Being an "art-house" kind of guy, I was really looking forward to this picture, having seen the previews half-a-dozen times and taking in all the stellar reviews. So I was somewhat disappointed to find that when I actually saw the film, I spent a good bit of the time a little, well...bored. I'd give it a thumbs-up over a thumbs-down, certainly, but it wouldn't be an enthusiastic one.
The big problem for me was the relationship between the two main characters. It just didn't click the way it should have. The character of Charlotte in particular seemed to me to be a little weakly drawn, and though Scarlett Johansson is definitely appealing, as an actress she doesn't look to me to be capable of turning in an outstanding performance yet. (Addendum: I was quickly disabused of this notion soon after when I saw 'Girl with a Pearl Earring!') Bill Murray's Bob Harris fares a lot better, but admit it, for all the praise he receives he isn't one of our greatest actors either. I found the "evening out" scene to be interminable--I knew it would be difficult if not impossible for the film to redeem itself totally after being so discomfited by it.
I found Sofia Coppola's script to be far more the bigger problem here than her directing. Besides the characters and the relationship not really jelling for me, I was too often distracted by her minimalist (for lack of a better word) style that frequently cropped up. Too many scenes had scant dialog, music or even background noise for a film that was not profound enough to justify it.
Having trashed 'LIT' pretty well, let me point out some of the good things in it, and there are a number. As intimated before, Coppola's direction is very nice in many places. The Japanese locale is not just a convenient exotic backdrop, it's an integral, indispensable part of the film. Her presentation of the country is wonderful. She captures the not only the marvelous sights so well, but also the country's culture, both the pure and the Western hybrid varieties. Oftentimes, to great effect, we see some odd happening going on and it's not explained to us. We stay just as bewildered as the characters, and this works very well indeed. And Murray's humor is made excellent use of also, whether he's tossing of the "ring-a-ding-ding" one-liners or, in the movie's funniest scene, trying to get rid of a gift of a Japanese role-playing hooker. Another great moment comes when Bob Harris is flipping channels trying to find something comprehensible on Japanese TV when he comes across his own image with dubbed-in voice--it's actually a clip of Murray from an old 'Saturday Night' show. Nice.
It seems to me that this film might be a sort of reverse 'Gigli' for 2003: everyone seems as willing to believe the rave reviews about it as they were to accept unquestioningly all the bad things said about the Affleck/Lopez film. 'Lost in Translation' is an OK movie, certainly more good than bad, but don't feel like you have to act like it's a work of genius just because so many others say it is. You're not alone in your lesser opinion of it.
The big problem for me was the relationship between the two main characters. It just didn't click the way it should have. The character of Charlotte in particular seemed to me to be a little weakly drawn, and though Scarlett Johansson is definitely appealing, as an actress she doesn't look to me to be capable of turning in an outstanding performance yet. (Addendum: I was quickly disabused of this notion soon after when I saw 'Girl with a Pearl Earring!') Bill Murray's Bob Harris fares a lot better, but admit it, for all the praise he receives he isn't one of our greatest actors either. I found the "evening out" scene to be interminable--I knew it would be difficult if not impossible for the film to redeem itself totally after being so discomfited by it.
I found Sofia Coppola's script to be far more the bigger problem here than her directing. Besides the characters and the relationship not really jelling for me, I was too often distracted by her minimalist (for lack of a better word) style that frequently cropped up. Too many scenes had scant dialog, music or even background noise for a film that was not profound enough to justify it.
Having trashed 'LIT' pretty well, let me point out some of the good things in it, and there are a number. As intimated before, Coppola's direction is very nice in many places. The Japanese locale is not just a convenient exotic backdrop, it's an integral, indispensable part of the film. Her presentation of the country is wonderful. She captures the not only the marvelous sights so well, but also the country's culture, both the pure and the Western hybrid varieties. Oftentimes, to great effect, we see some odd happening going on and it's not explained to us. We stay just as bewildered as the characters, and this works very well indeed. And Murray's humor is made excellent use of also, whether he's tossing of the "ring-a-ding-ding" one-liners or, in the movie's funniest scene, trying to get rid of a gift of a Japanese role-playing hooker. Another great moment comes when Bob Harris is flipping channels trying to find something comprehensible on Japanese TV when he comes across his own image with dubbed-in voice--it's actually a clip of Murray from an old 'Saturday Night' show. Nice.
It seems to me that this film might be a sort of reverse 'Gigli' for 2003: everyone seems as willing to believe the rave reviews about it as they were to accept unquestioningly all the bad things said about the Affleck/Lopez film. 'Lost in Translation' is an OK movie, certainly more good than bad, but don't feel like you have to act like it's a work of genius just because so many others say it is. You're not alone in your lesser opinion of it.