Who the fuck are these contrarian fucksticks who give it negative reviews for no reason other than to drag down the...

Who the fuck are these contrarian fucksticks who give it negative reviews for no reason other than to drag down the average? Don't they look at the other reviews and realize how retarded they sound for having trouble understanding a film that everyone else enjoys? And they have the gall to act like their opinion is the only truth.

Other urls found in this thread:

newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/03/baby-driver-and-my-journey-through-french-cinema
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Who gives a fuck about RottenTomatoes?

LOL oh my god you can't be this stupid. Do you even know how art criticism works? Are you a baby? Little babies shouldn't watch big boy movies.

>And they have the gall to act like their opinion is the only truth.

ooooh little baby don't understand irony. How pathetic little baby.

It's widely loved by critics and audiences. Even Armond White liked it and he loves to go against the consensus and stir up shit. So who cares that a handful of tasteless idiots shit on it? Why are you so upset over something as worthless as the TomatoMeter?

user, they can't have the score that close to "Get Out"

would be problematic.

Rotten Tomatoes ruined movie reviews.
>movie gets good reviews after the festival circuit
>suddenly 100% on RT
>people see a 100% and treat it as an amazing movie, not as a good movie that everyone so far liked
>hype increases to retard levels
>someone watches it and doesn't think it's amazing
>gives it a negative review

You're the one acting like your opinion is the only truth.

I like the movie but honestly, the script is nothing special. I could see someone disliking it just based on that. A lot of the relationships aren't super well developed, and the conflict doesn't feel particularly original. It's well directed but if someone was expecting a good story, I could definitely see them giving it a negative review.

Still a 7/10

>the script is nothing special
>the script

You read it or are you one of those retards who shouldn't be discussing films?

Are you retarded?

When you mean "plot" say plot. If you substitute the words script and plot then you know nothing about filmmaking or films and you shouldn't be discussing neither.

newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/03/baby-driver-and-my-journey-through-french-cinema
>One day, Baby wanders into a diner, and tumbles into love with a waitress, Debora (Lily James). There’s no sense that he is entering this diner, in this particular spot, as Marty McFly does, in “Back to the Future.” Rather, we feel that we are on a movie set, and the ensuing dialogue does nothing to curb that impression
>The regrettable truth is that Baby’s a dull boy. “Aren’t you mysterious?” Debora asks. “Maybe,” he says. Or maybe not. His voice is papery, he appears to think that sunglasses are still chic, and, if his movements have any snap, it is supplied by the editing.
>He’s an agglomeration of tics and style tips.
>The good news is that, although “Baby Driver” is not much of a movie, it is an excellent music video—a club sandwich for the senses, lavishly layered with more than thirty songs.

EDGAR BTFO

Why the fuck would they make a prequel to Driver called fucking Baby Driver...?

script and plot are not synonyms

The script was fine, the characters weren't very complex but that was never the selling point of the film.

You can have two scripts that have the exact same plot but are wildly different, based on how they're scripted.

No fucking shit Sherlock. Literally my entire point.
Hi another retard. Leave Sup Forums

>The New Yorker

Literally just a retard spewing dumb shit. Plot is made in the editing room, scripts are just words on the page. The fact that I have to explain this to you means you shouldn't be here.

What do you read?

>Plot is made in the editing room

lol

I know the script is fine. I just said it was nothing special. It's not bad or anything, just serviceable, which makes it really stick out when compared to all the fantastic parts of the film.

I didn't mean the plot, I meant the script, which encompasses things like dialogue, character relationships, and plot, as well as thematic content. All of these things are lacking in the film. You don't have to read the script to critique it. Although even if you did read it, something tells me you wouldn't be able to understand english too well.
>you shouldn't be discussing neither

Script generally refers to dialogue and basic direction in a film. I'm surprised you've never come across an instance of a critic using the word script to refer to the films writing. It's extremely common

>In the meantime, he falls for Debora, a woefully underwritten waitress. This is not a female-friendly film. Darling feels like The Woman You Have To Have These Days, Whether You Like It Or Not, while Debora, played by Lily James, serves little function beyond being pretty and innocent. She has no back story, no decent lines, no smarts. (She’s not even smart enough to spell her name properly; where’s your ‘h’, girl?) I would also add that of the 30 songs on the soundtrack, only four are performed by women, and most of those are rolled out during the soft, romantic scenes. (We couldn’t have had some Patti Smith? Blondie?) Or, to put it another way, this is 87 per cent male, aurally.

Was it sexism?

>who give it negative reviews for no reason other than to drag down the average?

Are you unironically asking for everyone to have the same opinion on everything?

>a film, and therefore it's plot as well isn't made in the editing room

ever heard of terrence malick?

> I meant the script, which encompasses things like dialogue, character relationships, and plot, as well as thematic content

All those things can change, appear and disappear during shooting and editing. Iron Man was made without a script.

>I'm surprised you've never come across an instance of a critic using the word script to refer to the films writing

I have and those people shouldn't be talking about films.

If someone actually watched this movie and thought Debora was completely useless, they weren't paying attention.

This is literally Drive: Scott Pilgrim edition. If you think it's a masterpiece you need to go back to Réddit.

>>He’s an agglomeration of tics and style tips.
Just described Edgar Wright there.

>The title takes its cue from the song of the same name, by Simon and Garfunkel, and contains both the identity and the job description of the hero. He is a driver, and he is called Baby (Ansel Elgort). Things could be worse, I guess. He could be Cecilia. Or Rock. Or a fair-haired guy called Scarborough.

kek

Anthony Lane did it.

>le Terrance Malicks shoots without a script meme
Complete bullshit user

You're confusing plot with story. You can easily cut and change elements of a story via editing, you cannot change the central plot without changes to the script.

He's famous for cutting out actors (and therefore their characters) out of the movie, therefore changing the plot of the film. He's a radical example that scripts can very much differ from the finished film and if you only have seen the finished film and haven't read the script, stick to talking about the film.

I see your point and I more or less agree tho my point still stands. When talking about story, don't use the word script.

In real life I usually read local papers and the New York Post, online I read whatever grabs my attention. I'm not proud of reading the New York Post, I know it has a lot of tabloid tier bullshit but every once in a while it has some interesting articles. Anyway, The New Yorker is shit. It's a bunch of pretentious pricks sniffing their own farts.

Driver isn't the name of a movie you idiot.

What if your problem is with more than just the story? Perhaps, other elements that are also encompassed in the script?

But I still wasn't talking about story. I was talking about the script. Just because some movies are made without a completed script doesn't make that the rule. Those are the exception, and the vast majority generally stick to it.

Ok. Of course editing can change the structure of a film. No one's arguing against that, but the script (99%) of the time dictates the dialogue and overall story of a film.

ITT: MUH SEMANTICS!

Solid criticism

It's literally the most serious and realistic film Edgar Wright has ever made. It's completely different from the cartoonish style of Scott Pilgrim. It's obvious you haven't seen it.

Ugh, I know. Why can't everyone have the same opinion?

>serious and realistic

COMPARED TO HIS OTHER FILMS. I'm aware Baby Driver isn't a reflection of real life.

You can't even read properly

Saw it last night. Other than my party there were 4 people in the theater. It was a pretty good movie whenever someone other than Baby or Debora was on the screen. Baby was fine with other characters but the Debora romance shit was slow, boring, and felt like it was written by a middle schooler. Frank Underwood's sudden I'll hold off the cops moment was fucking retarded. Just giving him the money was more than enough. The movie's gimmick was really cool and I didn't know shit about it going in so that was a nice surprise. Overall though, the highs weren't quite high enough and the lows kinda dragged. Also the weird 50s aesthetic in the flashbacks were throwing me off considering Babby would have been born in like 1995.
6.5/10 would have it on in the background while doing other shit. That way you can just ignore the shitty parts.

Also could have used some more actual driving scenes.

Did you literally stop school at the second grade or something?

how did he survive after he got stabbed in the gut at the end of the last movie?

I read this entire post in Megumin's voice.

Baby driver is a prequel

oh ok that makes sense

>Lots of movies are manipulative, but Edgar Wright’s action-comedy Baby Driver defines the era by pampering its teenage audience.

>Yet its most impressive moment invokes an obscure but cinematic icon: The hero nicknamed Baby (Ansel Elgort), an orphaned hipster who loves speed-racing and pop music and works for a crime boss as a getaway driver, loses the right lens of his sunglasses during a botched escape.

>This odd, striking occurrence recalls Jean-Paul Belmondo’s sunglasses lens popping out at the crisis point of Breathless (1961), as did Warren Beatty’s in Bonnie & Clyde (1967) and Jack Nicholson’s in Chinatown (1974). No mere coincidence, the visual image connects Baby Driver to its cool-crime-movie lineage (film scholars can trace it back further to Sergei Eisenstein’s eyeglasses montage in Battleship Potemkin). Such insider references make Baby Driver a curious, coddling delight. Like his Monsters, Inc.–quoting protagonist, the only thing Wright loves more than movies is pop music, and the film’s overflow of these pop references prove he is a more talented and artistic manipulator than Quentin Tarantino.

So it's literally family guy teir?

>For those who have desperately waited for morality to return to movies after Tarantino’s paradigm shift into nihilism, Baby Driver is almost it. But that’s exactly how it pampers. Wright’s evocation of cinematic history demonstrates the blinkered moral lookout that once defined the Baby Boomer generation — and now Millennials. The fears and scant hopes we feel today are personified in Baby, a hero on the Asperger’s scale, who shades himself from the world and plugs earbuds into his head, feeding the energy of pop songs into his alienated existence.

>Wright is also a satirist, as seen in his previous films Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which similarly used pop references to define his characters’ moral choices. The opening car chase here is a spectacular display of sharp editing and speedway hijinks that flip Walter Hill’s existential action-noir The Driver (1978) into a dangerous daytime parade. After this hyper-kinetic showing-off, Wright mocks Tarantino’s love of sadism by providing Baby with a sentimental motive: He falls for the orphaned waitress Debora (Lily James). Their love story is scored to Carla Thomas’s “B-A-B-Y,” Martha Reeves & the Vandellas’ “Nowhere to Run,” and Brenda Holloway’s “Every Little Bit Hurts,” each trenchantly expressing moments of romance, excitement, and fear.

>While Baby Driver’s crime plot is routine (riffing on The Usual Suspects), Wright’s movie and song references should return audiences to the principles that post-Tarantino culture has lost. Or have we been Occupied, Antifa’d and Fergusoned so harshly that the young generation Wright addresses enjoys only the shock of violence and no longer cares about the cultural heritage based on those non-Tarantino virtues: connection, respect, obligation, civility, and love?

>Wright makes several narrative explorations into honor-among-thieves, trust-between-lovers, and family-fidelity themes, but one stands out: Baby’s scariest criminal colleague is Bats (Jamie Foxx), a black ghetto fiend from the film’s Atlanta, Ga., setting. It’s Foxx’s best characterization since Any Given Sunday, and the Black Lives Matter mob should be analyzing it from now on.

>Bats updates Foxx’s title role in Django Unchained, QT’s inauthentic Blaxploitation-movie fantasy. Perhaps because Wright is English and somewhat distanced from those self-gratifying cultural delusions that made QT think he was revealing essential American race tensions, Foxx’s badass stereotype here is an undisguised, frighteningly modern miscreant. Bats doesn’t seek “justice,” he just wants money — and, secretly, he wants revenge for the social ills that, according to hip-hop ethos, have urged him toward heartlessness and crime. This is Hollywood’s first post–Michael Brown characterization, and, through this character, Wright pinpoints black ghetto resentments behind the slogan “Black Lives Matter.” Bats effectively sizes up his criminal rival (Jon Hamm, playing a former Wall Streeter) as “you acquired the kind of debt that makes a white man blush.”

No, Armond liked it. Read the full review.

>Baby’s white-boy innocence is the opposite of the seething menace represented by Foxx, Hamm, and Jon Bernthal’s Griff, revealing the conspicuous, audience-pampering, and ethnic cop-outs of most Hollywood entertainment. Baby’s collection of personally recorded mix-tapes and scenes with his black foster father Joseph (CJ Jones) nod to Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool, geek blockbusters that also pampered fans who take pleasure in feigning their innocence. But when Wright lets loose with his British-tinged social satire, Baby Driver compares to Jared Hess’s more genial crime comedy, Masterminds, and becomes the funniest and most incisive crime movie since Next Day Air. Wright goes beyond the comic-book and action-movie spoofs of QT’s ilk.

>Baby Driver might have equaled Breathless, Bonnie & Clyde, and Chinatown had Wright not peppered Baby’s crime spree with so many cute asides (or repeated several testimonies to the kid’s decency). His music cues and music-based sound design finally become glib and self-congratulatory (unlike the moving way a single pop song connected generations in the Mexican film Güeros). Consider that the smart-ass title “Baby Driver” is the title of a 1970 Simon and Garfunkel ditty about family heritage that recites, “My daddy was a prominent frogman / My mamma’s in the Naval reserve / When I was young I carried a gun / But I never got a chance to serve.” And then comes its most telling line: “I did not serve.”

>The reference to that song’s Vietnam Draft–era abstention (the choice of criminal rebellion over military service) establishes that baby-faced Elgort is a contemporary response to the anomie of Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle. Yet, that’s it. None of Baby Driver’s compacted pop-culture totems sparks consciousness like the Renaissance art that obsesses the teen hero in Eugène Green’s Son of Joseph. Though not as meretricious as the culture remixing by that innocent amoral idiot Tarantino, Wright is essentially shallow, which is akin to what made Paul Simon a gifted yet minor artist.

>I wanted Baby Driver to be great, but Wright doesn’t risk tragedy as Breathless, Bonnie & Clyde, and Chinatown did. Instead, Baby Driver caters to the blinkered, solipsistic state of our present-day culture; it’s an Asperger’s masterpiece.

Quit trying so hard, faggot. Spamming "REDDIT REDDIT REDDIT" isn't going to trick people into thinking you're an oldfag.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World is better than Drive

In fact, only newfags say "Reddit." The rest of us don't care.

>turd is better than turd

This is true.

>Who the fuck are these contrarian fucksticks who give it negative reviews for no reason other than to drag down the average?
I bet you have a micropenis

>edgy contrarian reviews because they had to go to the theater to watch the movie

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is great but Drive is a masterpiece.

Drive is a shitty derivative of other better movies. Bronson is Refn's only good movie.

Mind you I haven't seen that pusher trilogy

Watch The Pusher trilogy.

lol 8.3 rating
that's fucking shit on rt

STOP POSTING ABOUT MOVIES ON Sup Forums.
For fucks sake you retard redditors don't know how to use this site at all do you? Sup Forums is for TELEVISION, /m/ is for MOVIES. UNDERSTAND? Thankyou now stop shitposting and shitting up MY board.

What the fuck are you talking about? An 8.3 is amazing on RT.

I'll add it to my backlog

>Drive is a masterpiece.

It's really, REALLY not. Bronson was the peak of Refn.

>Drive is a masterpiece

>bothering to see a 20-year-old behind the wheel, that seasoned, hardened criminals seemingly trust with their money and their lives

Hello, millennial. The lead in this so-called "film" (a dishonest one, at that) is completely devoid of anything resembling "character". As you also possess none, allow me to explain.

Character is what's developed over a multitude of years, whether it be from working a shift at an abattoir and having some gruesomely-hilarious stories to tell your coworkers and/or friends, to being a getaway driver who's honed one's craft ALSO over a multitude of years, and probably has some hilarious stories to tell as well. You know - the stories one acquires from having actually lived life, as opposed to primping one's self in an upper-class cocoon one calls "home" and remaining blemish-free for the majority of one's entire 20 years.

Character, user, that usually manifests itself in lines across one's face - notably the forehead, around the mouth and around one's eyes. Lines that, should another person see them, they would automatically associate those lines with "I bet that person has some stories to tell." In this case, "Baby" has NO stories to tell. He has NO character. He has NO experience, NO interesting facial features and NO charisma. He is Gumby behind a steering wheel. One's immersion is ruined before one even decides to brave such a film, and one is left immeasurably-disappointed by the experience.

Unless of course, one is a millennial who has no idea about what "character" is.

THAT, user, is what I'm talking about. Character. Do YOU have any?

Stop forcing this shit.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You Edgar Wright cocksucking plebs just continue to expose your lack of knowledge and taste.

You tryhards just continue to spam mindless drivel. Baby Driver is very different from Scott Pilgrim and "reddit" isn't an argument. Now come up with some actual criticisms or fuck off.

What?

Baby Driver is a retarded name for a movie and I will not see it based on its name

>(((The New Yorker)))
Good goy!

king of Sup Forums has spoken

Yes, Drive is a masterpiece, stop hysterically moving your face at someone else's opinion as you type, AIDS fodder.

No, as you've been told, the editing does, because what appears in the finished film is down to the editing. Stop trying to be smart, you're just a peasant.

Proof that the people who hate Edgar Wright are insecure retards who are incapable of real discussion. You haven't made any real points, all you've done is shitpost.

I'll see it on $5 Tuesday

You're cherry-picking, and you're also ignoring the fact that nobody with any sense would waste their time trying to convert fanboys to their way of thinking. Wright has the kind of fans who can't handle any critical thoughts concerning their hero, so why waste energy on them?

So much this.

Rotten Tomatoes is rotten. Those ratings means nothing.

Ford God's sake, don't trust RT

this. the biggest thing I ever regret is being one of those people to tell people how much more informative and useful rotten tomatoes is than imdb scores 6-8 years ago. fucking kill me.

>you're also ignoring the fact that nobody with any sense would waste their time trying to convert fanboys to their way of thinking. Wright has the kind of fans who can't handle any critical thoughts concerning their hero, so why waste energy on them?
Translation:
>I'm a dumb memer who doesn't have any real arguments.

>It's completely different from the cartoonish style of Scott Pilgrim
not enough IMO. Edgar Wright sticks to this stylized rule of cool stuff far too often, and usually to the detriment of the film

I thought it was great during Baby's self contained character sequences mouthing and dancing to music but the cartooney action sequences towards the end i think really fell flat trying to follow up the kind of brutal and realistic violence that began the film's climax

Hello, millennial.

Sounds like somebody is triggered.

>everyone else enjoys
ha, good one, movie is super mediocre

Everyone under the age of 36 is a millennial. How old are you?

Sounds like someone is further proving my point.

Wouldn't it feel weird or unholy somehow for movies to regularly get 100%? I mean, I just think nothing is perfect on Earth.

It is being massively overpraised. Definitely a good movie and an easy one to watch but the only reason it's been as acclaimed as it has been is the summer studio season has been even more trash than usual. Whatever though, it's a good movie and it'll be nice to see something pretty solid actually make money for a change.

That isn't what it means though. If everyone thought a movie was decent, ie a 6/10 or above, it still gets a 100% approval rating. The % rating is the consensus, not necessarily the love that each individual person felt for the film.

Why do people not see the distinction?