If Will Smith’s Performance Review Was In The Real World He’d Be Out Of A Job

The truth hurts.

Will Smith is a true American gift.

I love him, you love him, everyone loves him. And it’s easy to understand why: he’s charismatic, and funny, and super real and gives off ‘cool dad’ vibes that don’t make you want to roll your eyes and punch him.

As an actor, he’s good too. He’s starred in a variety of different roles and proved his skills are diverse. He can play a hilariously useless 90s kid from the ‘burbs just as well as he can play a hustler (I’m referring to Fresh Prince and Focus, obviously).

So you may be shocked to discover Will Smith hasn’t broken a 70% rating on Rotten Tomatoes in over 20 years.

That’s almost two thirds of his career.

20 years is a loooong time.

You might be shocked. Or maybe, like me, you were not as shocked as you thought you would be because, honestly, it kinda makes sense.

The last of Will’s films which hit over the 70% mark was Enemy of the State in 1998 with a whopping 71%. Since then he has appeared in 20 films

Only five of those 20 are considered ‘fresh’ films: I Am Legend, MIB III, Hitch, Pursuit of Happyness, and Ali. Despite that, they still haven’t cracked 60%.

His highest rating movie? Men In Black (1997) with 92%.

And his lowest was After Earth (2013) with 11%. Rough.

It’s been a while since Will got ratings like these.

Will’s movies are great entertainment value but, let’s be real, his ratings would not be good enough in the real world. As far as performance reviews go, a 70% average maintained over 20 years with no improvement is not good. The man would be out of a job.

You heard me.

So the question is WHY? Why hasn’t old mate been able to get a decent Rotten Tomatoes rating for so long?

Fans are behind him, he gets good jobs in good movies with good production value (I mean, Aladdin??).

Some Redditers have some thoughts:


Most people, however, are defending Will’s honour.


Personally, I don’t trust Rotten Tomatoes. Focus is one of my favourite movies of all time and it only got a measly 56%. It’s a rigged system and I won’t be told otherwise.

Long live King Will.

Long live the king.

The Animal Kingdom Facts That Will Forever Ruin The Lion King For You

Can you feel the lies tonight?

The Lion King is a classic. It’s got all the trimmings of a good movie: comedy, tragedy, romance, ~impressive~ 1990s animation.

The kind of stuff you just can’t replicate (the live-action remake is gonna suck, IMO).

The Lion King might be all song and dance on screen but the real life African Serengeti is much more…unpolished, shall we say.

I mean, they are animals after all. And as cuddly and kind as they may look on screen (with the exception of Scar who will forever remind me of a crazy uncle) they’re slobby, messy horny bastards in real life.

And these animal kingdom facts will prove it.

WARNING: reading on may cause severe distress, nightmares, distrust toward your mother/father/parents and serious cynicism regarding all Disney films in future.

Let’s start with something on the gentler side of things: real-life lions sleep for 20 hours a day which means, if The Lion King was accurate, literally nothing would get done.

Imagine only having four hours to murder your brother, exile his son and steal his throne.

Tell that to Mufasa.

Fact number two (still warming you up): the closest animal relative to the hyena is a meerkat. Which means that Timone was probably related to Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed.

If you squint you can kinda see the resemblance.

Also, Mufasa was a fake king.

Don’t get me wrong, he was a great dude with a great voice courtesy of James Earl Jones, but he ain’t no king in the real world.

Lion society is actually matriarchal. The females do the hunting, establish hierarchy, look after cubs and basically run the show.

Speaking of male-female relations, here’s an extra special fact for you: there’s only one adult lion in each pride. Which means that one male gets all of the sexy time. Which means that with Scar gone Simba would have had to sex all of the female lions.

ALL of them.

That’s some serious mother-son bonding right there.

I’ll never watch this scene in the same away again.

The above fact also means that Simba and Nala are siblings.

I don’t condone sibling relations but the pride isn’t exactly full of options- Nala and Simba are the only cubs. Their romance is a product of their situation and makes practical sense.

Romantically it presents a whole bunch of issues, but I’m just gonna ignore those.


But there’s a reason that Nala and Simba are the only children in the pride.

Brace yourselves.

When a lion is killed or exiled (à la Mufasa) the new leader and his pride don’t want to bring up children that aren’t their own. They want to be able to breed their own family with the lionesses.

So what do they do? Commit casual infanticide.

Yep, Scar would have killed all the younglings in the pride after Mufasa’s death to establish power and throw all the lionesses back into heat.

The worst bit is Mufasa before him would have done the same thing. Which means that Mufasa is not the great guy we all thought he was.

Tbh, that is the worst reality-check of them all. Why Mufasa? WHY? 

Me finding out the truth about Mufasa.

Even Netflix Thinks You're Toxic For Labelling Good Films 'Chick Flicks’

Movies are not gender specific.

This may come as a shock to some, but we live in a pretty progressive world.

And I’m not just talking about the eating breakfast for dinner kind of progressive (although that is the kind of positivity I need in my life). I’m talking about the grittier stuff: same-sex marriage, gender fluidity, women getting treated as equals (shocker).

All of these things are commonplace in today’s world and, rightfully so. Love is love and all that jazz. I’m here for it all.

But society’s way of thinking is still so gendered. It’s also still very normal which is why we often don’t think twice about it and we definitely don’t notice it.

Think of the phrase ‘chick flick’, for example. What does that even mean????

Movies aren’t made exclusively for women so why the hell do we treat them like they are?

And deny it is you might, there is a certain embarrassment attached to watching a chick flick if you’re not:

a) Female

b) Homosexual

c) Going through a break up

d) All of the above.

Never in my life have I heard a dude openly admit he likes The Notebook. And that’s a damn good movie.

Well, Netflix is here to tell you that kind of thinking is total B.S.

Pretty straight forward. No chickens = don’t do it.

If there are no chickens, it’s not a chick flick.

If that isn’t a good enough reason for you, then hold onto your ego ‘cause Netflix went hard on the explanation.

Firstly, everyone loves love. And comedy.

Secondly, women shouldn’t get ‘special’ treatment. We want equal film viewing opportunity, thank you very much.

Then there’s just the fact that using the term ‘chick flick’ is tacky and straight-up insulting to anyone involved in the film’s production.

Watching something you ENJOY is not a joke.

Basically, gender norms suck.

Making assumptions about another human being based off of their movie watching habits just means you’re small-minded, if you ask me. A human is so much more than the media they consume, just like a movie is so much more than its title and plot.

Stop saying you’re “too cool” to watch a romance movie.

Stop saying you “don’t like” movies with female leads because your masculinity secretly feels threatened.

Stop thinking and just bloody enjoy the movie. That’s what they’re there for after all- to be enjoyed.

Oh, and stop adding labels to things. It’s toxic and, honestly, just plain boring.

Don’t limit the movies you watch.


Show More Show Less

Follow Us