On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> i'm starting to think i'm one of two people in the world who liked
> this movie. i actually thought murray's performance was outstanding
> (reminded me of him in rushmore) and found coppola's direction superb.
> indeed, all the commentary i heard on this movie went on and on about
> its "politics" (it's anti-feminist, i guess) and none of them liked
> it, and the people i listened to coming out of the theater hated it,
> so maybe it *is* just me and my girlfriend who liked it.
>
> j
>
> On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 04:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
> > You're quite right. The most remarkable thing about the movie is that
> > someone managed to be put it about that it was good. The woman may one
> > day
> > learn something about acting -- it's an open question -- but Murray,
> > who
> > should know better, was in fact much better in Ethan Hawke's Hamlet.
> > --CGE
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, frank scott wrote:
> >
> >> " I just watched about one-half hour of Lost in Translation and do not
> >> understand why this irritating, humdrum movie elicited such oohs and
> >> ahs. Why exactly is the viewer supposed to be interested in the mild
> >> world-weariness of the Bill Murray character, some clown who's earning
> >> two million bucks for doing a few minutes' modeling work?"
> >>
> >> an over-rated piece of crap, and what a relief to find someone else
> >> so underwhelmed by it...
> >>
> >> fs
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>