|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw LOST IN TRANSLATION. Going in, I knew nothing about it except that it got a 95-critics/86-audience score at Rotten Tomatoes, which is phenomenal, so it seemingly had to be worth my time. Now can somebody explain to me what people liked so much? I was bored to tears. This is a film in which nothing happens and the characters have nothing interesting to say. I'm pretty sure most or all of Murray and Johansson's dialog was ad libbed, and they could barely think of anything to say because there are settings but no events in the story. And yet (I now know) this movie hauled in 30 times its budget. So can anybody explain this? What am I missing? [For newbies: highlight the blacked-out text to see spoilers.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the subtle relationship between Murray and Johannson was one I could completely empathize with. If by subtle you mean the characters didn't say anything and didn't do anything, then yeah. It reminds me of the joke about two rich socialites raving about the food at a party: "Have you tried the cake? The flavor is so subtle, you can't even taste it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're so cued into the stereotypical 'love story' in our narratives that when something different comes along many of us cannot get our heads around it. Woody Allen is another one to challenge stereotyping. I can see that. I recently noted how much I like the light-weight film CRAZY STUPID LOVE, in large part because I adore Analeigh Tipton, but also because it's a romantic comedy that tosses out the standard romcom formula (meet-cute, fall in love, all is lost, all is regained) and sketches some fun characters in a more interesting plot. But TRANSLATION has no formula at all. It tosses out the baby with the bathwater. Its commercial success is just one more sign that what I like doesn't mean dick in this world, and to me that's awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|