criterionforum.org

What a surprise.

Odie Henderson from the Boston Globe wrote a much better “negative” review. Charlie Kirk being described as a peaceful debater was perfectly placed though-had it come any sooner, I don’t know if I would have made through the piece.

Right away he’s calling Lubitsch’s worst American film the greatest romantic comedy of the past 80+ years, this is going to be great!

He's losing it, most of his "better than" picks are actually good movies

It’s very funny to read a column in the National Review of all places all about how superior French culture is to American culture.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jan 16, 2026 9:28 pm Right away he’s calling Lubitsch’s worst American film the greatest romantic comedy of the past 80+ years, this is going to be great!

I'm a That Uncertain Feeling apologist, but calling it "profound" goes too far even for me.

Being informed that there is a new Julián Hernández film out there > Discovering that there is a new Adam Sandler film out there

wattsup32 wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2026 9:27 pm Digger is outstanding and easily one of my favorite films of the year.

I will be interested to see what, if anything, Armond White does with this.

Wait no longer.

Ha! I'm fairly impressed by how White found a way to thread the needle on this one. He was able to hate the film (as we expected he would given its politics) and hate other reviewers who hated the movie because of their perceived politics. The man sure understands his brand. We have to give him that.

There is at least one line in this review that makes me believe White thinks we all call a shovel a "Digger."

Armond White's review of The Devils. Also he's shitting on Mark Kermode and Guillermo Del Toro on Twitter for their "hijacking" of the film.

2 paragraphs in, and it's already "Biden-administration scandals that either went unreported or unaccounted for" (if they were, how come he "knows" about them ?).
This guy's a absolute joke.
Also : I attended to a roundtable with Spencer Collantes about Clockwork's strategy on this re-release : everything White writes about it is factually false. He made up his mind before writing anyway, as he usually does, and is writing this no matter what.
His conclusing is aligned with this : "The Devils could be the most politically astute film of this decade." : what does it say, then, Armond ?

For some odd reason, he called the director's cut as the "Clockwork version" on Twitter despite the fact that Ken Russell supervised the cut in 2004.

What kills me is that he is for all intents and purposes talking an downright ridiculous amount of shit about the people who are directly responsible for us even being able to see this film in this state in the first place. Who knows what might have happened if Kermode had never gone looking for that footage.

Big Ben wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:03 pm What kills me is that he is for all intents and purposes talking an downright ridiculous amount of shit about the people who are directly responsible for us even being able to see this film in this state in the first place. Who knows what might have happened if Kermode had never gone looking for that footage.

I agree with you. Kermode really fought tooth and nail with a big Hollywood studio like WB to get Russell's version out into the world.

HardNight'sDay wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 3:25 pm For some odd reason, he called the director's cut as the "Clockwork version" on Twitter despite the fact that Ken Russell supervised the cut in 2004.

The reason is that he doesn't care about facts.
It also shows in the way he treats the entity (Clockwork) responsible for getting this re-release going : "Warner Bros. new dissolute program", "this era of Clockwork political obscenities". What the hell is he even talking about ? How FINALLY getting the complete version rerelease after a lavish 4K restoration from the OCN is a "dissolute program" and "political obscenities" ?
Clockwork is less than ONE YEAR OLD. It's litterally its first release. The next ones ? They signed for the distribution of the next Park Chan-wook, Noah Baumbach and Sean Baker movies. Oh wow much dissolute.

He reviews You Can See Everything, which leads off with the most Armond White sentence ever written.

Fiery Angel wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2026 7:48 pm He reviews You Can See Everything, which leads off with the most Armond White sentence ever written.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen "deranged" used as a verb.

Media itself has become the tool of political and moral manipulation.

Someone writing this sentence in an article that appears in the National Review clearly has no idea what irony is.

Not that I am an AW fan, but "derange" is a perfectly fine verb -- and has a past tense: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derange

Yes, but have you ever actually seen anyone use it as a verb? I can't recall one.

Why does You Can See Everything take the Silicon Valley felon Elizabeth Holmes as its subject but not spend an equivalent three hours on Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Elizabeth Warren, or any one of the other wealthy white women liberals who have deranged contemporary society?

There are so many other words to use & its odd usage conjures up the idea that for most on the right, "every accusation is actually a confession."
Though I would say his writing gave me the image of an overly ambitious newly-minted college student seeking to get into the graces of fascists with power/money (think James O'Keefe, Milo Yabadabadopolis, Bari Weis)...until I Googled his name & saw his picture. I never would have guessed he was more than a decade older than myself based on his writing.

I can't quite understand why, even as he's going on this completely irrelevant rant about politicians he considers "liberal" (including, uh, Liz Cheney!?), he's still insisting on using the politically correct adjective "women" as opposed to the more standard "female" (which I recall people trying to stamp out at the peak of woke 1.0). But maybe, as per "derange" (v.), White has his own style guide that's not for us mere mortals to figure out.