I'll let Roger Ebert answer this one:

"You are saying more about yourself than about the film." What the hell does he mean by that? If you don't like this boring film, there's something wrong with you? You are somehow devoid of emotion? I have been watching Roger Ebert since 1979 and he is not always right. How many times have you watched a film that the critics raved about, only to discover a boring film that made you sorry you wasted time and money to see it? The fact that most people don't like this film says a lot, doesn't it?

it's a great blind buy, but it is definately not for everyone. I've heard people complain about the mood and pacing. I bought it as a blind buy, and it's definately one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

Most people?! Do you have some way to back that up or are you just talking out of your ass.

It's not like Fight Club or Donnie Darko are widely praised outside of people likes us but does that make them bad films too?

I was reading reviews over at amazon for this a while back. I was kind of amazed at how many 1-star reviews it got. The overall average was only 3 stars. Seemed to either get 1 or 5, not much in between. I'd have given it a 5.

The problem most people will have that its not really a movie in the traditional sense as it doesn't really evolve around a plot moving towards a definitive conclusion. There is no antagonist, no plot twist, no real climax or turning point. It's just a movie that explores the relationship that develops between two lonely people. Even the ending doesn't really give the viewer any real sense of closure.

Lost in Translation has a 94% "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Lost...ation-1125647/

That means that out of 192 reviews (not all of which are from professional critics) 180 praised it and only 12 didn't like it.

So it would appear that quantitative fact disagrees with the supposition that "most people don't like LiT."

This is one of those litmus test kinds of films that you CAN tell a lot about a person by how they react to it.

"This is one of those litmus test kinds of films that you CAN tell a lot about a person by how they react to it."

Well if that's true, what does my dislike of LiT say about me?

...so what...?......

. . . :o . . .

Wow, one internet critic didn't like it. I guess that invalidates the other 180, hm?

94% of the critics listed at Rotten Tomatoes thought the film was worthwhile - the above critic was one of the dissenting 6% - but I think that 94% positive reviews pretty much puts to rest the argument that "most people" disliked the film. Obviously, most people liked it, if not loved it.

And as for what not liking the film says about you, well, it would probably be against forum rules to insult a member directly.

I thought the film was brilliant, but was extremely esoteric in its style and feel. Most of my friends were bored to death by it and criticized the camera angles, lighting, and other technicalities.

My feeling is, this film fits a very specific audience. If you haven't traveled overseas (particularly Asia) and been lost in a foreign country before, then LiT regardless of its story and acting is going to lose many of you. This isn't a film about plot so much as it is about feeling -- if you haven't suffered insomnia being five time zones away from home you probably won't enjoy the film as much, if at all.

As for the DVD, I don't own it because I think it's a pretty barebones release with one of the ugliest covers I've ever seen. I wouldn't suggest this as a blind-buy but definitely a rental so you can at least comment on whether you thought the gratuitous butt-crack was necessary.

Really? I asked a simple question and you would like to insult me. What does that say about you?

None of my friends liked LiT and some of them are also writers. I trust their opinion more than these critics who tend to love art house films like LiT. I still say this is the most overrated film I have ever seen and I have seen thousands of films. Comedies are not supposed to be boring. There was only one scene (the whisky commercial) I would consider funny.

Someone wrote that this movie encourages thought. I said it encourages sleep.

I was referring to Jough's comments, not Couch 21.

I think when most people heard about this movie they expected something different. It's a comedy with Bill Murray so many were expecting Groundhog Day 2. Comedies don't have to be laugh-out-loud funny; they can be subtle like Lost in Translation. The open-ended, introspective nature of the film is what makes it great.

I was not expecting Ground Day 2. I was expecting a funny film and something worthy of Oscar noms. LiT is neither. They should have never called it a comedy. It's a travelogue for Japan.

I don't want to insult you, which is why I have refrained from answering your "simple question."

It's like if a friend does something really stupid, and then asks you what you think of their decision. You don't want to say "I think you're an idiot" but you don't want to lie to them either.

Oh, well, if your friends disliked it, it must be an awful film! I'm a writer and I loved Lost in Translation.

The reason critics may have liked it more than your friends is that a critic's opinion is an informed opinion, based on having seen thousands of challenging films, not just the usual multiplex blockbusters, so a critic's taste, in theory, should be more discerning than the average moviegoer.

Um, Lost in Translation isn't a comedy. Were you similarly dismissive of Schindler's List because it didn't make you laugh?

It's hard for a lot of people to get into this film because it's subtle and doesn't hit you over the head with its meaning. It's a mood piece, so I can understand how some (if not many) people would dislike it - but can you (everyone who doesn't like it) differentiate between a film being bad and a film being not to your taste?

And you got both. And much more!

They didn't call it a comedy. I guess you were expecting a Farrelly brothers movie or something like Caddyshack because it starred Bill Murray, but if you'd read any reviews of the film before going to see it you probably wouldn't have been as disappointed.

It sounds to me like you didn't dislike the film itself as much as you were disappointed that the film wasn't what you expected it to be.

You didn't ask a simple question. You asked a very loaded, confrontational question that dared him to insult you in return.

Let's talk about the movie-slash-DVD and not each other, please.

I tried to talk about the movie/DVD, but I get these comments inferring that because I don't think LiT deserved any oscar noms, I am either stupid or "just don't get it". I have a right to say LiT is the most overrated film I've ever seen. I stand by that statement. Everyone has watched a nominated and critically praised film at one time or another, only to scratch their heads in disbelief.

Jough asks "Were you similarly dismissive of Schindler's List because it didn't make you laugh?" Now there's a bad analogy. Schindler's List was not promoted as a comedy, like LiT. How am I supposed to react to a ridiculous question like that?

If LiT was not nominated for best pic or screenplay, I would not care about it being boring. I just couldn't believe it, and I'm not alone in my opinion. How many movies do we love, but the critics hate? The reverse is also true. The movie business has always been a business of opinion.

It did win the Golden Globe for best Comedy or Musical though.

I wasn't overly impressed with it when I watched, I'll have to see it again to comment further but I was expecting something else and I think it had to much hype in my eyes.

Well, if you'd just said that you didn't think it deserved Oscar nods, that's one thing - but you said it's the "most overrated movie ever" (ever? of all time?) and that "It's two boring characters in a boring script."

Being bored by this film does say something about you as a person - but not necessarily anything bad.

Some people have shorter attention spans than others - it would explain why those summer blockbusters have so many explosions and shiny, flashing things to look at. Some people are more easily bored than others.

I loved the film because I found it thought-provoking and a little heartbreaking - the characters were well drawn and the plot was realistic and subtly complex. I was riveted and you were bored - yet we both saw the same film.

So the difference isn't with the film, the difference is in us.

Therefore, naturally finding the film boring says something about you as a person.

Neither film was promoted as a comedy. They are both dramas and both have a few funny bits (albeit in SL the howlers were unintentional, with some horribly written dialogue).

So your own experience is irrelevent as long as it can be backed up with external awards or reviews that concur with your opinion?

The movie business is about money, not opinion. Studios don't care if you like their films or not - just as long as you pay to see them and buy the video.

And sometimes the marketing works - do you like every DVD in your collection?

It did, but the filmmakers don't get to decide that. It wouldn't have stood a chance in the drama category, so I'm glad it won, but it's neither a comedy nor a musical.

I wouldn't call "Jersey Girl" a comedy either, but sure enough the filmmaker claims that it is one, despite the film being more sad than funny.

After all these months of hearing the hype, I finally sat down last night and checked this out on DVD. Anyway, I'll just say that there were sections of the movie that I really disliked...mostly, I wasn't really feeling Scarlett Johannson's character at all. However, the ending was so stirring, realistic, and well-done that I know I'll like it much more the second time around. :)

You found funny bits in Schindler's List? What does that say about you?

No, I don't I need awards to justify my opinions. I thought We Were Soldiers should have been nominated for best pic last here and it wasn't.

"the plot was realistic and subtly complex"
What plot?

Sure, the movie business is about money, but it's also about opinions. Are you a screenwriter? If you are, you probably have submitted scripts to people who didn't like them and people who did. E.T. was rejected 26 times before it sold.

I would have found LiT heartbreaking if I had paid $9 or more to see it in a theater instead a few dollars to rent it.

I didn't say LiT was the most overrated film ever. I said it was the most overrated film I had ever seen.

Yes, I do like every DVD in my collection. I don't buy movies I don't like.

My above comments are in response to jough's comments. I forgot to mention that.