Lost In Translation

Rating: 5/10 (22 May 2006)

Let me start off by saying that I DID NOT read the book. So I was expecting a masterful story-telling session of the highest order, given the success of the novel. How could you screw this up? This film was not about the characters, it was about the story and setting. Howard got the setting right, the locales were breath-taking and exquisitely shot. What was lacking however was the suspenseful buildup of the plot as it delved deeper into history's sordid past. Rule number one of a mystery drama, let the viewer take part in the detective work. Maybe Ron Howard assumed that we already knew what the clues were, and how they were going to be figured out. So the action on the screen was relegated to crappy car chases, goofy gun play, and anti-climatic near-misses. Meanwhile the mystery aspect of the film was absent (save for the best scene of the film, Teabing's lecture on The Last Supper). This script should have been sandbagged from the moment Howard looked at it. The fact that author Dan Brown allowed his story to be told this way is a blot on his artistic integrity. I guess he was laughing all the way to the bank too hard to notice that his book was being butchered.
Having said that, I did not hate the film. It still was more thoughtfully done than 75% of the other schlock out there. Tom Hanks, even as wooden as he was here, is still good. Ian was great. I thought Bethany was frightening but underused by the screenwriter (his face being the antithesis of humanistic Renaissance art). The Sophie character was like Hanks' character - nothing special. 2 1/2 hours is not long if the film moves briskly and keeps your interest. Gladiator was close to three hours but felt 90 minutes long. It is all in the writing. Maybe big shot directors will have greater appreciation in the future for the craft of screen writing. Without a good script, even the best actors, and best stories, will suffer