DVD Review HTF Review: Lost In Translation (1 Viewer)

[JustinCleveland]

I'm with Patrick, the print I saw in the theaters made the film look like it was shot on cheap stock, it looked almost blury at times. I don't think this is a transfer problem, rather an artistic choice.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Not to disagree with your overall observation Rich, but the theater I saw this in is one I attend quite regularly and their projection is consistently good.

I’d second your comments on Wong’s films.

 

[R. Kay]

I too love Bill Murray, but sad to say, I thought this movie was terribly overrated.

I'd say, rent it, and judge for yourself, before springing the $20+ for it.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Not overrated, I don't think, but I'd never recommend "blind buys" to anyone. Definitely give it a rental if you're unsure... that's what Netflix is for, after all!

Around here, I've found the Landmark Cinemas in Kendall Sq./Cambridge to be almost uniformly excellent in their projection. Unfortunately, the two "biggies" in town (Fenway and Boston Common Theaters) are really inconsistent... and I saw "Translation" at Fenway. But you're certainly right that some theaters do an excellent job, and I'd definitely want to give credit where due: Landmark Cinemas!

 

[Zen Butler]

Sorry to hear that the video quality is(or appears) subpar. Still blind buying this one, since I loved Sofia Coppola's other work.

 

[DonRoeber]

I seem to remember a very soft image in the theater.

WHen I saw this movie in the theater, I thought it was good, but not fantastic. Of course, it's one of the few movies in 2003 that I vividly remember, so I think it's worth more praise than I initially thought. I'm going to pick this DVD up, despite it's horrible cover art and forced trailers.

 

[RobertCharlotte]

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I'm afriad of posts like Ron's, because I sense a backlash coming, big time. Lost in Translation plays like an art-housey character piece with Bill Murray hamming around a bit in his charming best persona.

The film does have a deeper edge to it- but again, while I enjoyed it to death- I'm wondering how many people will pick this up based upon critical acclaim and expect set-up/punchline humor like Ghostbusters.

I can just see the threads now, people who never saw (or worse hated) films like Rushmore who pick up Lost in Translation and demand someone to tell them what all the hype was about.

I don't think ron will necessarily have this problem, but i smell it coming. LIT is absolutely a special film, but I don't knwo how well it will play to mainstream tastes.

I'm hoping I'll be surprised.

 

[Vincent_P]

I remember reading that LOST IN TRANSLATION was shot laregly with availble light using very fast Kodak filmstocks. This would help explain any "graininess" in the DVD image, and probably the soft appearance, too. So, it sounds like the DVD image accurately reflects how LOST IN TRANSLATION looked in theaters.

Vincent

 

[Rich Malloy]

It also sets the mood very well... very intimate, for one thing, but also trapped, albeit trapped in ostensible comfort. And it's a quiet, static shot that nonetheless holds our attention. The viewer is almost embarrassed by the immediate intrusion into this unknown woman's private reality. It's like "BOOM!", right away we're well into the very personal existence of the main character. And she's sleeping. It's dark, quiet, interior. Her body is turned away from us, and I believe she's facing the window (but blinds closed?), and this image of her against that window becomes such an important visual metaphor throughout the film (sorta like a fishbowl in which she finds herself trapped). And we're allowed to be voyeurs into the deep privacy of her existence, her dissatisfaction and her longing...

 

[Rob Willey]

Chalk me up as another one who thought the image in the theatrical print I saw was soft and somewhat grainy in shots.


I remember thinking as I watched this in the theater whether the projectionist needed to adjust the focus. Characters in the background sometimes seemed downright fuzzy.

I'll wait until my preorder arrives, but I suspect Universal may have gotten this transfer exactly right.

Rob

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Is there any word on the Canadian version with the nice cover? IS there any difference with image, audio, extras?

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ooooh... good one! I wanna know, too!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I saw this in the theater (loved it), and it wasn't that soft. I do sense a backlash coming...if you aren't motivated to go out and watch arthouse films in the theater, you might want to consider renting acclaimed arthouse films before buying them. They might not be your cup of tea.

Soft image on the DVD. Another site reports compression artifacts.

Would it occur to anyone that having three 5.1 tracks and a bunch of extras on the disc could have something to do with it?

I'm getting really tired of studios putting the squeeze on their films. We don't need multiple 5.1 tracks. Either drop the DTS and the French, or at least move the extras to another disc.

If anybody hears of another NTSC release that isn't so squeezed, please post here. The Canadian release is probably identical...if it were different, they probably would have left the French 5.1 track off of the USA release.

 

[Matt Whealton]

Rich:
Exactly - as though you were watching a Nan Goldin photograph turned into film. When I first saw the film I thought Ms Coppola was explicitly quoting Goldin. I wonder if she has ever mentioned it.

Matt

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I watched it at the theater for the first time today.

Very, very soft images.

BTW, great opening shot.

 

[Rob Lutter]

It was soft in the theatre.

This movie, along with Kill Bill were my favorites of 2003... an excellent excellent film by my accounts...
...that said, the people I went to the film with (that weren't arthouse film watchers) HATED this movie, so you may want to rent first.

I have it on preorder


EDIT: What UGLY coverart! Those quotes and the white area RUIN the image. Check out the original 1-sheet posters for comparison...

It's the only movie I own 2 posters for

 

[Marc Colella]

As mentioned in the other LIT thread, the Canadian coverart does a nice job of staying true to the poster:



Still unsure if the transfer differs.

 

[john mcfadden]

Loved the film . Just waiting to hear "And the winner is....BILL MURRAY for Lost In Translation !!!" That way Chevy Chase can go ef himself !! ( Chevy made some really egotistical comments about Murray's performance in the film)

 

[Richard Kim]

Very nice. The only negative to the Canadian cover is the bilingual titles on the spine.

Nonetheless, I'll most likely buy the Canadian version of Lost in Translation. There's a place in NYC that frequently sells Canadian Region 1 DVDs.