It's out!

tl:dr - Peele tries to give a clever analogy for race-relations but ends up race-baiting and trying to trick liberals into believing the 'evil whitey' narrative. He creates black characters who act and behave like yuppie whites, while trying to create a sense of pride in black culture which is a jarring correlation. White ends by calling him a charlatan for trying to appear smarter and more dignified than he really is.

NO.
We are all in this burning wig of Kali Yuga together.
You had your chance.

So it's ok when right-wingers shill their website reviews, but wheneiver I post an article from the guardian or WSJ, i'm instantly called a trangender JIDF user of discord. Ok , got it. Back to /int/ I go

So long!

Attached: 1359926189087.jpg (523x444, 53K)

All the befuddled comments on the article. lol
Holy shit.
Read the comment section for an extra laugh.

I love this critic holy shit

ARMOND THA BASED GOD. Now I'm reading his Dragged Across Concrete review I missed.

Based Arnold clearing out the trash

WHO IS THIS RACIST AND HOW ABSOLUTE DARE HE

ARMOND >WHITE
FITTING

Armond White might actually have the most entertaining reviews I've ever seen.

>the guardian
You should be ashamed for still using that shite. The Guardian was once great around the time Greenwald and wikileaks were the news. No idea how the fuck they've become what they are now.

WSJ is fine in my books (if you want a liberal perspective in the U.S.), but The Guardian is a straight-up propaganda press machine. Thank christ wikileaks is actually going to sue their libel asses for publishing fake reports and refusing to redact them.

I'm sure he likes to be contrarian at times just to be so, but he's pretty much the only film critic who couldn't give less of a fuck about what anyone else thinks when he reviews a movie.

Contrarianism is being contrary for the sake of it.

Armond is simply seeing through the lies and telling his god honest view through the lens of a man who knows a scam when he sees one.

Armond is simply calling a spade a spade when the masses think otherwise with no real proof.

As much as I like Armond, I wish the based negro would use footnotes or something similar. His need to drop references into nearly every sentence breaks the flow of his prose.

huh?
Where was the deep lore in this one?
All I noticed was the new book by toni morrison.
Everything else was fairly common, this time around.

HAS ARMOND EVER PRAISED A BLACK DIRECTOR

I like that Armond has no problem disagreeing with what he considers contemptible politics, but I think everyone one this board is a little too eager to agree with and exult him when they're very likely to complain about niggers within five or so posts.

Oh shit, he wrote a review on Dumbo!
Just found it on his twitter.
I have to read this. I want to hear him call Burton a hack.

He liked that Akeela and the Bee movie, I think.

People who use the word woke in their article titles should be publicly executed.

>WHITE DIRECTOR AKA SAVIOR CONDESCENDINGLY EXPLOITING BLACKS
UNSURPRISING FOR A RACIST

Attached: Doug Atchison director Keke Palmer and Laurence Fishburne.jpg (612x462, 31K)

Yeah, the Morrison part wasn't really needed. This review in particular was pretty on point. More of a statement about his general style / past reviews.

What gave you the impression that people who read reviews offsite- like actually read and comprehend them, not just shitpost their titles here for bait (and Armond's reviews, no less)- are part of the common rabble?
For real though, /pol/'s got its foot in Yea Forums bad, and they asspat those they feel reflect their opinions- even superficially. But I like to think that not everyone on this site is too far gone.

Should he is the real question.

He commended a Tyler Perry movie iirc

Oh my GOD.
ITS ALL RUINED.
Jay, sound the alarm!!!
Why is the capcha censoring this post?!

Attached: 1361053672045.gif (499x281, 910K)

Armond is the king of Yea Forums

>not understanding how the world works

you're an embarassment to anons

>le based fag negro
Kill yourself

Nono, it was appropriate.
Morrison's new book is a collection of essays on the shilling of race and cultural meme-ery surrounding blacks. It belongs next his critique of Peele, cause it shows us how much better the topic could be handled.

>The actors who portray the besieged black family in Us were obviously cast for their dark skin tone. Writer-director Peele apparently likes the political horror-comedy frisson of colorism, using Lupita Nyong’o (Patsey in 12 Years a Slave) and Winston Duke (M’Baku in Black Panther) the same way he cast Daniel Kaluuya in Get Out — as ultra-blacks. This nontraditional Hollywood casting is more than counterintuitive; it’s a specious form of authenticity. Peele emphasizes racial difference — taunting it — but without Morrison’s in-depth exploration.

>Given the political funhouse that the United States has become since 2008, Peele’s obsidian mirror goes no deeper than a carnival hoax. It’s the same game as Viola Davis and Cynthia Erivo staring face to face like Ibo vs. Dahomey statues in Steve McQueen’s Widows — a middlebrow art affectation such as the 1980s black gallery exhibitions Toni Morrison critiques in her essay “Harlem on My Mind: Contesting Memory — Meditation on Museums, Culture, and Integration.”

>The woke generation that Morrison pursues is not more literate than their ancestors who read Morrison’s Beloved. (Some of them even appreciated Jonathan Demme’s bold film adaptation, which others scoffed at as a black version of The Exorcist.) But gullible responses to Get Out and Us show that woke viewers outsmart themselves and are cinema illiterate, and Hollywood knows a surefire way to trick-or-treat them: Under the horror-movie rubric, the woke generation will fall for anything. From here on, I will no longer refer to Jordan Peele as a race hustler. Us proves he is something simpler: a charlatan.

Based Armond. Every word of this is true. So satisfying to see a fucking fraud like Peele exposed.

FEEL THE SMITE OF THE WHITE!
You have no power here!
Go back to the shadow!

Attached: a gandalf appeared.gif (350x291, 53K)

Attached: 1525471245802.jpg (1280x720, 195K)

Seething

>Critics have praised Us as a satire on class envy, especially black upward mobility, yet Candace Owens lays waste to Peele’s “post-racial” folly with her suggestion that the recent bureaucratic exoneration of Jussie Smollett “destroyed the myth of white privilege.”

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiit

I see.

>Armond (((White)))
Cringe

90% of Yea Forums is too retarded to understand what Armond is saying and they definitely don’t know what he’s referencing. Most just skim for a line they can greentext quote and say “BASED BLACK MAN” to.

Gonna put it on my reading list, to see if it checks out.
2019's been kinda a bust for me, reading-wise.
Got suckered into reading the new Marlon James book. Not proud.

Are people genuinely talking about this movie? I keep seeing posts claiming people are mad about it, but frankly nobody even seems interested in it except corporate outlets being paid to shill it.

Cancer.

Free tip: most movies get real Yea Forums threads on their Day-One releases. You might see one to two more megathreads on Day Two, but after that- people just discuss what the media thought of it.
Or its memes all the way down.
If you wanted to talk about Us, you are super late to the party.

>If you wanted to talk about Us
I don't. I was genuinely curious about whether anyone did? But I guess Get Out was real big with stupid nushits. I don't know anymore. I can't even stomach most humans at this point. Their tastes are just unforgivably bad.

>I was genuinely curious about whether anyone did
Yeah people dissected it here for a few days and spat out its inconsistencies.
Praised its horror vibes and Peele's willingness to make something that wasnt part of a franchise.
For the most part, the media reflects these sentiments.
Other paid reviewers just call him the best thing since sliced bread and collect their check.
>I can't even stomach most humans at this point.
There are pills for that!

Attached: 1360439635392.jpg (1146x726, 405K)

Wtf is that pic

Based and Whitepilled

Its Whole in the Bag!

>earned only $23m outside USA
lmao

Get out and stay out, libtard.

what would Siskel and Ebert say if they were still alive Yea Forums?

I find it a sign of intellectual cowardice when someone makes their point intentionally opaque. Like, what does Candace Owens have to do with this? What does Jussie Smollett? All he really had to say was "despite what Peele might want you to think, black people can use race issues to their advantage in modern America," and he could have given Smollett as a topical example. His whole reviewing style seems to be based on the method of making his point as vague as possible, so that people won't criticize him out of the fear of "not getting" his "real point."

Is National Review that establishment neocon shitheap or am I thinking of something else

>It's a "Yea Forums shouts about le based black critic because he's a boomer faggot but ignore any review that doesn't confirm their bias" episode
wow why is this one always on?

Didn't Peele already state that there was no deep racial message in this movie and it was just meant to be regular horror?

Yes, but Armond White reads politics and race into everything because he's an out-of-touch faggot who thinks Transformers and Jack and Jill are high art.

no, he stated there was a message

Where? Source?