It always makes me wonder when I see too many of those raves appear in newspapers right when the movie opens. To be honest, I was intrigued by the premise, the preview, and the casting. Sadly, that is what made the film so terribly disappointing. Once again, we seem to be suffering from a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Do we need an innocent bystander to come by and tell us that we are really witnessing plenty of thin air?

Ms. Coppola's "Virgin Suicides" was rich and involving, with enough tension and conflict to drive its entire length. In "Lost" I remained lost for the entire movie, as at first I couldn't even see the action. To this day I can't understand why many people confuse style with underexposure. There are many beautiful films where natural lighting serves a purpose. In "Lost" the only thing I might get out of this poorly lit film is a new eye-prescription. Is there a shortage of electricity in Tokyo? Are they rationing power after midnight? Is there a reason why the film looks so murky and blurry??? even in the daytime. Maybe it's supposed to be a metaphor for the state of their souls, but in my opinion they would have made a better point if we could at least see their facial expressions while the main characters suffered.

Not all is lost in the movie, and the leads do what they can with the material, but it's hard to sympathize with such a minimal exchange. How in the world can anyone relate to another person with the exchange of less than a dozen words? It is more puzzling when there is such an age difference! There have been other films when two the leads' age difference is overcome by better direction and a more solid script. In here, we are asked to fill in too many holes and assume too much. Bill Murray mopes around, so he's lonely. Scarlett is abandoned by her boyfriend, and she's in need of male companionship. Where's the background? Where's the story? Where's the character development?

Overall, I was so utterly shocked by what I saw that the people that came along with me, were even more shocked because they couldn't believe I didn't say "It sucks!" when the film ended. I didn't have because they already knew it, and apparently most of the audience in the theater were still in stupor as they slowly filed out of the auditorium, with no audible comments.

I would like to know if there was another print shown at the critics' screenings because I am sure the reviews we're reading most be addressing a masterpiece, but that film is missing, somewhere in the murky presentation, lost in its own translation.

Read the book. Skip the film.