Somewhere (2010)

...makes "Somewhere" an utterly forgettable, self-indulgent (in the worst sense of the term) waste of celluloid. I gotta say, first of all, I have immense respect and admiration for Sofia Coppola. The girl who showed the world she couldn't act in "The Godfather III" had a decade to find herself and prove everybody she was a sensitive, talented writer-director with 1999's "The Virgin Suicides". "Lost In Translation" (2003), which gave her the Oscar for best original screenplay (and a nomination for best director - the third female and first American woman to ever be nominated in that category), is my #3 favourite film of all time. I can watch it over and over and every frame of it can make me appreciate the beauty of life, film, human connections, and music, more. Sounds corny, doesn't it? Well, but it's true.

Sofia's follow-up to LiT, 2006's ostracized "Marie Antoinette", was, yes, sort of shallow, but I have to admit that eye candy and great music alone make it a delicious piece of cake for me. The same can't be said about her latest, "Somewhere", which won the Golden Lion for Best Film at Venice 2010 (a blasphemy, specially considering titles like "Black Swan" and "Balada Triste" were in competition). It follows a bored, kind of good-looking, shallow and womanizing movie star, Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) who (surprise) goes through an emotional transformation after spending some time with his 11 year-old daughter (product of a failed marriage), Cleo (Elle Fanning, a more natural actress than her older sister Dakota). We already knew that Sofia is fascinated by the ennui of the rich; but what made Bob Harris and Charlotte such wonderful characters in "Lost In Translation" was their humanity (and the chemistry between their fine performers, Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson). Johnny Marco is not 1/5 as interesting as those two. Not every main character needs to be likable for a film to work for me, at all - I love character studies, no matter how conflicted ("The Piano Teacher") or pleasant ("Happy-Go-Lucky") the protagonist might be.

However, Marco is not someone interesting enough to spend 97 minutes with, and although Cleo seems to be a nice enough girl, she can't carry a whole film on her shoulders. They don't even share the historical curiosity of a figure like Marie Antoinette and her colorful ways. Marco is just shallow. Filthy rich. Bored. And boring. It's hard to feel bad for him, or even compelled to follow what he might become (the open ending, in that sense, is not a quality, since the movie ends when it could possibly become somewhat interesting). The soundtrack was nice enough (not memorable like those of her previous work), the cinematography is pretty enough (by Harris Savides, and not Lance Acord, this time around), but this is no 'Lost in Translation Redux', or even a film I would want to see again. It's a shame, but I am still curious to see what you do next, Sofia. I know you have it in you to amaze us! Verdict: 3/10.

P.S.: Quentin Tarantino, Sofia's ex-boyfriend who awarded "Somewhere" the Golden Lion as president of the jury at Venice last September, later wouldn't even name it one of his top 20 movies of the year (yet, he lists abominations such as "Jackass 3D", "Knight and Day"...). That can prove one of two things: 2010 was a less than great year for movies, or he finally realized the

Fmovies: lets start off with something that I did like quite a bit about this movie: it is minimalistic and very low key. if this style of film making was combined with an intriguing story, it could make for a masterpiece. however, that is not the case here.the story about an apparently very successful actor who is desperately trying to find meaning in his life while he gets to spend some time with his 11 year old daughter has no substance whatsoever: tell me something thats not so obvious and cliché, please!!! portraying a successful but dull life is not really an excuse for a dull movie, not even for someone with the name Coppola. In a time where awards are piling up in every corner of the filmmaking industry lets just rely on common sense: "Coppola continues to surprise and amaze with her singular view of the world" is but one of the praises I found. I am sorry, but if we are talking about the same movie, the words "surprise", "amaze" and "singular view" are wrong by definition.

I know that when you see my rating you will think "it can't be That Bad". It is. If you don't believe me, then please rent the DVD (hope you have NetFlix). After you watch it, please read any other reviews that I have made because you will realize I'll tell you the truth and that I'm not one of the Hollywood flunkies that rate movies high to get more sales.

I hope the movie was recorded digitally and not on film. It would be a shame to waste all of that good film. The first few minutes of the film start off very s-l-o-w and then, very quickly, proceeds to get even slower. The movies starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and then ends in the same location that it started.

After reading someones bad review I rented the movie anyway because Sofia Coppola wrote and directed it. I wish I would have believed his review. I plan to read more of them:)

Somewhere fmovies. This is a very odd movie: we as the audience have to do all the work!

Is there a plot? No. You have to imagine it. Is there a script? No: you have to imagine that, too.

I spent the entire movie waiting for something to happen. Nothing ever did!

OK, it was a very pleasant wait: the scenery is very attractive, and most of it is scantily-clad. So if you like looking at women in a state of undress (I do!) then you will at least have something to do while you imagine a story to go with the visuals.

There is one stand-out: the sound. Many of the scenes are shot with ambient sound, and it is beautifully captured. As a former sound man myself, I know how hard this would have been to do.

Everything else: that's up to your imagination!

A 30something year old actor spends his days (and nights) driving his Ferrari as fast as it can go, getting private shows from women,getting massages and participating in events which are part of his career. When at a press conference a journalist asks him "Who's Johnny Marko" he is unable to respond. Johnny is someone (or is he?) but he doesn't really know who. The relationships he has with people are far from personal.

From what we see at the beginning of the movie we would probably think Johnny is the usual single good looking but empty inside actor and that he pretty much has been all his life. But when his daughter shows up the picture is different: a failed marriage behind him... could this have made him what he is? maybe. As he welcomes Cleo back in his life she somehow seems to fill the emptiness of the environment around him. Nothing particularly overwhelming, just the little things that make the difference.

Does this movie display emotion in an explicit and clearly visible way? No. The dialog between characters is not what makes the difference. It's the feelings that make us think we're going somewhere or instead that we are so disconnected we can't care less where we are going. The feelings you can't really put into words (as properly emphasized in "Lost in Translation").

Just like the latter, "Somewhere" shows life as it is, no astonishing happenings, not many life changing experiences and maybe this is what will make a lot of people walk out of the theater unsatisfied or bored. We usually go to the cinema to evade from reality, see relationships develop clearly as they drastically change the lives of those involved in them. But this is not the case: just like in our lives things slowly develop and maybe over time change the way we see the world or feel the world. Maybe as the film suggests at one point, we need to slow down and take a look at where we are going instead of just passing through.

"Somewhere" is a particular movie from a particular director/writer. I can't go ahead and say watch this movie, you will love it, because it isn't for everyone but this is not a good enough reason to not give it a try altogether.