not quite artsy, not a blockbuster - just 'lost'

I have plenty of important things to talk about today. But instead, I'm going to rant. I just wasted 102 minutes watching Lost In Translation. Yes, yes, I know the movie is like, 5 years old by now. I just haven't gotten around to watching it until tonight. Got it on On Demand.

I Think I'm The Only Person Who Did Not Like This Movie.
We all remember the comical trailers. We heard the hype and we watched it bring home the awards. So I was expecting a genius and funny, perhaps heartwarming movie with an albeit artistic slant from Ms. Coppola.

I should have known what I was getting into.
I remembered how much I disliked The Virgin Suicides. But, given that TVS was Ms. Coppola's first effort, I applauded her. LIT was only marginally better, and its all b/c of Bill Murray. Truthfully, I don't know why this film was nominated for so many awards, nor, how it won any. I will support my arguement here:

1. In both TVS and LIT, it seems as if too much weight is placed on the film being brilliantly shot, and not enough emphasis placed on the story. The cinematography was beautiful, but shouldn't have to carry the whole film. The editing was razor sharp. But, the direction was comparable to that of a student film. Certain parts of the film felt like it was trying to be weird, just for the sake of being weird.

1A. To go back to the editing - at times I was confused. Throughout the early part of the film especially, Charlotte is shown in near back to back shots wearing different pjs. Either the clips got all mixed up in the computer, or Coppola is trying to suggest that multiple days were passing and the only occurance of note was Charlotte changing her clothes, Or Charlotte really did enjoy changing her tops several times a day.

2. "Trying" is the defining word of this movie. It tries to be mysterious and shy and coy. But the action is painfully slow and the characters aren't developed enough to make the story intriguing.

3. Not only are the characters not given a chance to develop, in some cases the performance feels completely wrong. Charlotte for example is a Yale grad who has been married for 2 years, and is accused of being "snotty" and "mean" by her husband. I believe that the character was meant to be very complex - part vamp, part "lost" child with a bit of cynicism. She is portrayed by Scarlett Johansson who at 19 does the job of playing the innocent, and Could play up the sultry factor, but doesn't quite make it. Also, the performance does not support Charlotte being a Yale grad that studied Psychology. She spends more time giggling and looking partially glazed over. The conflict between her studies and her life only barely peeks through. Furthermore, she never seems to make any profund observations or statements that one would expect from a Philosophy major. Nor snide remarks that would qualify her snob title.

4. Overall, I think the other younger characters where erroneously cast. To me, the actors look like they would have been better off in American Pie Part 4. Too young and not believable as up and coming high profilers.

5. Bill Murray makes the movie, and could have made it better if he did more 'Bill Murray'. Occasionally, he was his witty, endearing and funny self, interspersed with expertly played indifference. But there was so much more room for him.

6. I read that the script was very sparse and the film was largly improvised.
Really?!? I couldn't tell...

7. This film wins the top prize in the "Worst Foleyed" and "Worst ADR" categories. My goodness. even on a small tv screen there is SO MUCH that doesn't line up. I can't imagine how hideous it looked on the large screen. Two specific places of horror are in the arcade when a kid is playing a video game by drumming..the ratio of sticks to "pow" is pathetic. And, when Bob and Charlotte are lying on his bed talking, the room tone suddenly disappears, and of course the dialogue doesn't match up.

8. Can we say "Anti-Climactic?" A 5th grader could have guessed the plot twists, if you could call them that. As for the 'big climax' - we are thrown a couple of weak-ass curve balls that sort of miss the catcher and instead haphazardly bounce out of bounds. At the one shining moment where we could have seen the brilliant manifestation of this transcendental nether-love, we get the hug. But for the kiss - the camera is awkwardly tight on, and off to the back/side of Bob's ear/cheek. Did Coppola not want us to see the kiss? If so, there would have been better angles with a more demure perspective. But she knew the kiss is what we wanted, so it seems that her answer was to compromise.

9. Oooh but what did Bob whisper in Charlotte's ear?? The lingering question could have produced an answer as earth shattering as "Rosebud" or Larua Palmer's admission that her father killed her. But no, the whisper is inaudible and the closed captionining confirms that fact. Admittedly, we WANT to know what Bob is saying. I've suggested to Dave the we extract the audio and attempt to isolate the dialogue by filtering out the background noises. But Dave doesn't think it will work. A quick internet search produces guesses from other viewers...

But in my opinion...I think Bill Murray improvised, and the crew lost the production audio. So he made something up for the ADR track. OR, perhaps in his improvisation he never said anything at all. And in either case - Coppola thought to herself "Hey! This can be kind of cool, and Weird...I like it!"

This is why I spend $3.95 for On Demand instead of $10 at the movie theater.

Do you have a movie that you'd like to see me tear to shreds? Post a comment or send me an email.