I'm going to espew some more hatred for this movie. Understand that I have very very low standards for movies; I have never "not liked" a movie. Sure, there were dissappointments, and I know which movies are B-movies (and C-movies), but I've never outright hated a movie.

But this is one of those movies.

Now, everyone goes, "But Roy, it has audio/visual effects... and the feeling of the movie is so great. Sure, it has no plot, but that's ok! The movie has great technique, yes. But technique is not everything.

That's like me saying, "Sure, that song has great recording quality and uses great instruments. Sure, it has no rhythm or harmony, but that's ok!"

WRONG.

A movie requires either a story or a message. Lost in Translation is a superficial movie, no one even argues it's a deep movie. As a superficial movie, we can deduce it has absolutely no mesage. Since Lost In Translation obviously had no message (except perhaps Sofia exclaiming "I'M RICH, BIIOOTTCCCH"), we must then infer that perhaps this movie has something of a tangible plot.

BUT IT HAS NO TANGIBLE PLOT WHATSOEVER. Someone *please* enlighten me what the plot is. Anyone who says "This movie is so life-like and realistic" is also missing the point.

How do two strangers run into each other 3 times (even if they're in the same hotel?) before being properly introduced? That's not realistic. A girl sending over a drink to a strange man at a bar while her husband sits next to her is not realistic.

The two people I talked to said this movie "gripped them" and the "story drove forward." Drove FORWARD? What kind of forward is this?

A guy cares about a girl and starts hanging out and eating out with her. They go clubbing and karaoking. They go to the hospital when she shows him his toe (which is followed by inane references made to Japanese people possibly liking "black toe" while a Japanese man stares on).

This is ordinary. Perhaps so many people are so f'ing bored with their mundane lives that they find excitement in a movie that THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE IN ("oh, maybe I could be like Bob Harris), except for the fact that it requires CHANCE COINCIDENCE and a married woman opening up to a strange man.

God. I don't understand how anyone even thinks it's a decent movie. No really, I don't.

So now i know most of you are just itching to click the "Leave a Comment" and flame away at me. Go ahead. I'm ready for you.

Edit: I found a quote that I love and does summarize everything I want to say about the movie:

In both films [VIRGIN SUICIDES being the other] I feel that she has a strong sense of film texture and mood, but in both films I get the sense that she basically doesn't know what she really wants to say, or how to dig deeper into her subject than surface-level observation, and can only provide poster art imagery to conceal her uncertainty.

Perfectly said.