To go for a recent movie, the ending of Bridge of Spies is really bad. Of course, spoilers follow... The entire arc is about a small man that sticks to his convictions even when his country, his colleagues and even his family think he is wrong. They are not really wrong, either. All of them has pretty understandable reasons to believe he is being stubborn and naive. It is one of the points of the entire movie. He is in a position of absolute lack of power. He goes to hell and back and his family doesn't even know about it, he convinces them that he was on a fishing trip. If the film ended there, with him being an unsung hero, it would have been much better.
Then the world finds out about it, and he gets recognition in the most unrealistic way posible. Out of the dozens of people involved in the operation and without even naming the hostages like it was secondary information, the president of the United States singles him out by calling him by name in national television and dedicating an entire paragraph of his announcement to point out how he was the reason the entire thing worked, and his courage, bravery and convictions are a pride to the american people, so that his wife and small child could see it and admite him for it. Even the old lady that scorned at him in the train now sees him with respect and admiration (we know its the same person because it is seated on the same seat, and dressed the same way).
I was not a fan of how they handled the USSR spy either. They handled the entire scene to make it look like his government was ashamed of him, and was going to execute him as soon as possible for the crime of being caught (because god forgive they portrait soviet Russia as anything but a corrupt and heartless police state), and then they put a small line before the credits to indicate that, actually, he returned to his family and lived and served for several decades. If they knew about it, why bother making the scene to emphasize that a) the American institutions are flawed but better than the alternative and b) his role is, in the end, a small one, because he can't save everyone; if they were going to refute both points less than 10 minutes later?
Then the world finds out about it, and he gets recognition in the most unrealistic way posible. Out of the dozens of people involved in the operation and without even naming the hostages like it was secondary information, the president of the United States singles him out by calling him by name in national television and dedicating an entire paragraph of his announcement to point out how he was the reason the entire thing worked, and his courage, bravery and convictions are a pride to the american people, so that his wife and small child could see it and admite him for it. Even the old lady that scorned at him in the train now sees him with respect and admiration (we know its the same person because it is seated on the same seat, and dressed the same way).
I was not a fan of how they handled the USSR spy either. They handled the entire scene to make it look like his government was ashamed of him, and was going to execute him as soon as possible for the crime of being caught (because god forgive they portrait soviet Russia as anything but a corrupt and heartless police state), and then they put a small line before the credits to indicate that, actually, he returned to his family and lived and served for several decades. If they knew about it, why bother making the scene to emphasize that a) the American institutions are flawed but better than the alternative and b) his role is, in the end, a small one, because he can't save everyone; if they were going to refute both points less than 10 minutes later?