criterionforum.org

It's easy enough to understand: he's very popular and every film he's done has been very well reviewed - so Armond has to hate him. HAS to. He would stroke out if he had to write a favorable review of something he helmed. Since this was over 90% on RT, he was virtually guaranteed to hate it. It is the easiest thing to predict on earth. I'm still awaiting his review calling Last Airbender M. Night Shamalanga's masterpiece.

It would be awesome to have Baumbach or Nolan secretly do something under a pseudonym and watch White praise it only to learn later who directed it. Somebody make that happen.

Just to prevent unnecessary hits on his site:

[content removed by admin]

Does any other supposedly "serious" cultural critic ever toss around such blatant internet insults like "hack" (never mind "hackery" - not a word) more than White? If ever? It's just so terribly obvious he is trolling with this incomprehensible tripe he calls writing. And it seems to only be getting worse. I'm starting to honestly wonder if he has early-onset Alzheimer's or something.

I take it you asked the mods' permission before blatantly infringing the New York Press's copyright?

Seriously, bad idea. Not least because it crosses a moral line, even without the snidely vindictive motive of denying them hits.

HistoryProf wrote:It would be awesome to have Baumbach or Nolan secretly do something under a pseudonym and watch White praise it only to learn later who directed it. Somebody make that happen.

Well, Armond loves Wes Anderson, so when Baumbach collaborated on Life Aquatic and Fantastic Mr. Fox, he got a pass.

Armond may have convinced me on this one ... that title, it's just so damn puzzling that I don't think I'm on board any longer.

Oh wait, having said that out loud, I sound like an idiot. Never mind.

HistoryProf wrote:Just to prevent unnecessary hits on his site:

Oh no no no no no. The last thing we need is Armond White and his lawyers sending us DMCA takedown notices.

Yeah, good call

HistoryProf wrote:It's easy enough to understand: he's very popular and every film he's done has been very well reviewed - so Armond has to hate him. HAS to.

You know he's a fan of Brad Bird who's generally considered the best American animator working today. There is a lot of popular hings he has been on the side of. This doesn't mean he's not a contrarian. He definitely shouldn't be taken seriously, but to bring him up and do multiple posting on a thread dedicated to him will not make him go away. He'll only be more successful.
Basically it's not worth the time and possible stress to even read articles about him.
The person attacking the attacker isn't any better

knives wrote:The person attacking the attacker isn't any better

They are when they can actually articulate a coherant thought.

HistoryProf wrote:Does any other supposedly "serious" cultural critic ever toss around such blatant internet insults like "hack" (never mind "hackery" - not a word) more than White? If ever? It's just so terribly obvious he is trolling with this incomprehensible tripe he calls writing. And it seems to only be getting worse. I'm starting to honestly wonder if he has early-onset Alzheimer's or something.

Rex Reed's review of Inception also refers to Nolan as a "hack."

So neither White nor Reed understand the meaning of "hack.."

Mr_sausage wrote:

knives wrote:The person attacking the attacker isn't any better

They are when they can actually articulate a coherant thought.

Let me clarify, because that is pretty damn vague. Just doing the attack in a, 'hey look what jackholish thing he's done this time. Armond makes me mad,' wayis just as obnoxious as Armond's vapid prose. If it was something along the lines, not necessarily as deep of a cut though, as that review examination link it would at least add merit to a discussion on Armond. As is Historyprof is just acting like a RT commenter, admittedly one who can spell though.

Since I don't want to copy his review here, I will only request that people attempt to read the final paragraph in his positive review of Despicable Me (which I hope to see this weekend and believe will be enjoyable). It is the work of an addled 8 year old. Mind-blowing that this person is paid to write anything. Also, there is a repeated clause in the very first paragraph of the review.

I also find it wildly appropriate that all of his reviews are plagued by spamming advertisements. They are of equal value as reading material.

For anyone who wants to see the legend in the flesh (and is he really reading the entire book?):

Armond White will read and sign his book Keep Moving: The Michael Jackson Chronicles at the Harlem Book Fair’s Schomburg Library Courtyard July 17 at 4pm.

Hmmm, I imagine that tomato sales in the NY area will be picking up in the next week or so...

zombeaner wrote:Since I don't want to copy his review here, I will only request that people attempt to read the final paragraph in his positive review of Despicable Me (which I hope to see this weekend and believe will be enjoyable). It is the work of an addled 8 year old. Mind-blowing that this person is paid to write anything. Also, there is a repeated clause in the very first paragraph of the review.

Here is my favorite sentence:

Whereas Pixar has devoted itself to a sappiness which saps misread as deep-feeling (they respond only to crude, obvious corporate manipulation which has now turned into patriotic fealty)

Allow me to make two changes:

Whereas Spielberg has devoted itself to a sappiness which saps misread as deep-feeling (they respond only to crude, obvious emotional manipulation which has now turned into patriotic fealty)

This is the second most apt description of Spielberg I've ever read. I wonder if Armond realizes his nemesis and his hero are qualitatively the same entity.

I really can't stand White's contempt for movie audiences, and I don't think changing the target does much to alleviate that.

MichaelB wrote:I take it you asked the mods' permission before blatantly infringing the New York Press's copyright?

Seriously, bad idea. Not least because it crosses a moral line, even without the snidely vindictive motive of denying them hits.

I apologize for the mis-step, I was not aware of the restriction on reposting things here...but it's hardly a blatant infringement of their copyright. The source was linked and fully attributed...a common practice on forums the world over. But it won't happen again. my bad.

the objects that seem to land in your lap and the sun glare (a 3-D first!) are not a gimmicky afterthought as in Toy Story 3

That alone is finer wit than anything in all of Toy Story 3.

This witty political commentary (a bank whose marble columns squish Atlas figures) is beyond anything in Toy Story 3.

Could he try any harder to milk this for all it's possibly worth?

And Steve Carell voices Gru great. Listen for how he responds to a begging child: “The physical appearance of the pleeze makes no difference.” A non-pandering animated film is rare which is why Despicable Me is so refreshing—from its music score of Carl Stalling-worthy inventiveness (and cool title song by Pharrell) to Gru’s extraordinary objective to STEAL THE MOON—a knowing homage to Georges Melies’ pioneering anime that this fine film does not disgrace.

This is on par with garbage I get handed in by 18 year old freshmen who wrote their paper the morning it was due - and don't care because they have 193 other things they'd rather do that day. Pure unadulterated laziness. Pathetic.

I wonder if Armond will change his tune once he realizes that the common herd seems to like Despicable Me.

Yeah, I was just about to say that Despicable Me seems to be pretty popular box office wise and reasonably "acclaimed" from what I've seen. I guess we'll just have to wait for the next animated film to come out to see if Armond turns on it (while throwing in his requisite shots at Pixar)

A very long three-part interview with Armond White. This is seemingly unedited, so you can really get a feel for how White approaches things, whether you want to or not. It definitely comes off as one of those embarrassing conversations between college students that always happen two rows behind me at a screening. From calling Michael Moore a racist to saying anyone who likes a Baumbach film is an asshole, it's very telling. And he does that arbitrary quoting things that aren't relevant thing in real-life too

The first part of the interview is interesting. Both White and the author seem like they want to create a new school of criticism. Except that they don't seem to realize that the school they're hoping to pioneer has already been established by precocious, but lazy 14 year-old kids who have read the dust jacket of many Chomsky books.