When i watched the trailer i thought the movie is going to be about the relationship of a father and his daughter but i was very wrong, The movie is about a man admitting he's depressed and in need for help.Our man here is Johnny Marco played by Stephen Dorff, is an actor who lives in a hotel away from his divorced wife and his daughter Cleo played by Ellen Fanning. The movie is in three parts each one adding to the character of who Johnny is or rather what Johnny is going through and feeling. The first part shows Johnny watching two strippers in his bedroom and falling asleep, he goes to parties that he clearly isn't enjoying, drinking, doing drugs and having sex all of that without the slightest hint of pleasure. All what seem to be the source of pleasure to people is an act of habit to him, he hooks up with so many beautiful women but it seems like he does it out of need rather than desire. We see how empty his inside is, how colorless is his fame, how uninterested he is in everything that is his life. All of that is obvious through Coppola's stunning directing we see Johnny in the middle of a big room, everything seems to be moving but him, people talk but he doesn't join in, the sounds are always distant and he is not participating in making them.The second part of the film we see him with his daughter Cleo who is spending time with him while her mother is away, their relationship is sweet, it's definitely not the best but they have their moments where they have peace in silence, we only see him active mentally with his daughter. He's not completely present though, he's still depressed but being with a loved one for some quality time is able to bring a very little piece of himself back to life. When they go to Italy together we see them watching Friends in the foreign language, and that shows how out of place they are, he is a stranger to his work and she is a stranger to this life though she seems to be coping with it better than her father. In another scene Johnny is presenting a show in Italian and suddenly women around him start to dance and he's awkwardly standing in the middle, again a stranger to his work. While Cleo laughs and smiles at him, that's where he smiles back opening more to the idea of enjoying things.The third part is where Cleo goes to camp and Johnny tries to tell her something about how he cares for her but it's blocked by the sound of helicopter behind him and he's not brave enough to repeat his feelings and he kind of blames his life for it. Then we see where he loses it, he has been so used to depression for so long that he forgot there's a life beyond that, a life that his daughter reminded him existed. And now for the first time we see him looking for it, calling a friend crying telling her there's nothing to do and struggling with expressing himself, we see Johnny rides to somewhere in despair sick of being depressed. That's where the movie ends showing the whole picture of Johnny Marco's experience. This is how Coppola works, she shows you a bit by bit of this painting that is beautiful but you don't know where it's going or how to feel about it exactly, but in the end you get the whole picture and you're stunned of how meaningful and beautiful it is and leaving you feel like you've been there the whole time seeing how it has been painted.

There is a lot to admire here. Coppola's direction is minimalist and simple, and her shots are washed with this ambient lightness that provide some intriguing imagery. The problem here is not in Coppola's attention and reflection on the themes at hand, which she does with considerable style and skill, but rather in the theme she has chosen to dominate her picture. The idea of existential ennui has been explored by her before, and in a much more interesting way, with Lost In Translation. The film focuses on jaded protagonist Johnny Marco, who is an interesting character, but one whose life and struggles are alien to most, making him in an unsuitable protagonist. In my opinion, the focus of the film should have been on his daughter, Cleo, who witnesses her father's life - she herself is naive to a lot of what is going on, and thus we relate to her more. For me, it certainly seems that the daughter-father relationship is what is most fascinating here, and Cleo's reactions and feelings about his life. You would think that a theme which seems to be so close to Coppola's own life would be the main focal point, yet it feels almost secondary, as if it is being pushed aside by Coppola's need to focus on this mopey rich guy. Overall, it is worth a watch for the scenes with Cleo, and for Coppola's artistry, but this is a film that is sadly overwhelmed by a story that would be foreign to most.

This movie is good for anyone interested in acting. In the reality of acting. Not the lies (dreams) that are usually given to us to feel good. Or just stoned. No. Here is indeed a film that seems boring. It seems so boring that when it ends you may wonder what you've been looking at. And I guess that's the expected effect. Y'see, what is usually sold to us is that actors lead a wonderful life, just because they get money and a job that sustains their ego. But doesn't a 'wonderful' life depend on what acting you do? On what kind of movie you do for a living? and why? I won't spoil the movie. But this movie is a good movie. It is a movie that stops the illusion that actors are somehow living on a better planet. They're not. And there is a perversion in this society about actors, showing them as more important or interesting than a lambda person, even more intelligent, so intelligent that we would ask serious questions about the world to an actor. Again, certain actors are intelligent, others are less... That movie, as well as 'Ellie Parker' that I just saw, is a movie that may ask us : why the hell are we so deluded by the cinematographic medium and what do we wanna eat for movies? I would add a little precise note to end this critic : someone here criticized certain scenes for showing a not so well done activity, but the way that activity is showed is just the way I can imagine it would be if I saw it in reality. And that shows that we are so trained to nice pictures,nice prestations, as if everyone always has to be perfectly dressed,haired, has to make all perfect moves, etc. We don't like to look at reality!

I figured that 2 is a funny number to rate a film on IMDb. It ain't the worst thing ever however clearly not the best thing ever. But I don't think that all films should be rated 1 for being truly awful because at least they tried to make something that looks like they went a long way for it. At least that's what I thought about for most films. But again, that is obviously a matter of opinion HOWEVER in Sofia Coppola's 'Somewhere' it is the closest thing I could think of for hating a film which is a rare feeling for me. The laziness of making a film just because her father's got millions astounds me. If she didn't have money (and I mean NOTHING out of it) then the quality would've been the exact same thing.Not only that but I felt that it was painfully boring! My god, the sheer amount of pills I had to take to keep awake has become somewhat routine for me during that hour and a half of nothingness. The only thing I think this film is decent enough for my life is simply using it to GO TO SLEEP. Like play it just before sleepy-time and I would get the best sleep ever! Don't get me started on the characters (but I'm going to anyway). The character of Johnny Marco was dry, dull, boring and was just... nothing to the story. I understand that it was about a Hollywood star with no life (at least that's what I thought it was about) but nobody seemed to care! I felt nothing for the character, no sympathy, no heart-felt moments for him, nothing! The only character with energy was Chris Pontius's character which was great improvising by the way with Cleo as apparently he's good with kids in real life.But going back to my title - how did Sofia Coppola get a budget for making nothing!? Because her dad's super successful and famous. I really don't think that some Coppola's should be in the film-making industry, at least not for Sofia's in that way. Only Francis Ford-Coppola and his many years of realising that he's awesome for making The Godfather etc. Sofia went "I wanna make films" and we're going "Pfft! Sure you can!" (sarcastically). Don't get me wrong I quite liked 'Lost in Translation' as I thought it was sweet and pretty but again, typical Sofia with her dry narrative 'skills'.She had pretty much everything to make this film: Great actors, producers with cash - lots of it, locations, music choice. However he messed it all up with her unimaginative mind and writing on the script which might as well be scwiggly lines. No point whatsoever! A very empty film with a weird beginning, a boring middle and an unsatisfying ending. Either watch it for A: Cause you need to get to sleep, or B: Because you wanna slit your wrists with a blade cause you hate life but you just need that extra push to make you snap and finally do it.