@pwnsforyou1 Nope. He's a film scholar and a first rate film critic. He's an intellectual and a professional, and many (Over-zealous fanboys in particular) feel threatened by that.
@RogueRotting360 do you agree with him when he says that district 9 and the dark knight are terrible films? and do you agree with him when he gives gleaming reviews to Jonah hex and transformers 2?
@pwnsforyou1 I both consider District 9 and The Dark Knight to be highly overrated films, but I won't consider them terrible. However, what matters is the dialectic process in which he argues his conception of the film. That's what I agree with, and the same goes for the points he draws from the Jonah Hex and Transformers 2 pictures.
Most seem to be prurient about whether or not a reviews is 'a thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.' A mere barometer of consensus and conformity.
@RogueRotting360 One should not privilege the end before the means, when it comes to his reviews. What counts is the how he gets to the end result, not whether or not it can be reduced to a 'good' or 'bad' rating.
@RogueRotting360 I have to say I don't have alot of respect for him, he picks 1 or 2 minor flaws with a great movie and blows them completely out of proportion and it almost seems as though he takes what other people loved about a film and then turn it upside down, I hate to dwell on district 9, but for example the cgi in that film was fantastic, I mean even though those aliens were cgi they were completely believable. However Armond white says that the cgi is some of the worst he's ever seen?
@RogueRotting360 acctualy no that's was a bad example because that wasn't a flaw, but you understand me when I say that it's almost like he wants to stir controversy, thinks of a score, says oh crap! I need to justify this, and the picks out minor flaws as an afterthought. It seem to me as though if it was his magazine he would be publishing just the score and nothing else.
@pwnsforyou1 Believe me, the score is probably the last thing on his mind. That's immaterial. What matters (like I stated) is how he gets from A-Z. The socio-political context and ramifications, comparisons to past films, other directors etc...
His reviews often have a far wider scope than most film critics. They're not neat, insipid, check-lists of pros and cons - agitprop for fanboys and marketing.
He's impassioned by a film's wider arc, as opposed to small, inconsequential details.
@RogueRotting360 I really disagree, but I respect that you put forward a valid argument as opposed to the massive FUCK YOU that would normally be received.
I think Armond White is a troll. He says disagrees to evoke a reaction. Sometimes he has a point, but most of the time I think he is looking for a reaction. In this day and age of Rotten Tomatoes, he gets a reaction.
At the same time, people getting upset at his reviews are retarded. If you don't agree with a critic, it really isn't the end of the world.
@Lyingaboutmyage He inhabits the free thinking tradition of critics such as Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, and Manny Farber. None of the those were popular with the public, and if they were alive in the age of the internet where fanboys dictate consensus, they would have been considered 'intellectual trolls', much like Armond White - and cast out. But today, they're considered to be some of the finest film critics of the 20th century.
He's also fairly predictable in his reviews, which is the opposite of contrarian, who always shifts their stance. It depends mostly on the director, since he subscribes to auteur theory, and considers the director and his/her vision of prime importance. He'll probably favour True Grit, because it's the Coens; along with anything Jean Luc Goddard, John Moore, Wes Anderson, Paul W. S. Anderson, Edgar Wright, Wong Kar-wai, Stephen Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Jared Hess, Neil Jordan, and Mike Leigh.
@RogueRotting360 Armond is a wannabe political activist who somehow ended up being a film critic. My advice to him is that he should become an activist and leave film criticism to people who actually care about film criticism. You btw should stop trying to outdo Mr White in the trolling department. It's quite obvious your trolling because your use of a thesaurus seems to be at the same level as Mr Whites, which can be no coincidence.
@ShortytheSquirrel Oh, so I defend Armond White and use longer words - so I have to be trolling? It's the internet equivalent of Blacklisting if there was one - dismissing everyone who speaks out and defends something unpopular as a troll. Sorry that I don't do groupthink. A critic can bring in socio-political analysis and moralise if he wants, that's his freedom. Otherwise most critics would promote the latest hyped blockbuster, leaving their brains at the door - which is what's going on now.
@RogueRotting360 As I said, it can be no coincidence that you have an almost identical communication style to that seen in White's reviews AND you just happen to be defending Mr White. I, like most people, wasn't born yesterday. But maybe I'm wrong and you are legitimately defending white. In that case the smart thing to do would be to appeal to his detractors by using plain language to explain his positions instead of further alienating them by being just as overwrought and pretentious.
@ShortytheSquirrel I know what you mean in the case of White, but I haven't used any particularly complex words. 'Hipsters, secularism and nihilism' were coined by Armond White, not me. Purple prose means flowery language - the kind that White likes.
"And in each scene, Sorkin’s approach to Zuckerberg’s conduct is unctuous with fake significance, letting the protagonist’s eminence excuse his reprehensible misbehavior."
I don't do that. I agree with a lot of his ideas, just not his language.
@RogueRotting360 Speaking of White. Do ALL films have socio-political context? Did the creators of Toy Story, by and large a film aimed at children, have some socio-political message to share? A message that would almost certainly be over children's heads? I am convinced that even if white actually gives a damn about the films he is reviewing, (as opposed to what I really think he is doing), he is looking for things that simply aren't there. There is a thing called cynicism...
@ShortytheSquirrel Not all films have political content or implications, but most have social/sociological ones. While Toy Story 3's aimed at kids (and adults who want to remain as kids), that doesn't mean it isn't pushing a mass-consumerist agenda, unconsciously to audiences. Using a sentimental, soulless and clichéd story as a means to turn kids into unthinking drones, buying all the advertised toys - that's how the filmmakers operate, knowingly or unknowingly. That's Pixar's cynicism.
@RogueRotting360 What nonsense! You are saying White (and by extension you) claims to know what and how people think? That he has some sort of hyper-comprehension that allows him to read the minds of film makers? Just stop for a minute and realize what you are defending here! Here is a man to claims to know better than the film makers themselves, the creators of these films who knew what went into them, what it meant and what they were trying to get across. You are defending pure arrogance!
@ShortytheSquirrel Sure, he claims to know how people think (including film makers) - any film critic and director worth his salt should understand how people's minds operate. Not in a nonsense telepathic sense, but simple life experience. He doesn't claim to know to everything under the sun, but nor does he claim to know nothing. As as a 50-60 something African American who hasn't lived in a bubble, I think it's fair to see he how knows a good deal about how audiences judge and value movies.
@RogueRotting360 No this isn't about simple life experience or making educated guesses as to what film makers were thinking when they created a movie. This is some sort of telepathy because White claims to be able to peel back the subconscious of the film makers to reveal hidden ideological agendas. You're really defending this? I also seriously doubt White knows how audiences judge and value films, or even cares, considering he constantly dismisses the public as sheep or worse, idiots.
@ShortytheSquirrel He does care, if he didn't he wouldn't even mention the public, which is what most film reviewers do. He's a critic, and is passionate about film - which is why he's often frustrated by the mass approval certain overrated blockbusters get, while less hyped films are forgotten about. He's not there to comfort audiences.
And it's not hard to guess where a filmmaker's priorities lie when watching a film. Anyone one can do it, and it's got nothing to do with being a psychic.
@RogueRotting360 You missed the part about his hostility towards and dismissal of popular opinion. So what if a lot of people agree that a certain film is great. Far be it from Mr White to concede that certain films are praised by critics and audiences alike not because critics and audiences are mindless drones who'll take anything the "evil" Hollywood execs throw at them but because those films are (shock, horror), actually good! All White cares about his reading his own bloated sentences!
@ShortytheSquirrel "not because critics and audiences are mindless drones who'll take anything the 'evil' Hollywood execs throw at them but because those films are (shock, horror)"
Well, what's the point of forcing Armond White to say something that he doesn't agree with? And I disagree - they're often overrated and over hyped and not (shock horror!) good. The only thing White cares deeply about in his own words are God, Motown and films.
@RogueRotting360 The problem is not so much that Armond goes against popular opinion, but the asinine, pretentious and offensive way he goes about disagreeing. He treats those who do like these films as if they are idiots. He rails against an entirely fictitious socio-economic agenda he believes is behind the creation of these films, whilst having no evidence to back these claims up and then of course there is the overwrought and pretentious reviews. He is a charlatan plain and simple!
@RogueRotting360 I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with the majority or simply not seeing a film as good so long as they can justify it. White cannot justify considering "Norbit" be be Oscar worthy in light of his contrarian review of "Precious" which was nominated for several awards. He cannot justify portraying artists and film producers as robber baron like corporate shills! He cannot justify portraying audiences as idiots! He is a bitter, cynical man who doesn't care!
@ShortytheSquirrel His review of Precious isn't "contrarian". That's a lazy dismissal. It's an intelligent, impassioned, and no-bullshit review of a racist (mostly white middle class) critic's darling.
As for Norbit, so what? It's an entertaining comedy. If crap like Chicago and Slumdog Millionaire can win an Oscar, anything can. The Academy Awards don't mean anything any more.
And White is anything but cynical. He's critical, but embraces dismiss genuine heart and spirituality.
@RogueRotting360 His review of Precious isn't "contrarian". That's a lazy dismissal. It's an intelligent, impassioned, and no-bullshit review of a racist (mostly white middle class) critic's darling.
Oh please, he spends half the review personally attacking Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, two people whose only crime it seems was to recommend the film to their viewers. The worst part is when he considers "Norbit", and "Meet Dave" to be "excellent films with black themes". Really? I call BS!
@ShortytheSquirrel "Oh please, he spends half the review personally attacking Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, two people whose only crime it seems was to recommend the film to their viewers."
That's bad enough! They're figures of immense influence (more so Oprah) and they're abusing that to unintentionally advertise a racist Uncle Tom freakshow of a film.
@ShortytheSquirrel I don't always agree with Armond White. He gets hungup by his pet hates - hipsters secularism and nihilism, and his articles are often overwritten - too much purple prose. But despite that, I think he's far from a contrarian or troll, he's a guy that has standards principle that he sticks to, even if it might mean tredding on a fanboy sacred crow - whether it's Toy Story 3, Avatar or the The Dark Knight. He's got a lot of insightful things to say, that most critics overlook.
best film critic writing these days.
epiksonik 1 year ago
Armond White is pretentious idiot.
Thisisadummy1 1 year ago 6
Armond White is one of my two favorite critics. Both are a joy to read.
Mike Demetry
mbdemetry 2 years ago
well answer me this do you agree on all the films he likes and dislikes??
Glennzorz2 2 years ago
@mbdemetry wow, wow, wow wait a second... your joking right?
pwnsforyou1 1 year ago
@pwnsforyou1 Nope. He's a film scholar and a first rate film critic. He's an intellectual and a professional, and many (Over-zealous fanboys in particular) feel threatened by that.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 do you agree with him when he says that district 9 and the dark knight are terrible films? and do you agree with him when he gives gleaming reviews to Jonah hex and transformers 2?
pwnsforyou1 1 year ago
@pwnsforyou1 I both consider District 9 and The Dark Knight to be highly overrated films, but I won't consider them terrible. However, what matters is the dialectic process in which he argues his conception of the film. That's what I agree with, and the same goes for the points he draws from the Jonah Hex and Transformers 2 pictures.
Most seem to be prurient about whether or not a reviews is 'a thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.' A mere barometer of consensus and conformity.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 One should not privilege the end before the means, when it comes to his reviews. What counts is the how he gets to the end result, not whether or not it can be reduced to a 'good' or 'bad' rating.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 I have to say I don't have alot of respect for him, he picks 1 or 2 minor flaws with a great movie and blows them completely out of proportion and it almost seems as though he takes what other people loved about a film and then turn it upside down, I hate to dwell on district 9, but for example the cgi in that film was fantastic, I mean even though those aliens were cgi they were completely believable. However Armond white says that the cgi is some of the worst he's ever seen?
pwnsforyou1 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 acctualy no that's was a bad example because that wasn't a flaw, but you understand me when I say that it's almost like he wants to stir controversy, thinks of a score, says oh crap! I need to justify this, and the picks out minor flaws as an afterthought. It seem to me as though if it was his magazine he would be publishing just the score and nothing else.
pwnsforyou1 1 year ago
@pwnsforyou1 Believe me, the score is probably the last thing on his mind. That's immaterial. What matters (like I stated) is how he gets from A-Z. The socio-political context and ramifications, comparisons to past films, other directors etc...
His reviews often have a far wider scope than most film critics. They're not neat, insipid, check-lists of pros and cons - agitprop for fanboys and marketing.
He's impassioned by a film's wider arc, as opposed to small, inconsequential details.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago 6
@RogueRotting360 I really disagree, but I respect that you put forward a valid argument as opposed to the massive FUCK YOU that would normally be received.
pwnsforyou1 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360
I don't see that.
I think Armond White is a troll. He says disagrees to evoke a reaction. Sometimes he has a point, but most of the time I think he is looking for a reaction. In this day and age of Rotten Tomatoes, he gets a reaction.
At the same time, people getting upset at his reviews are retarded. If you don't agree with a critic, it really isn't the end of the world.
Lyingaboutmyage 1 year ago
@Lyingaboutmyage He inhabits the free thinking tradition of critics such as Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, and Manny Farber. None of the those were popular with the public, and if they were alive in the age of the internet where fanboys dictate consensus, they would have been considered 'intellectual trolls', much like Armond White - and cast out. But today, they're considered to be some of the finest film critics of the 20th century.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
He's also fairly predictable in his reviews, which is the opposite of contrarian, who always shifts their stance. It depends mostly on the director, since he subscribes to auteur theory, and considers the director and his/her vision of prime importance. He'll probably favour True Grit, because it's the Coens; along with anything Jean Luc Goddard, John Moore, Wes Anderson, Paul W. S. Anderson, Edgar Wright, Wong Kar-wai, Stephen Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Jared Hess, Neil Jordan, and Mike Leigh.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 Armond is a wannabe political activist who somehow ended up being a film critic. My advice to him is that he should become an activist and leave film criticism to people who actually care about film criticism. You btw should stop trying to outdo Mr White in the trolling department. It's quite obvious your trolling because your use of a thesaurus seems to be at the same level as Mr Whites, which can be no coincidence.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel Oh, so I defend Armond White and use longer words - so I have to be trolling? It's the internet equivalent of Blacklisting if there was one - dismissing everyone who speaks out and defends something unpopular as a troll. Sorry that I don't do groupthink. A critic can bring in socio-political analysis and moralise if he wants, that's his freedom. Otherwise most critics would promote the latest hyped blockbuster, leaving their brains at the door - which is what's going on now.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 As I said, it can be no coincidence that you have an almost identical communication style to that seen in White's reviews AND you just happen to be defending Mr White. I, like most people, wasn't born yesterday. But maybe I'm wrong and you are legitimately defending white. In that case the smart thing to do would be to appeal to his detractors by using plain language to explain his positions instead of further alienating them by being just as overwrought and pretentious.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel I know what you mean in the case of White, but I haven't used any particularly complex words. 'Hipsters, secularism and nihilism' were coined by Armond White, not me. Purple prose means flowery language - the kind that White likes.
"And in each scene, Sorkin’s approach to Zuckerberg’s conduct is unctuous with fake significance, letting the protagonist’s eminence excuse his reprehensible misbehavior."
I don't do that. I agree with a lot of his ideas, just not his language.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 Speaking of White. Do ALL films have socio-political context? Did the creators of Toy Story, by and large a film aimed at children, have some socio-political message to share? A message that would almost certainly be over children's heads? I am convinced that even if white actually gives a damn about the films he is reviewing, (as opposed to what I really think he is doing), he is looking for things that simply aren't there. There is a thing called cynicism...
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel Not all films have political content or implications, but most have social/sociological ones. While Toy Story 3's aimed at kids (and adults who want to remain as kids), that doesn't mean it isn't pushing a mass-consumerist agenda, unconsciously to audiences. Using a sentimental, soulless and clichéd story as a means to turn kids into unthinking drones, buying all the advertised toys - that's how the filmmakers operate, knowingly or unknowingly. That's Pixar's cynicism.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 What nonsense! You are saying White (and by extension you) claims to know what and how people think? That he has some sort of hyper-comprehension that allows him to read the minds of film makers? Just stop for a minute and realize what you are defending here! Here is a man to claims to know better than the film makers themselves, the creators of these films who knew what went into them, what it meant and what they were trying to get across. You are defending pure arrogance!
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
Comment removed
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel Sure, he claims to know how people think (including film makers) - any film critic and director worth his salt should understand how people's minds operate. Not in a nonsense telepathic sense, but simple life experience. He doesn't claim to know to everything under the sun, but nor does he claim to know nothing. As as a 50-60 something African American who hasn't lived in a bubble, I think it's fair to see he how knows a good deal about how audiences judge and value movies.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 No this isn't about simple life experience or making educated guesses as to what film makers were thinking when they created a movie. This is some sort of telepathy because White claims to be able to peel back the subconscious of the film makers to reveal hidden ideological agendas. You're really defending this? I also seriously doubt White knows how audiences judge and value films, or even cares, considering he constantly dismisses the public as sheep or worse, idiots.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel He does care, if he didn't he wouldn't even mention the public, which is what most film reviewers do. He's a critic, and is passionate about film - which is why he's often frustrated by the mass approval certain overrated blockbusters get, while less hyped films are forgotten about. He's not there to comfort audiences.
And it's not hard to guess where a filmmaker's priorities lie when watching a film. Anyone one can do it, and it's got nothing to do with being a psychic.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 You missed the part about his hostility towards and dismissal of popular opinion. So what if a lot of people agree that a certain film is great. Far be it from Mr White to concede that certain films are praised by critics and audiences alike not because critics and audiences are mindless drones who'll take anything the "evil" Hollywood execs throw at them but because those films are (shock, horror), actually good! All White cares about his reading his own bloated sentences!
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel "not because critics and audiences are mindless drones who'll take anything the 'evil' Hollywood execs throw at them but because those films are (shock, horror)"
Well, what's the point of forcing Armond White to say something that he doesn't agree with? And I disagree - they're often overrated and over hyped and not (shock horror!) good. The only thing White cares deeply about in his own words are God, Motown and films.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 The problem is not so much that Armond goes against popular opinion, but the asinine, pretentious and offensive way he goes about disagreeing. He treats those who do like these films as if they are idiots. He rails against an entirely fictitious socio-economic agenda he believes is behind the creation of these films, whilst having no evidence to back these claims up and then of course there is the overwrought and pretentious reviews. He is a charlatan plain and simple!
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with the majority or simply not seeing a film as good so long as they can justify it. White cannot justify considering "Norbit" be be Oscar worthy in light of his contrarian review of "Precious" which was nominated for several awards. He cannot justify portraying artists and film producers as robber baron like corporate shills! He cannot justify portraying audiences as idiots! He is a bitter, cynical man who doesn't care!
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel His review of Precious isn't "contrarian". That's a lazy dismissal. It's an intelligent, impassioned, and no-bullshit review of a racist (mostly white middle class) critic's darling.
As for Norbit, so what? It's an entertaining comedy. If crap like Chicago and Slumdog Millionaire can win an Oscar, anything can. The Academy Awards don't mean anything any more.
And White is anything but cynical. He's critical, but embraces dismiss genuine heart and spirituality.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 His review of Precious isn't "contrarian". That's a lazy dismissal. It's an intelligent, impassioned, and no-bullshit review of a racist (mostly white middle class) critic's darling.
Oh please, he spends half the review personally attacking Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, two people whose only crime it seems was to recommend the film to their viewers. The worst part is when he considers "Norbit", and "Meet Dave" to be "excellent films with black themes". Really? I call BS!
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShortytheSquirrel "Oh please, he spends half the review personally attacking Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, two people whose only crime it seems was to recommend the film to their viewers."
That's bad enough! They're figures of immense influence (more so Oprah) and they're abusing that to unintentionally advertise a racist Uncle Tom freakshow of a film.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel I don't always agree with Armond White. He gets hungup by his pet hates - hipsters secularism and nihilism, and his articles are often overwritten - too much purple prose. But despite that, I think he's far from a contrarian or troll, he's a guy that has standards principle that he sticks to, even if it might mean tredding on a fanboy sacred crow - whether it's Toy Story 3, Avatar or the The Dark Knight. He's got a lot of insightful things to say, that most critics overlook.
RogueRotting360 1 year ago
@RogueRotting360 Hi there Armond.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@mbdemetry If i took a shit and wrapped it up and sent it to Armond White, he would give it a good review.
fushion999 1 year ago
lovely thoughts on the Michael Jackson movie "This Is It". Man, Armond White gets it!
Tflow1 2 years ago
Finally, after Armond White's presentation on Michael Jackson!!!
Tflow1 2 years ago