I think I know why this dreadful movie was acclaimed.

Rating: 2/10 (15 September 2009)

I'm probably wrong, but honestly I can only think of one reason that critics and the movie industry seemed to love this tediious, contrived, and artlessly racist movie: Bill Murray.
Here's the basis of my theory (and please forgive the name-dropping, it's required to make my point): Celebrities are spotted quite often in New York. I've bumped into Harrison Ford on Madison Avenue, dined near Nicole Kidman , seen Uma Thurman browse jazz records and (separately) Ethan Hawke knock back neat whiskeys. Etc., etc. But in thirty years, only once have I ever seen a celebrity actually cause a stir—and not a stir among the general public, but among waiters at a very upscale restaurant, where celebrities are commonplace.
It was Bill Murray. I was waiting for a friend, and happened to occupy a barstool that was near both the waiters' station and Murray's booth. The waiters were actually arguing over which of them got to fill his water glass next. They were neglecting other patrons. They were whispering and giggling. They were thrilled.
The point is: Everybody loves Bill Murray. I've never seen a bad review of him, and let's face it, he's no Laurence Olivier. He's made some real clinkers (Zissou, Where the Buffalo Roam, Quick Change, Charlie's Angels, Get Smart), but he seems to float above them, a cynical, comical everyman that nobody hates.
If his "Lost in Translation" character had been played by anyone else—say, Kurt Russell or Michael Keaton or Jeff Bridges (they're all about the same age, and all have comic/dramatic range)-- I suspect critics would have treated "Lost in T" the way they treated, say, "3000 Miles to Graceland" or "Jack Frost" or "Nadine." In other words, they would have had the courage to say, This film is atrocious.
The moral: If you've got a dull, callow screenplay and a name like Coppola that'll get you funding, hire Bill Murray