I quite liked it, i think it's pretty overrated though. It's better than Virgin Suicides, which i thought wasn't very good.

LiT is a very pretty looking film , it just lacks alot of substance.

probably my favourite film. it has such a nice feeling to it. bill murray is as someone said probably the best thing about it in my opinion too.
and the soundtrack is well good

best sofia coppola film

__________________
you take your coffee black the way your mother would.

Yes, me too. Well, him and the music. I could have done without the other people, the tensions, and the "plot" even. It wasn't bad, and I did enjoy bits, but I'm just saying Bill Murray alone in Tokyo with Death in Vegas would have made me just as happy if not more. I love him.

Everyone love Bill Murray early more slapstick murray and later more subtle murray are both great, i prefer Broken Flowers over LiT though, better film, better director.

Deep like dirty water. Overrated.

What/who? To me it's so obvious that it's NOT the what/who that makes Coppola's movies like that, but specifically her intention to film them the way she does. Not that I agree that they're so uncinematic - they're just actionless. Tons of postmodern ennui books nowadays are written the exact same way, with dilemmas that aren't beaten by action because the heroes are too melancholic.

What are ten movies you think are exemplary of who/what "should be" filmed?

i think its magic when the whole thing works though. just like music and lyrics sound better when they work together. when a song is saying something that the music evokes as well, its a brilliant thing.

im not really a bill murray fan either. the only movies of his i like are a few of the newer ones. maybe i only like lost in translation and the life aquatic. broken flowers moved so slow and none of it was interesting.

Hmm i sort of agree with you in that i've always thought a story was very vital, but i also really enjoy the films of Terrence Malick who is very minimalist like Coppola. I just think it's maybe hard to do well.

I think i'm pretty bias agaisnt LIT though i think, i really disliked the hype around Scarlett Johansson at the time and that made me go in with a bad taste in my mouth.

I wouldn't say it if it weren't through.

did it sucked?¿ don't spoilt it for me but how did she forget the story?? I think Marie's story is great. She's one of those people that have lived a movie, their life reads like a movie script, why do you say it didn't work>?

exactly, there's no way in hell i would leave my hotel room on my own in a foreign country.
i think people just like to see characters having fun, which is stupid and unrealistic imo.

But you don't seem characteristically like Scarlett's character.

__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image"

I'm not exactly like her, Charlotte didn't have anger issues but I guess we share the same insecurities and I'm still stuck in that same point.

She was a person that went by ignored by most, I am like that. And lots of other similarities.

of course not. she didn't spend all the time at the hotel, she went sight seeing on several scenes.

that point i totally agree with. her films really ARENT about the story and action..its about how the mundane realities of her characters look and feel...

as for what and who is cinematic...well, it could be a million different things,people, etc. it could be ANYTHING..... but, i firmly believe that the medium of film is what it is (meaning it differs from novels, songs, other storytelling mediums) because it is told through action, through visual action. in a novel, a whole story can be told through a characters inner thoughts, it could be a first person account of everything and anything that person has ever thought, all the people they have ever known...it can all be internal. in a film, you cant do that, you have to SHOW, through action. character is revealed through action and interaction, the plot moves along and turns around on points of action, when things HAPPEN. if nothing actually happens and the filmmaker is trying to get a certain point across through some subversive, subtle means like showing us the character doing nothing, and we're left to try and feel it and analyze it.... then i say that story is better told through a book. as you say, plenty of books tell stories with little action, and they work- because they're books, not film.

no character in a good film ever "thought" or "realized" something to move the story forward (i mean that alone,void of an action associated with it)..they DID things. things HAPPENED to them... does that make sense? being left to see a character aimlessly wander around in a moody setting or whatever it may be might be a good experiment in what kinds of "feelings" the audience will pick up from that kind of scene,film,whatever.... but im betting that the only thing 99% of the audience will feel is some combination of boredom and sheer frustration.

as long as a story is told through visual events, and more importantly, ACTION, it's cinematic. if you wanna make a film about someones thoughts and feelings being stuck in one place alone...well, i personally wouldnt call that cinematic and i would say therein lies the reason hardly anyone would see it or enjoy it. gus van sant tried that with 'gerry'...my god, write a book instead. LOL!

as for a list of films, it would go on and on. any film that can be called good or engaging is about a character/story that is cinematic. that's a fundamental reason why it's good and it works.

nothing happens. they just sit around and dress up and she tries to get her husband to impregnate her. nothing happens and apparently that is the point. she was trying to show that they were just a bunch of bored teenagers with power.

of course, you're right. when a film has a brilliant story AND amazing cinematography and visual fabric...it doesnt get better than that!


i just never can relate to those few people out there who claim that the cinematography,production design,visual fx alone can save a film with no/bad story, acting, etc.

i have not seen it, but i've heard people say that every moment BUT the worthwhile,important, compelling, exciting ones of her life were chosen for the screenplay. if that's the case, that couldnt have been anything but a conscious decision..

OMGGZZZZZZZZ LIEK I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!

IM JUST A SPUNKY INDEPENDENT CITY GILR LOOKING FOR LOVE> IM SMART AND STYLISH AND CAN COEM OUT WITH THE WITTY LITTLE OBSEVATIONS ABOUT MALES/FEMALES/ SEX/ EMPOWERMENT AT THE DROP OF A HAT.... BUT NOOOO MAN IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAHHHHH. THEYRE ALL BASTARDS> ICAN USE MEN FOR SEX AND FEEL NOTHING BUT GREEEEEAAAAAAAAT ABOUT IT CAUSE IM A POWRFUL SMART FEMALE>THEN I BITCH ABOUT HOW THEYRE ALLDICKHEAD TROLLSSS!!!!!

GOD BLESS MANOLO I CALL ALLDESIGNERS BY THEIR FIRST NAMES CAUSE IM AN NYC GIRL YEAH THATS ME!!

yeah, we're all carries. sure

(haha i actually did enjoy the show itself i swear... its just the 'carries' running around *cringe* )



lol.