raphal

Are you familiar with the agony of having to confront most of your friends with your (very) negative assessment of a movie everyone loves? It never hit me so hard as with Lost in Translation, a sad monument to vanity and contempt. Two aspects of that film made it particularly unpleasant: the use of clichés, and the very poor tailoring of scenes.

I suppose the foggy poetry of the title explains the distance with which everything is filmed, and the particularly painful impression that everything taking place on the screen is in fact happening behind a bullet-proof window. Every time something a little significant threatens to occur (physical or verbal contact between the two main characters, a twist in the plot...), the scene is cut short. Now I very well understand that this may be considered a rather clever technique, and I can appreciate the understated aesthetics of it all, but this is going too far, and turns into a farce: we're asked to PRETEND that something meaningful is taking place between the scenes, or inside the character's heads. What a fraud.

Now back to the multitude of clichés that are used throughout the movie, particularly to depict the Japanese, cultural and everyday Japan, but also show-business relationships, what happens after 20 years of marriage, expatriates, the shallow side of young and successful Americans, etc. This is a feature that many people commended, arguing that it was a rather subtle, elegant and ironic treatment of the issue of cultural shock in particular and inter-cultural contact in general. I only see contempt for the world at large, a very crude perception and rendering of other human beings, and a terribly self-indulgent narration technique. No effort of understanding each snapshot, nor any attempt to brush an overall picture: what was the point?!

All in all, I did not enjoy this movie. Except during the very rare moments of humor ("for relaxing time, make it Suntory time"), it was not pleasant at all to watch. 1/10

Wonderful characters and beautiful images, on a plot that supports them well, without grabbing too much attention. Assayas shows great skill in timing and in choosing when to pursue and when to cut off a scene, delivering the smoothest storytelling and the most delicate way to bring characters to life. Balibar, Dalle and Tricky provide a rich, clever, contrasting universe where Cheung's brilliant performance and Notle's strong presence can shine. If a bit over-dramatic at times, the use of music is rather moving: no formal perfection, no bland, formatted entertainment, but the sound of real people pouring their life in their songs. Subtlety, sensitivity and humanity in filming life's meanderings make this movie a real treat. 9/10

I am baffled. How can viewers say this is better than the original?! Its plot is thin, twists slow and few, characters hollow and underused... And most of the funnier moments come from the indispensable visual quoting of blockbusters (Alien, Lord of the Rings, etc., prompting a pathetic "did you spot them all" quest), in a poor display of cinema under-literacy. The only positive point is the technical improvement, but who cares about this? Shrek managed to be much, much funnier despite its matchstick people. The welcome infusion of new characters is a wasted effort, as none of them offer more than an inconsistent set of one-liners: the fairy godmother and Puss in boots are particularly disappointing, with only a couple of interesting scenes each, lost in a sea of contradicting and threadbare interaction. Key scenes are embarrassingly low on laughs (come on!, 5 minutes into the movie, the "are we there yet?/no" sequence felt like half an hour! I stopped laughing at such jokes when I was 3!). All in all, I'm very sorry to say that the few amusing moments are not worth the hour-and-a-half session. The original featured complex fun that made it very enjoyable for kids and grown-ups alike; I doubt children will even like this one (too slow, not exciting enough), and adults will hate it. I did. 3/10