criterionforum.org

She wasn't supposed to be "simplicity" in Eyes Wide Shut.

And I didn't realize that The Invasion was an "art-movie stunt." Now I'm sad I skipped it.

rs98762001 wrote:He's just trying way too hard. The following quotes are such thin, transparent attempts at controversy. I hear him gleefully chortling while writing these lines, kind of like how Wile E Coyote would always proclaim his "genius" while formulating plans that Bugs Bunny would ultimately - and inevitably - foil.

I like this one from Black Swan:

West, like R. Kelly in the genius “Trapped In the Closet,” carries on Michael Jackson’s music video audacity.

and it's so patently obvious the NY Press just tries to milk AW for all is ridiculousness...you'll note the page header for his black swan "review" is blatant fishing in it's own right: " Armond White compares Aronofsky's Black Swan to Kanye's Runway -- NY Press" - attention whore much?

Inspector Bellamy > Blue Valentine
Claude Chabrol's sensibilityand epitaphfinds the full range of life experience in a detective's duty to wife, family and the world. It corrects Blue Valentine's immature sex obsession.

I've seen Bellamy and liked it and I still have no idea what the fuck he's talking about. There's maybe one or two brief (15 seconds, maybe) scenes of Depardieu kissing and caressing his wife, what a bizarre focal point

You know White's out of ideas when he uses the same popular film he hates twice twice.

Three times

The Armond wrote:City Island > The Social Network
Gotta have at the Facebook movie once again, if only to counter the fallacious consensus that no other movie dealt with the Internet phenomenon.

I can sorta understand that the NY Press can't afford to spring for an editor within this current economic situation, but can't Armond at least run a grammar check to see if he properly put a space between separate words?

Please Give > Greenberg
Nicole Holofcener's best-yet film understands it's not all about "me," but Noah Baumbach advertises his own repugnant egotism, striking a chord with evil critics everywherebut thankfully, not the public.

I guess you don't need to make sense (or even be able to construct a sentence) when you're the one single critical messiah, the infallible pope Armond, amidst a sea of conspiring hacks.

I like how he had to pick a 2 year old Ethiopian film to counter White Material...he just HAD to find something to try and insult WM with....

Teza > White Material
Haile Gerima dramatizes a young Ethiopian's awakening conscience while tracing the modern history of Europe's impact on colonial political thought. Gerima's deep feeling contrasts Claire Denis' wacky white guilt and death wish.


And I knew he'd do it, but I still can't believe it: Jonah Hex > True Grit \:D/

What's great is that he still calls True Grit "very good," implying that Jonah Hex is somehow very very? :-s

Get with the times, man, he's been going on about Jonah Hex all year.

In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, this whole column, from the very idea of it down to the final period, seems to follow the logical impulses of a thirteen-year-old. Can't celebrate a movie without knocking another one down, going out of his way for targets, disingenously recounting other people's positions, broad stereotyping of audiences, etc. At the end of the day, I really couldn't care less what he likes and what he doesn't, that's his right and privilege. But it bothers me that someone who's been working as a film critic as long as he has and who sees as much as he does still comes across as so callow in his thought processes. He's strikingly immature in the way he goes about his work.

Brian C wrote: He's strikingly immature in the way he goes about his work.

Which is why this thread exists!.(or am I wrong?)

cocaine socialist wrote:It's that time of year again.

As much as I can't stand Armond's petulance, I have to admit that I agree that most of those films are better than their counterpart examples (imo).

Shocker

ambrose wrote:

Brian C wrote: He's strikingly immature in the way he goes about his work.

Which is why this thread exists!.(or am I wrong?)

Don't forget the versa to this vice: if it weren't for threads like this, and all the other negative attention White attracts, he wouldn't have a job. If everybody ignored him, he'd go away.

Armond gives his game away here by singling out The Social Network for three times the helping of his scorn. His original review panned the film, but it was hardly his most apoplectic review of the year. Now that consensus is building around the film in top ten lists and awards buzz, his negative reaction gets amplified. It's all so trite and predictable.

James Mills wrote:

cocaine socialist wrote:It's that time of year again.

As much as I can't stand Armond's petulance, I have to admit that I agree that most of those films are better than their counterpart examples (imo).

Those comparisons are ridiculous- not just in terms of quality, but in terms of apples to oranges. Another Year to the Social Network? Honestly? It's difficult to think of two more texturally different filmmakers than Leigh and Fincher, and pretending those movies operate even close enough to the same universe to be a reasonable head to head is itself awful criticism.

It's like saying My Home Movies with the Cat Freaking Out On Catnip> Iron Man 2. Yes, I got more pleasure out of the former, but somehow I don't think they were aiming for quite the same thing.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

James Mills wrote:As much as I can't stand Armond's petulance, I have to admit that I agree that most of those films are better than their counterpart examples (imo).

Those comparisons are ridiculous- not just in terms of quality, but in terms of apples to oranges. Another Year to the Social Network? Honestly? It's difficult to think of two more texturally different filmmakers than Leigh and Fincher, and pretending those movies operate even close enough to the same universe to be a reasonable head to head is itself awful criticism.

Absolutely. Their lack of relevance seems to prove that the entire column's sole intention is to be incendiary, ie: "You think this film is good, well soandso is better! (even though I like the other one too )"

Actually, that's a good point, and that's a game I used to be fooled by regularly- when I was first getting into movies, there were a bunch of older cinephiles I would hang around with and ask about movies they thought I should watch. Mostly, their advice was good, but if I came to anything on my own, there were a couple of them that would automatically pull the 'Oh, well, x is a better version of that. Someday you'll be less naive' trick. Took me years to realize that half their recommendations were hardly even tangentially connected, and that they hadn't actually seen half the movies they were rejecting.

Which is a long way to loop around to the conclusion Armond White is an insecure jackass, but it is remarkable how similar this exercise is to that one.

lol, reminds me of The Squid and the Whale, "It's minor Dickens. Popular in schools."

edit: It's scary because I know I've done the same thing before to people that look to me for film advice. They'll be like "I just saw City of God, did you like that one?" and instead of being like "Yeah, absolutely! That's in my top ten of the 00's probably!", I'll be like "Yeah, it's great no doubt, but I've seen it too many times and I like it less and less with each viewing..." Which isn't a lie, but why do I instantly want to downsize their enjoyment? Just because I want to remain another "level" of film appreciation above them? It's silly, really, and like you said, flat out insecure.

Really? I get a lot more people who wan't me to be excited about Transformers 3 or similar dreck...and I play along...because I don't want to hurt their feelings. Like someone with an ugly baby.

As a human being, if a friend shares effusive excitement about a film I didn't like, I tend to either find something to mildly praise about it or just admit that while others were fond of the film, it wasn't my cup of tea, and offer extrapolation only if asked-- there's no need to tear down a flick someone just admitted they loved.

Unless it's The Boondock Saints

I actually just had a colleague use that film as an example of how it's sometimes okay to hit women. That's one of those beep beep beep I'm backing the hell out of here conversations