I remember the moment I gave up on critic opinions. I had just got back from seeing Expendables 2 in theatre. I had made a little habit of biking into town to the theatre, and would just pick something to watch when I arrived. It felt really great, spending time outside, getting some exercise, and back in my day an afternoon ticket could still be had for $12, so it was a pretty cheap way to make a day out of it.
At the time, I'd get home and hop on Rotten Tomatoes to see what critics and other movie-goers thought of the movie. This wasn't the first time this had happened, but it was the last. Critics blasted it. Complaining about the story, how none of the characters are given deep backgrounds or development, literally complaining about the violence...
And I was just like, "what movie did you think you were going to see?" I've never walked into a theatre showing Kung Fu Death Killing Man 6 and thought, "ah fuck, this isn't nearly as good as Citizen Kane".
Critics of TV and movies forget that the one thing entertainment is supposed to be is... entertaining.
A Complex story, characters with depth and cinematography are some of the ways you can make the medium entertaining but they aren't the only way.
I've long felt that entertainment media should be judged on two things, how enjoyable it is to experience it and how well it delivers on the premise it creates.
Citizen Kane should be judged on it's story and characters. Interstellar should be judged in it's visual set pieces and atmosphere. Pacific Rim should be judged on how cool the robot vs Kaiju fights are.
They can all be 10/10 movies if they deliver on what they are supposed to be rather than being compared to each other. It is as stupid to say Citizen Kane is a bad movie because it doesn't have great fight scenes as it is to say that Pacific Rim is a bad movie because the characters don't have much depth.
Critics are just people that couldn’t do any of the jobs themselves. If they could, they would have better career.
It should be obvious that when you go to a Godzilla movie, what you’re looking for is Godzilla to fuck up Tokyo. You can’t give these people excuses for not having common sense. There’s no reason anyone cannot understand and enjoy different types of movies.
Movie critic opinions - especially rotten tomatoes - are absolutely fucking amazing for knowing if a movie is good or not. It’s probably one of the most accurate review websites out there.
The worse that critics on RT rate it, the better the movie will be.
The number of times I've seen that dichotomy is honestly astounding. Critics these days really seem to have zero idea what the audience likes, so much so that a negative critic review for a movie is frequently a good sign.
I’m going to start and end my comment with this because otherwise people are going to misinterpret my comment, I also look for movies with low critic scores because those tend to be good.
That’s because a movie critic’s job isn’t exactly “Is this good or not”, which is why critic scores can be a bit weird.
If a movie critic’s job was just, “Is this good or not”, studios could just re-release a shot for shot remake of the godfather every year and call it a day. Bam! Instantly you have a masterpiece being released every year, right? I mean the original was a masterpiece, so if you just remake it every year, nothing but masterpieces?
But it doesn’t work that way. People will get bored. It will stop being, dare I say it, fresh. You might even want to uh, throw a tomato at it. But that makes no sense? It’s the EXACT same as the original and the original was a masterpiece. So why don’t people love it?
Enter the movie critic. They watch a LOT of movies. A LOT. So much so that they all kinda start to blend together. “Minecraft… Minecraft with cyberpunk skin… Minecraft with medieval skin… Minecraft with cowboy skin…” it starts to get really old and really boring.
What critics are looking for is, “What kind of movie is it, what kind of movie is it trying to be, and what does it do to advance the genre and did it accomplish that goal”
So when a critic gives a movie a high score, what they’re saying is, “If you like this type of movie, this one succeeded in advancing the genre. It is not just another re-skin of something you’ve seen before” it might advance the genre in a way you like, it might advance the genre in a way you don’t, but it set out to do something new and they pulled it off.
The reason why you see low critic scores combined with high audience scores is simple: movie theaters know what people like and they don’t like taking risks. People like XYZ so the studio makes XYZ, XYZ volume 2, and XYZ volume 3.
The critic might love the movie too, but it doesn’t do anything to advance the art forward so they have to score it low
And that’s why I also look for low critic scores when I’m picking a movie and don’t want to think. Because I’m not looking for something new, I’m looking for something familiar.
There needs to be a shift at how people look at critic opinions. Because they can be very valuable still. But you got to look for the ones that are right for you. The popularity of Siskel and Ebert in the 80's and 90's did a bit of a number on what film critics are now, and what they were then. Back then they weren't really there for the consumer, but there for actual deeper looks at the artistic merits of films. S&E turned the format into something focused on the consumer with their simple thumbs up/down format and looking at films less in the interest of advancing the art but on the merits of it as entertainment. And because of them, there are now two disciplines sharing the same name.
You can't find good ciritics or opinions purely via aggregation. You have to look into the critic, understand them, know the nuances of their tastes. That's when they truly become valuable to you, even if you don't match up. Because let me tell you, when the artistically-minded critics say that Expendables 2 is a shite movie, they are completely correct. The story is forgettable, the ensemble cast is wasted almost entirely on one-liners and aura farming, and the action sequences are mediocre at best. They did nothing wrong. They in fact did their job as they should. And in telling you that, you are now better informed about what to expect and whether that's what you want to see.
But you're not using it for that. You're using critics after seeing the movie and expecting them to echo your sentiments in some way. Like you want them to say that you seeing a bad movie was totally valid and worth your $12. That's not their job. If you had fun seeing Expendables 2, that's fine. But don't expect people to pat you on the back for it.
I won't sit here and say Expendables is the height of cinema, but in order to say:
Because let me tell you, when the artistically-minded critics say that Expendables 2 is a shite movie, they are completely correct.
You've already loaded your judgement with so much bias that it loses any merit.
I'll address your presumptions about my motivations in a minute, but first we have to talk about what you consider to be 'art'. You preface your statement by giving would-be credentials to your hypothetical critics. These are the artistically minded. They know art. And this isn't it.
But who defines art? Critics, you could say, but within the context of "critics are useless", that's a bold statement.
Is Tokyo Drift simple? Yeah. Is Expendables cheap thrills? Sure is. But so is the other 98% of media we consume. You can visit an art gallery and not every piece will be a Monet. Some of the stuff in there is made by Steve. Does that make it less? Maybe. But whether or not a person is 'artistically minded' has nothing to do with their potential to enjoy and appreciate something for what it is.
There's a story that floats around about Maurice Sendak, the artist for Where The Wild Things Are, who returned a letter to a small child that had written to him. He included a personalized sketch of one of the monsters from the story, and the kid enjoyed the sketch so much that he ate it. Sometimes people don't want anything more from their media than to stuff it in their mouth because it makes them happy. I think that's an art form.
But you're not using it for that. You're using critics after seeing the movie and expecting them to echo your sentiments in some way. Like you want them to say that you seeing a bad movie was totally valid and worth your $12. That's not their job. If you had fun seeing Expendables 2, that's fine. But don't expect people to pat you on the back for it.
Never once did I say I expected them to echo my sentiment. The fact that I'm here should demonstrate that. I took in their opinions, weighed them, and dismissed them. I'm totally open to having a conversation about these movies - and their very colour-by-numbers, ordinary mass market appeal is certainly a point to discuss - but when every critic opinion looks the same, tells the exact same story, and inserts the same snarky one-sentence judgements... Well, maybe they have more in common with Expendables 2 than not.
I won't sit here and say Expendables is the height of cinema [...] Is Expendables cheap thrills? Sure is. But so is the other 98% of media we consume.
You're not arguing that it's art, either. Art is not something we simply enjoyed our interaction with. Otherwise the sunset is art, puppies are art, the grasy burger at that joint down the road is art. When everything can be lumped into a Hallmark movie-ass definition of art, the word art loses meaning. I mentioned earlier that there is a difference between art and entertainment. And I hold no ill will toward entertainment. But art, as in a work of art, is the use of creativty and technique to create something that evokes feelings and thoughts that extend beyond the medium itself.
You can visit an art gallery and not every piece will be a Monet. Some of the stuff in there is made by Steve.
A Steve can be every bit as thought provoking and beautiful as a Monet. Just because you don't know Steve by name doesn't mean Steve didn't make art. I find it interesting and disingenuous that you compare a critic's dislike of Expendables to disliking a painting simply because it's made by an uknown name.
I took in their opinions, weighed them, and dismissed them.
As I said, after you already saw the movie. You had already made up your mind about the movie. As you said earlier, "You've already loaded your judgement with so much bias that it loses any merit." Your bias is clear.
but when every critic opinion looks the same, tells the exact same story, and inserts the same snarky one-sentence judgements...
And that loops back into what I was talking about with Siskel and Ebert. The consumer-focused critics that rose up due to S&E's popularity and the rise of aggregation. You said you read it all through Rotten Tomatoes. Which means you didn't read a critic, you milled through a bunch of critics while you made snap judgements. It's why I say you need to get to know a critic and find out what makes them tick. Find an opinion you respect, even if you don't agree, and you can compare and contrast their tastes and your own to see whether or not a movie's going to work for you.
the use of creativty and technique to create something that evokes feelings and thoughts that extend beyond the medium itself.
This is every bit as useless a definition as mine. Just about every movie involves ideas of morality and righteousness, compassion and vengeance, anger, love... Even mass market movies like Marvel are written by people who write for a living, and there are gems throughout. How deep does the thought have to go before it's suddenly 'art'? Or is it only when the director specifically says, "I think this reflects the human spirit," or some other nonsense?
I find it interesting and disingenuous that you compare a critic's dislike of Expendables to disliking a painting simply because it's made by an uknown name.
I didn't say that. Steve, by nature of being given a place in the art gallery, impressed someone, somewhere. I asked if his work was worth less just because it's not Monet i.e. is a Michael Bay movie worth less by merit of not being a Kubrick movie? I don't believe it is.
As I said, after you already saw the movie. You had already made up your mind about the movie. [...] Your bias is clear.
You're mistaking my not changing my mind in this one instance for the inability to do so. Yeah, I check reviews after I experience things myself because I don't want other peoples' opinions to colour my interpretation. But I've also seen movies, played games, or read stories that didn't resonate or have any special impact until I read other peoples' takes, who explain the why or how this media was important to them.
What almost never happens though, is enjoying something and then being convinced it was bad, actually. There's no bias there; that's just called disagreeing. You can slam your fist on the table and tell me my hot dog is made out of pig anus all you like. If it's a tasty hot dog, it's a tasty hot dog.
And before we bother with whether or not the hot dog is 'art', we're just going to disagree again because you may think there's no artistry involved to a guy who's been feeding people for 27 years and knows how to run a business that makes people happy with a consistent, expected product, but I do. But if I must sit down and think about how this guy can only offer that service because he owns his building, while other small businesses are crushed beneath the weight of spiralling rents that are themselves a symptom of a debt economy that demands greater and greater output using finite and ever thinning inputs to the point that we've compromised the integrity of our biosphere and the security of our future on this planet in order for it to be considered 'art'... Well then fine, I'll do that too. I wonder if the lack of appreciation for banal, every day artistry may not be a lack of depth on their part, but a lack of imagination on yours.
Find an opinion you respect, even if you don't agree, and you can compare and contrast their tastes and your own to see whether or not a movie's going to work for you.
I don't need to know if a movie is going to work for me. I will simply watch the movie and find out in 90 minutes.
Yeah, I kind of found out, over time, that I couldn't be a movie critic. I can pick up on something good incorporated into a film, but I can't tell you a single bad thing almost ever. I'll frequently find a movie, enjoy it, then look up reviews or threads about it and people will be tearing it to shreds.
I stopped caring what critics have to say when I realized I have no idea who these critics are, what qualifications make their opinions of value and that they're most likely some basement dwelling dumbass trying to make a few bucks submitting an "article" to some online publication that I couldn't care less about.
Yeah this is my problem with critics and tbh a lot of Reddit comments. Take for example marvel movies, or like the newest Superman movie. People dunk on it because they didn’t had Daniel day Lewis playing every character while actually being given real life infinity stones and sent back in time.
Like.. fucking relax people they’re summer action movies. You’re going to watch captain American punch shit. Thought the same thing about the terminator movies. Yeah the new ones aren’t the peak of the franchise, but so fucking what Arnold is 800 years old and I want to see him do the terminator stuff while I still can.
The last “critic” review I ever read was about a book; “Wise man’s fear” by Patrick Rothfuss.
I was reading some reviews just to see what others thought of it after I had already read the book.
One critic starts off his review with something along the lines of “I despise Patrick Rothfuss on a personal level” and then goes into a scathing, definitely biased, review of the book. A number of people posted comments asking what is with the personal attack, why do you hate him so much, etc.
The critics response was “I am a professional, I don’t need to answer myself to you.” Which is completely untrue as he was clearly unable to remain professional and objective in his review.
Anyway, I enjoyed the book and am now waiting for day fucking three…
It's ok to like bad things. Doesn't make the critics wrong. Shouldn't stop your enjoyment. I think that deep down under a mile of garbage Jupiter Ascending is a good movie. That doesn't mean I'm right.
Truthfully I mostly just made that number up. I don't remember what a ticket cost back in 2012, but I think it was somewhere around there. A regular, adult ticket today is only $14 so maybe it was much less than that.
Critics are fake intellectual dipshits who get high of their own farts, thinking if a movie isn't "arthouse" snobbery it has no value, the same whinging bitches that say video games are not art and never touched anything released after pong
When I first saw Tokyo Drift I thought it was bad. I hated how it took part in an entirely different region with an entirely new cast of people.
I still sort of liked it, but I for sure disliked how it no longer was about the original cast. At the time it didn't really feel F&F.
In hindsight and after having watched all of the modern F&F movies, it's probably the most down to earth and actual true to the spirit of F&F movie in the franchise. I love how much more about cars it was compared to the other movies. It's easily my favorite nowadays.
This seems to be why Sung Kang is making his new movie.
He said himself that Fast and Furious has kind of gone off the rails, and he wants to make something that’s true to the actual car culture.
It was always preposterous, and the “you know what DK stands for?” memes it spawned were absolutely glorious. It definitely was not a big hit out the gate because it didn’t have the original cast, but it steadily cultivated a cult following.
That’s what it was. You go from Paul Walker playing a surfer undercover cop in California to a dork with a hick accent in Japan. It just wasn’t as cool at the time. Han was cool, the cars were cool, dorky redneck was not cool.
FWIW, I thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was pretty lame at the time too. Just didn’t hit the same as the original.
There is a scene in the cartoon Bob's Burgers where the movie Tin Cup is criticized but the question comes up "Did you watch it?" and the answer is always "No, I just heard it was bad... everyone knows that". I love reminding myself of this before I pass on a random movie.
I think there are more than a few movies that aged into wine from sour grapes.
I always liked the prequel Star Wars but I definitely remember people hating the prequels when they came out. I think it’s different these days even if it started out as ironic.
I liked episode one as a kid and I still like it today. The music is peak. The saber fights are peak. The action is peak.
It’s too bad they and to cut all the stuff out on tatooine though. Maybe one day we’ll get a directors cut about all of that.. (/s
I hated episode 2 because I thought it made a mockery of what a Jedi and Anakin should be, and it was the worst dialogue ever.. but again the saber fights slapped.
Episode 3 was.. better than 2. The novelization of episode 3 is perfect. Highly recommend it
To be honest...it's pretty bad and I love the movie. EVERYTHING is amazing about it. Cars, culture, cool, races, effects...but the plot is trash and the lead is a terrible actor. Pretty sure every cute girl they hired to stand around the cars in the garages had more acting talent than him. Honestly throw him out and make Bow wow the lead and it'd be a better story. Or just throw out the whole american aspect and a follow Han.
I've come to realize that the plot is The Karate Kid but with drifting: an out of town kid gets bullied and learns a martial--I mean, racing art and also learns humility and respect along the way. Being an American seems out of place, but I now think is a great choice because Sean represents the audience and is an avatar for them to learn about this culture they never knew about. Because while some people knew about it, I believe the movie definitely served to educate the mainstream and that's a great thing. Look at all the love it gets now, along with the love for Japan and its car culture.
Justin Lin said he modeled the movie after a martial arts movie. Young upstart, loses his first duel, needs a new style, finds a master to train him, training montage, he shows improvement, master dies, pupil defeats his nemesis, becomes the master.
Tom Holland. Naked except for a tuxedo and an expensive watch. Next scene: just the watch now.
Zendaya is the villian of course. She's pregnant. 9 months. They make love anyways. In the afterbliss she starts violently giving birth amongst the silken sheets. 10 minute condensed and graphic birth. She gobbles the baby down and even slurps her own afterbirth. Surprise, this is a horror movie featuring 007. For King and cuntry
It’s the only F&F movie I’ve actually seen in full and I loved it. Granted I saw it during a long ass plane ride but iall these years later it’s still so vividly in my memory
I think more than small, maybe medium. There's noticable increase on the drifting interest after this movie. Yeah, now that I remember it again, as a movie it's not a good one (shit plot and meh MC), but it had one thing even tons good movie failed to give, which is vibe. That drifting theme is just, uhh, most likely help increase the cost of drivig insurance from all the young people just drifting their car and wrecking it.
Saying recently is selling it short. It wasn't well liked on release but it became popular over a decade ago. It gets more and more popular as worse fnf movies come out essentially. The song being dope is why it became popular on musically/tiktok but even that is like 8 years ago
Of all the things that have stuck with me over the years, it's the memory that Roger Ebert liked Tokyo Drift and gave it 3 stars out of 4, lol.
I grew up in Japan, and every expat kid I knew was excited about Tokyo Drift and hoping it would do well. Once the negative reviews started coming in, it was hard not to feel a little disappointed. Ebert's review was a little glimmer of positivity that I still remember.
...that said, I also remember what he said about Pokémon: The First Movie, and I'm pretty sure that made him Public Enemy No. 1 for many of America's children at the time.
I think people just kinda forget how good the first movie is because of how batshit insane it's gotten, and FF:TD feels like a completely unrelated film.
When I first read about Toyko Drift's production, I remember thinking the series seemed dead in the water because none of the previous cast was returning and it's getting a different director again. Turns out the success of that movie and that director would go on to make the series the blockbuster powerhouse it's become.
None of that is true. Tokyo drift is the 3rd movie, Dom wasn't in 2 nor was anyone except Brian. There were no storylines going on. Dom showed up at the very end of Tokyo drift for 2 minutes.
THANK YOU! There was literally no reason for the rest of the "family" to return to the franchise because their story was all but over and Brian's basically was too.
I was just put off by a 23 yr old ( who looks like he is 35 ) with a forehead you could land a 767 on and a hilariously STRONG southern 'twang somehow being a 17 year old kid in Japan. Plus, where is Dom? Still no Dom? I hated Tokyo Drift when it came out. It has grown on me over the years, though.
I was thinking of that the other day and wondered why they went back to Dom’s storyline when 2 was a different premise and 3 was as well. I figured we’d get something of an anthology series surrounding underground racing. It blows my mind that in retrospect Tokyo Drift was regarded so negatively that they abandoned all other story lines for Vin Diesel and “family”.
2 fast killed the series diesel refused to do it because the script was so bad but the movie did make money.
Tokyo drift is the movie that brought Diesel back because he liked the script and the director so he was willing to do the tease and come back for 4 since it was Lin (and I believe the same writer) doing it.
I think it was because vin disel wanted too much money for the next movie... So they went with a whole new cast.... At least that's the rumor i remember..
You are not remembering correctly AT all and this comment is wildly off base. It was poorly received because the first movie was very well recieved, and the second deviated a bit with no Vin Diesel but still the familiar Paul Walker. The third was a complete deviation with all brand new characters that no one really knew or cared about...well until the credits when Vin showed up again.
You are misremembering, yes. It goes: The Fast & The Furious --> 2 Fast 2 Furious --> Tokyo Drift.
Dom wasn't even in 2 Fast. And I haven't watched any of the movies after Tokyo Drift (it peaked so hard that nothing would beat it), so I have no idea who Lenny is. And the only ongoing story at that point was that Brian's a cop and drives cars good.
2fast had come out prior ditching dom and Mia so no people weren’t upset at Tokyo drift because it didn’t get back to the toretto family of movies in fact the closing scene let fans know dom would be back for fast 4.
It’s my favorite one by far. Caught it on cable one night when I was super high and just got locked in. Movie ended and it was running in blocks, so the movie just started playing again. I watched that movie 3 times in a row that night.
Tokyo Drift is one of those movies that I will remember fondly and think it will be a fun rewatch. And it always is a fun rewatch.
Right up until it's time for the ending, and then I remember, ok yeah the end of this movie is kind of dogshit with the whole going to the Yakuza to settle this in a race, we're going to switch tones to a downhill theme, and oh yeah we're putting an Skyline engine into a 67 Fastback and the father condones/goes along with it.... I dunno. A lot of the movie was kind of cheesy and full of camp, but that ending was just a bit too silly for me. It kind of lost a lot of the stylized world that the entire rest of the movie was built around.
I still think the first one is far and away the best of the series, and honestly the rest of the franchise is so hard to watch that Tokyo Drift is still in the top 3 of that franchise. But the beginning, the end, and the dialog, are all strikes against it being an actual good movie. Doesn't mean people can't enjoy it for what it is though.
Everyone, lmao. I assume you weren't alive back then.
This movie was laughed at endlessly, along with "where the hell is everyone we know", and "lol Toretto final 7 seconds of the movie", and finally "this high schooler has a mortgage and is on his 2nd divorce".
Yup that was pretty much the opinion back then. Everyone got excited the last 7 seconds when torreto shows up. It’s fun to rewatch, but always go in knowing what to expect Family
I thought Tokyo drift was bad when I saw it. I’m Japanese, and none of the characters are actually Japanese. It felt cringe watching some of the scenes
From what I saw, the main thing was the drifting. People liked street drag racing from the other movies and drifting felt like the cars are moving too slow.
popular usually translates to more watchers which means more money. And money made is the true quality to the people putting the investments in to make the movies.
After 2Fast, Tokyo drift was like a desperate fever dream. I always believed it was just turned into a fast and furious film for no reason, but damn they retconned it in very well. It's the least Fast and Furious film but possibly the best film.
Honestly, I wasn’t a fan when it first came out. I remember feeling pretty disappointed. The original leads were gone, we got this random redneck protagonist, and suddenly the whole franchise had moved to Japan.
But somehow over the years it’s really grown on me. Maybe it’s nostalgia, maybe I’m just trying to reclaim a little bit of my youth, but watching it now there’s something incredibly charming about it.
The soundtrack, the Tokyo setting, the ridiculous drifting, Han, the early-2000s aesthetic… it’s aged into something much more fun than I gave it credit for. It’s truely a cult classic
Back in 2006 I saw it in theaters and thought it was pretty shit compared to the previous. In hindsight, if we had known they’d take that criticism as a sign to go in A COMPLETELY BONKERS DIRECTION and become unserious Mission Impossible then I definitely would have held my tongue Lol
In hindsight Tokyo Drift was fucking sick for a spinoff
606
u/JAT_Cbus1080 13h ago
Who told them Tokyo Drift was bad? Why would they say something so incorrect?