This film is an interesting touchstone. When people think it's good, I learn something about them I want to know. It is not good, it is bad. So why are so many so wrong? First, Bill Murray is a magically charming man. He seems to be improvising most of the material and sometimes it's funny. Bill Murray is an unusual comedian, who can play serious in a way that Steve Martin, say, can't. He fell in love with Andie Macdowell in the terrific Groundhog Day, where she was merely sweet. Here Scarlett Johanson looks good, has some of that sweetness, but otherwise no character at all. She's there to laugh at Bill Murray's jokes. Her only attraction is her youth and beauty. This is simply a sexless, therefore melancholy, middle-aged man's unliveable fantasy. Many middle-aged reviewers no doubt saw themselves in the mirror. Resisting sex gives it a (much degenerated) Casablanca feel of renunciation and lost opportunity. Aside from Murray the humor is slack, storytelling and characters non-existent. I'm sure Murray knows how bad it is, but if the Academy likes him, why not go with the flow?
Review of Lost in Translation
