Lost in Translation

reviewed by Dave

Lost in Translation tells the story of two Americans stuck in Tokyo. Through jet-lag induced insomnia, they eventually connect at their hotel and become close friends in a short amount of time.

From the first shot of Lost in Translation, featuring a close-up of Scarlett Johannson’s backside in shear panties as she lays on her bed with the neon-lit nighttime of Tokyo visible through her hotel room window, I wasn’t sure exactly what to make of this film.

I wanted to like Lost in Translation. Really I did. One of my favorite movies is Rushmore, which featured a great performance by Bill Murray. I was hoping for the same thing here.

And there were a few moments where I was engaged enough to at least crack a smile, mostly during the scenes where Murray’s character is filming commercials for the Japanese whiskey he’s come to Tokyo to shill.

But that’s about the extent of it. The rest of the film is dull. That’s right; I said Lost in Translation is dull. Someone call the movie critic heresy brigade.

Defenders of Lost in Translation really like to hype how the film is so realistic and subtle. Does a two hour film devoted to realistically portraying people with insomnia sound interesting to you? Would you like to watch a realistic movie of me making instant pudding? Cuz I’ll track down a video camera and film it if you’ll give me seven bucks to watch it.

Then there’s Coppola. To those who defend Sofia Coppola as a brilliant director, explain away that opening butt shot.

But Coppola has also been praised for her screenwriting. Indeed, she won an Oscar for this. And I don’t understand that either. There isn’t that much dialog in Lost in Translation. What there is doesn’t strike you as anything brilliant. Oh, I know, it’s really, really realistic. Guess what? Writing a boring screenplay and turning it into a boring movie does not make you brilliant. It makes you boring. What’s worse, though, is a scene at the end of the film, which I will refer to as the “muffled Murray” that strikes me as one of the biggest copouts I’ve ever seen (or heard) in a critically acclaimed movie. If you’ve seen the movie, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Film critic Roger Ebert has a “Movie Mailbag” column that occasionally runs in the Star Tribune, and recently a video clerk wrote in saying that about 90% of the people who rent Lost in Translation report that they hated it. Ebert’s response was that pretty much all film critics liked it, and they determine what’s actually good, not the public. Their job is to inform, not reflect, public opinion.

Um, well, sort of. I understand Ebert’s argument to a degree, but I think he too easily dismisses those with an opinion other than his. It’s true that some people may not like a movie of this type because, as he would assert, it’s too subtle to appeal to the tastes of moviegoers who are used to big-budget mainstream filmmaking. These people certainly do exist.

But I don’t think you can use one movie like this as a litmus test to determine whether someone has a valid opinion on movies. He seems to be saying that if you don’t like Lost in Translation, that’s because you’re too busy enjoying mindless crap like The Haunted Mansion.

I’m not one of those people. I really enjoy an intelligent action movie like The Bourne Identity, but I also really liked the French film Amelie and small films like Rushmore and Flirting.

So, Mr. Ebert, what are you going to say to dismiss my opinion? I think Lost in Translation is, more than anything else, boring and un-engaging – not because I only watch mindless Steven Seagal movies, but because Lost in Translation is actually boring and un-engaging.

At least that’s what it was to me.