THE KING HAS SPOKEN

Based gay black man

Armond is so fucking based. Using his status as a nog and a fag simultaneously to shield him from getting criticism by twittercucks for dropping redpills left and right

>He's a dumbass
He's objectively one of the only actual critics in the industry and YOU are a redditor type

this, Armond is one of those very rare nigs with brain

It isn't actual critique when you aren't really reviewing a product, but just checking a contrarianism box. His reviews have nothing to do with whether he liked something, and everything to do with whether he thinks everyone else did. That's reddit as fuck.

Would anyone like to sum up what his actual point is? I've read Armond's reviews before, and this one in particular seemed like a lot of words that said very little. There are a lot of classic buzzwords/phrases about consumerism here, but I just don't feel like there's much of a bite or point here.

Sure. The point is "people liked this, therefore I didn't teehee, please click my blog links"

Not him but that's also Yea Forums as fuck now. But yes I agree it was originally reddit and was the defining attribute of reddit and people have somehow forgotten that.

He reviews films as art, not only as """""products""""" as your brainwashed self calls them.

Arguably he cost the movie minimum 25 million dollars but its probably more like 75.

Attached: redditor.jpg (800x450, 44K)

Unironically correct

some movies dont deserve real reviews, whant can an adult human say about toy story 4?

He's right you know

Attached: 1549472396256.jpg (300x279, 19K)

He's not the only one: abc.net.au/news/2019-06-19/toy-story-4-review-disney-franchise-resets-with-keanu/11220590

I don't always agree with Armond's reviews but the more I learn about film theory and criticism the more I see that his perspective is actually valid. You can tell that he's someone who learned how discuss film in an academic environment, as opposed to being some journalist hack who was assigned to review films because the paper he worked for needed a guy and he was the office film buff. Sometimes his verbosity is excessive but other than that he makes fair arguments. From an academic standpoint, merely talking about whether or not you "liked" a film is irrelevant to serious film analysis. In contrast, the implicit and explicit ideological values promoted in a film are actually something which can researched argued. Armond is not a meme or an idiot, he's just a conservative who accurately describes the ideology of the films he's reviewing and then tells his readers how he feels about them based on his own worldview and moral perspective.

Attached: Scooby3.jpg (452x600, 25K)

Attached: 1559868839798.jpg (800x447, 41K)

Don't kid yourself. You clearly haven't read about film in an academic environment. Most film academics don't vehemently trash what they write about because most of the time they write about elements they think were notable, and if they do have a negative opinion they don't froth at the mouth like this gay nigger does. If you think this gay nigger doesn't write these reviews mostly for the clicks you are are gay and as nigger as him.

Attached: David Board Well.jpg (1200x1600, 372K)

>gives the nod to John Wick as a superior franchise to Toy Story
Holy based

It's so frustrating. He comes so close to criticizing capitalism bit his rightist bias stops him just short of it. His approach to criticism is much closer to that of someone like Adorno than it is to the usual insincere rightist kind. It's a shame, really.

You can be capitalist while still hating mindless consumerism.

Sure, but then then you'll never get to the root of the problem.

This is a great post. You're absolutely right. There a difference between critique and review. Armond does criticism. Everyone else does reviews.
>whether or not you liked a film is irrelevant
So true. This is too big brain for most of Yea Forums.

>they write about elements they think were notable
Armond does this in literally every single one of his reviews
>they don't froth at the mouth
>he writes for clicks
Not an argument. He's writing for a website, not an academic journal. He's allowed to express his feelings. Anyone who writes anything on the internet wants clicks.

I'm well aware of (((who))) is to blame for our current situation.

>armond white
>black

Attached: c80.gif (300x300, 405K)

>Armond does this in literally every single one of his reviews
If by elements you mean solely the politics, sure. But that's where his reviews start and stop. Throw in a bizarre comparison to a vaguely related movie for good measure and a pretense to appear intelligent.

>Anyone who writes anything on the internet wants clicks.
Which is why comparing him to academic film criticism is the stupidest thing I've read in a while, and I still spend hours on this board.

False. Armond critiques culture. He has no interest beyond that because he knows that will get him easy clicks since it is all opinion and no objectivity.

How is he A dumbass?

The ultimate bait thread, nice work OP

He's black.

You're partly right. Critics SHOULD always acknowledge cultural context and the ideas being displayed but to base a score on that would be bad faith criticism. Movie reviews are consumer information report really, so the final score should be based on entertainment value.