Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Everyone is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.

Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.

It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.

Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.

The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.

This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.

I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!

The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
The main reason to see this film is Warren William, who is in top form as the shyster campaign manager. He is electric, constantly finding ways to fool the public and defeat the opposing party in the midst of the biggest disasters. William is a great actor -- I feel he never got his due. Bette Davis as his girlfriend also shines in an under-written role. Personally, I found Guy Kibbee not quite right as the lame-brained candidate that William and the others are trying to foist on the public. He seemed more like an empty canvas than a person. I would have preferred to see a real character emerge rather than a non-character. The story itself is implausible, silly and cliched. But Warren William and Bette Davis are well worth watching.