This is an example of the Razzies just dumping on some movies and frankly showing that they just go by whatever the current “popular” thing to hate on is. BvS was a pretty poor movie overall but Affleck was great as Wayne/Batman.
BvS was an incredibly boring movie that I almost fell asleep to twice; the problem was not the acting.
If D’Souza’s movie were 100% accurate and presented only facts (and all of the relevant ones, to be clear - lies of omission are still lies) , it would be completely out of character for him but it would not be propaganda. It could still be a really terrible movie, of course. I pretty much guarantee someone has gone through and fact checked the whole thing, probably several someones, given the internet, so it shouldn’t be that hard to establish one way or the other.
Edit: to make my argument perfectly clear here, I am saying that something is propaganda because it prioritizes the creator’s agenda over the truth. This is not based on the actual politics of that agenda, and it is perfectly possible for a liberal to create propaganda. I would argue that that has not, generally speaking, been a prominent tactic of the modern left because the facts tend to be on our side, but that’s a separate argument that has no real relevance to this thread.
I still like the BvS director’s cut, despite all the hate. I am a simple man.
I didn’t hate BvS either, although it also didn’t really live up to the comic.
I saw BvS less than 4 months ago, and literally the only things I can recall now are Eisenberg’s terrible attempt at scenery chewing, Wonder Woman seeing Aquaman on her laptop, and that it was three goddamn hours long. That’s it. I don’t even remember Ben Affleck being in it.
I think a good rule of thumb is, any movie that has “vs.” in the title is bound to disappoint. Batman vs Superman, Aliens vs Predator, Freddy vs Jason, Eck vs Sever, Frankenstein vs Dracula, Kramer vs Kramer. I think Godzilla vs Mothra was probably the best one.
Alien vs Predator Requiem isn’t actually that bad, and isn’t Kramer vs Kramer considered a good, well classic of some kind?
Since this disappointed you while earning five Academy Awards, I wonder what you were expecting.
I was expecting Michael Richards! I mean, where the fuck was he?
Honestly though, to me, Kramer vs Kramer was a rote TV melodrama with a decent budget that happened to star a couple of Hollywood darlings. And while Hoffman and Streep were pretty good in it, the overall result was dull as dishwater. It came out when rising divorce rates and custody battles started becoming a big thing in America, and I’d wager that, more than anything, propelled it into the Academy’s consciousness.
When I look at all the other films from that year (1979) like Apocalypse Now, Alien, Being There, The Warriors, The Jerk, The In Laws, Life of Brian - heck, even lesser titles like Time After Time, Phantasm, Great Santini, and Escape from Alcatraz, KvsK isn’t anywhere near as compelling. It wasn’t very interesting when it came out, and it’s less interesting now. I mean, how often do you hear anyone talk about it, other than to note how many awards it won?
Almost literally yesterday. A lot of these classics are part of that show old but good movies in the theater movement thing we have going on right now. And Since Meryl Streep has given Trump a few zingers lately, that movie comes up a lot for that reason.
If I’m picking now, I’d say Apocalypse Now is leagues more interesting to watch than Kramer vs Kramer, but at the time, Kramer vs. Kramer was the more important movie. I can see why the Academy and most critics went nuts for it. Plus, I’ll give it the nod for having more consistently good performances from all the actors, whereas Apocalypse is partly fascinating for the weird performances some of the actors give.
Any time you have to start your conversation about a movie (or any cultural artifact) with the phrase “I understand why,” you’ve started with a problem.
That being said, I understand why Kramer vs. Kramer was what it was when it was, but I tend to agree with TranquilityBase. Hoffman was arguably the finest actor of the decade through the 70s. While I’ve never liked Streep (and yeah, I know that is sacrilege to some), I appreciate what she brough to the film as well. But really? Give me a choice of films from that year to watch today, and its not going to make the top 10. Was it a better film than Apocalypse Now? Perhaps, but not nearly as interesting. Is it a better film than Life of Brian? Probably, but LoB is not only more fun, but I think ultimately a better social commentary. Better than The Warriors? Certainly, but not nearly as interesting to watch for me.
Much like Crash and a lot of other films the Academy has awarded, it was as noted a product of its time, and I don’t think it weathers well. And the costuming is just dreadful now :)
New Republic has a pretty good summary of the film that I just looked up and read. That was an amusing read. Recommended.
Well, I think Crash was a terrible pick even for its time, but I think everyone on the internet has hashed over that pick at least once. But yes, “product of its time” is sort of the thing with entertainment awards. Looking back, we can all find multiple years in which we’d pick a different winner based on our modern day tastes. Heck, Citizen Kane lost to How Green Was My Valley in 1941. (In fact, Citizen Kane didn’t actually win any of its nine Academy Awards nominations except Best Writing for an Original Screenplay.) It’s really kind of an even split for Best Picture movies to stand the test of time and remain the best among its peers critically.
I’ll be honest and say that if I had to pick the Best Picture out of that 1979 list now, it would be All That Jazz. Apocalypse Now is a great movie, but I think All That Jazz is the braver, more truthful film. Plus, those costumes, right?
I absolutely agree, All That Jazz would be my pick as well. I didn’t mention it because I don’t consider it controversial in the way that Apoc or others were, but Fosse was brilliant, Roy Scheider and Jessica Lange are both brilliant, and the movie is brilliant.
I made it about halfway through, and even reading a snarky deconstruction of the “film” gave me cancer. Thanks for nothin’, buddy.
I watched Mystic River once. I’ll not be watching it again. I don’t line up to watch Saving Private Ryan either… I’ll watch Kung Fu Panda once a day for a week if I am in the mood. I can still recognize the other two are better movies artistically.
I understand not liking parts of a movie or not finding it entertaining, but right alongside those movies we all like to watch are movies that are not really enjoyable but are good films… that’s the art part. Precious is also a hard one to rewatch. I can almost not do it.
That had more to do with the personal campaign against Welles and the vendetta against the film that William Randolph Hearst orchestrated than the quality of the film. Heck, Welles was booed at the Oscar ceremony. Any idea that Oscar wins are a measure of quality was driven from my mind way back in 1969 when Oliver! beat The Lion in Winter for Best Picture.
Good example.