 😁—I might be misspelling it
—someone you’d actually find incredibly attractive. 😉 I'd probably picture someone like Timothée Chalamet (even if he isn't exactly everyone's type here
). 😁 Then it would be much easier to believe she fell for his superficiality.

Or do you honestly believe that intelligent, educated people aren't capable of making impulsive marriage decisions? 😁

Henry Anderson47 said:I suspect most of the regulars on this thread will find themselves agreeing with me here:

Has this supposed critic, Mr. Srđan, even seen a single other movie in his life? 🙂

I believe Srđan Dragojević is an American director (maybe something like Wes Anderson?), though I can't say for certain.

Lisa Bennett65 said:...and that was featured in Rolling Stone.

👍

Ciao was at his best again. 😁

Definitely worth a watch
👍

Leave Amelia alone, please. 🙂

Robert Cooper41 said:It’s fascinating how a small indie flick can suddenly trigger all this hype, the awards, and the nominations. It drives much larger crowds to watch, though clearly not in the way Sofia Coppola intended. This isn't some comedy, and those cultural clashes aren't there for cheap laughs. Personally, I prefer films that leave an unfinished picture, letting the viewer fill in the gaps based on their own sensibility.

It’s actually pretty hard to tell the difference between a massive Hollywood blockbuster and this film. 😁

Noah Murphy46 said:Mark Hughes36 - everything works fine, just please don't compare Lost in Translation to Amélie. Amélie is a genius film made flawlessly by Jeunet; it's one of the best in its genre. Lost in Translation is garbage. If you want an explanation of why it fails, check my previous post.

I mentioned I'm a layman, so don't take my word as gospel.
I wasn't comparing Amélie and Lost in Translation at all.
It's more accurate to say I was comparing the feelings I had while watching them.
Feelings that are likely similar to anyone else prone to daydreaming.

Noah Murphy46 said:The plot is terrible; if I were Japanese, I’d sue them. I have no idea what the writer was aiming for—what the point was, where the plot went... and don't even get me started on the characters. They are awful, amateurishly developed, and shallow (typical simplification found in American films and writers—Hemingway, for example). Beyond the weak plot and poor characters, the movie is agonizingly slow. This might be excusable if the story, dialogue, and characters were actually interesting, but they aren't.
The dialogue is atrocious, and the director clearly lacked a vision or any sense of direction throughout the entire film. About 80-90% of the scenes are completely superfluous and contribute nothing to the plot, which is itself a total waste of time. The remaining 10-20% could have been handled much better. I can't stand it when unproven directors try to experiment; she seemed to be experimenting because she lacked a real idea—trying to make a film about "boredom" (an incredibly difficult theme to tackle) and lost people (whose reasons for being lost are just plain stupid) who find nothing interesting about Japanese culture. That sense of American cultural superiority really grates on me, along with the mockery of the Japanese... typical Hollywood nonsense. It's bad. Just bad. Between those phone calls to his wife back in the States, the way they meet, their communication and relationship development, her husband or whoever, the driving scenes through Tokyo, the cultural clashes, and the blatant American arrogance and ignorance... not to mention the terrible humor...

I disagree with everything you've stated.
And without repeating myself, you have my previous post.😉
In which I describe how I experienced the film,
which was my interpretation of what the director intended to convey.

The movie is at least very good, if not excellent.
I don't take people who trash a film like this—or Amélie—too seriously (though it’s obvious both will appeal more to the "dreamers").
The only thing I can think of is a desperate craving for uniqueness—as if to say, "We're too cool for this," unlike all you mediocrities.
Besides, most of those critics follow film theory far more closely than I do; I just enjoy a good movie and lack the ability to dissect my experience into profound, technical 🙂sentences.
I have no patience for people who feel the need to insult something that is so clearly well-made within its genre.
Usually, they do it out of pure selfishness.
There is no way this film deserves a low rating.

Sure, there are better movies out there—I'm sure the "connoisseurs" will be happy to tell us mere mortals about them.
That is what they are here for.😉

The film touches on a vital life question—being in a failed marriage or being with the wrong person—in a very subtle way.
Without being preachy.
Everything else is just scenery to me.
The boredom and the foreign setting only heighten that sense of loneliness, being misunderstood, or not belonging—feelings that exist constantly in such marriages, usually just blurred by the grind of daily life.
A life where one doesn't have the time to truly confront their own existence—to strip it bare and see it in its true light.

Bill Murray is brilliant; in my opinion, he deserves an Oscar much more than Sean Penn in Mystic River, who everyone seems to be whispering about as the favorite.

The movie is alright, but I’m not about to write a manifesto
I need to sit with it a few more times.
Watched it outside of America (obviously), and since my Japanese is non-existent😁 I felt like I was missing a layer of context.

For me, Quentin Tarantino is the gold standard because of those unpredictable dialogues.
Take that scene at the start of Reservoir Dogs where they're just arguing about tipping a waitress.
Stuff like that.

There are some good bits.
But I wish there were more of those witty, offbeat exchanges.
I'll probably get a better feel for it after a couple more viewings.

One detail—early on, Vivica A. Fox (or someone similar, I'm no expert🙂) sounded incredibly unconvincing during her dialogue with Uma Thurman.
It felt like she stepped straight out of some low-budget American indie flick.
It was a strange sensation.

I’ve always been partial to Open Your Eyes, Lords of the Boards, and Big in Japan.

There are certain directors whose work hits so hard I make it a point to catch every single thing they release.
Paul Thomas Anderson has officially made it onto that list.
While I thought Punch-Drunk Love was great, Magnolia is even better.
I wish I could articulate my cinematic experiences with the same precision as Michelle Gonzalez, 🙂

I saw it while visiting Lisbon, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it skips the big theaters here in the States entirely and goes straight to streaming.

Eric Jackson43 said:MUS, the warriors [/URL] : It’s historical Korean combat—more like a gritty, realistic brawl out of 13th-century warfare than some stylized "Kung Pow" routine. There's enough drama to keep things interesting. I’d highly recommend it to everyone, from the high-brow snobs to the casual viewers (and let’s be honest, I fall somewhere in the middle myself😁). Rating: A perfect 5.

👍

If I had my way, I’d change my handle to yeosol... I actually tried, but the system won't let me. 😉

Azra

And even old man Bo 😉

In my opinion, the Judgement Night soundtrack is easily the wildest one out there.