>Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
Roger Ebert Destroyed Film Criticism
>If there were a whole bunch of critics who I thought were doing a good job, then I would stop. *laughs* Because really, the reason why I do what I do is because I think there are things that need to be said about movies, about culture, about the world, that nobody’s saying. And that’s why I do what I do. I can only ask you to read around, read as widely as you can. Whoever you read, hold them to a standard, and don’t simply enjoy a critic because they say what you want to hear. But read as many people as you care to, but ask yourself: Are they REALLY talking about what’s on the screen? Do they know the history of this form? Do they have any political awareness? Do they have any spiritual, or moral, or religious awareness even?
It's true. You can't really review film if you don't understand philosophy or religion because all the actual films that aren't a really fast powerpoint of dog shit people doing dogshit things or throwing projectiles at each other require you to think, even if it's to think about pointless french new wave is as they mill around spouting interminable existentialist nonsense or wondering why the fuck Rohmer would make six shitty movies about the morality of intimacy in all it's avenues without understanding the technicality of morality and it's symbiotic relationship with ethics or existentialism seen through the lens of sartre, kierkagaard and whoever else because quite frankly, you cannot think without being educated on the topics aforementioned.
How can you give me your opinion on something that you know nothing about? You don't even need a degree, any retard can read a book, if you, as a film critic knows said film is about existentialism maybe at least read the wikipedia page about it before you start whinging about how boring it is and how the characters just ramble on because while you may be right, you need to justify why you're right otherwise you are the living, breathing, wheelchair using personification of the term "arbitrary" and certainly nothing more
the man is too good for this clown world
>DUDE MORALS LMAO
...
Yea Forumss favorite Snyder apologist is so based, guys.
Everything he said is correct. He gets flak for being a contrarian, but when you read his reviews it's clear he actually puts deep thought into and explains why it was good or bad on an almost philosophical level, not just the vapid "it was funny/dull/heartwarming/action-packed, etc." which is what most people write for reviews, dressed up with lots of verbiage.
Based and true, Ebert was a hack
but almond loves video game movies like resident evil and transformers
Ebert's Temple of Doom review is some funny shit. Basically it's good because he probably got laid that night.
I think the disconnect is that he handles film like an academic but like you said the average theatregoer just wants to know what kind of movie it is and if it's enjoyable.
Lol he's a complete contrarian bullshitter. That he's better than most film reviewers is a "tallest dwarf"-tier accomplishment.
blacks destroyed western civilization
>Lol he's a complete contrarian bullshitter.
I wouldn't argue that he sometimes gives bad/mediocre films good reviews to get a rise out of people, but the majority of his reviews actually are spot-on.
>Adults no longer outgrow comic books. Hollywood prefers that they hang on to the adolescent illusion of carefree, escapist pleasure by pretending that the form’s juvenile cynicism is a sign of sophistication — replacing the traditional sources of imaginative thinking. The cultural monopoly represented by the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its latest release, Avengers: Endgame, depends on geeked-up viewers telling themselves that they are having a major cultural experience.
>The directors Anthony and Joe Russo do routine CGI action, but they don’t know how to supply meaning to any of the goings-on, and that’s the major difference between MCU and the D.C. Comics Universe, which advanced from Christopher Nolan’s nihilism to Zack Snyder’s visual richness and emotional depth. Snyder’s Watchmen was the first comic-book movie to deal with mature themes and play out a credible moral dilemma. Going deeper with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Snyder’s art angered the kiddies. MCU fans don’t know what great filmmaking is. They defer to their post–Star Wars indoctrination. The Russo brothers’ big battle isn’t a climactic summation, just a clash of CGI dots like the indecipherable, interminable Lord of the Rings skirmishes. And the sentimental, nostalgic farewell to two beloved Avengers is hokey. Snyder rescued comic-book movies from nihilism and juvenilia, making modern myths worthy of adult spirituality and politics. Avengers: Endgame takes place in a violent kindergarten.
Meh, he just uses big words. He gave positive reviews to Jack and Jill and to Transformers, yet shits on movies which might be overrated but not nearly as bad as he made them out to be, like the new Blade Runner. He is a contrarian.
>Disney is the new plantation and self-proclaimed nerds are happily picking the cotton
still waiting for a better criticism
This guy is actually a contrarian,he gave crap like great wall,resident evil final chapter and dirty grandpa a positive review lel
jews did that actually
Nah, he just likes movies you don't so you screech he's a contrarian. He's just not brainwashed by hollywood and the media like you are, he likes plenty of popular movies
Daily reminder that he gave Hidden Niggers a positive review
a contrarion defending a contrarian, who wudda thunk
LMAO basically. The world doesn't give a shit about being right, only about making money and gathering power. It's sad, but that's reality.
>wudda thunk
A redditor hating Armond, who "wudda thunk"
HOLY BASED
based blackman does it again
>he gave resident evil afterlife a positive review
lel
you can be contrarian but also write good reviews, personal taste and quality of work run parallel to each other if you are of decent intelligence
it's perfectly fine to ascribe some sort of passing grade to a film that is clearly awful if said passing grade is backed by a reasonable justification in the form of idk, a review especially when he tackles larger more complex films with the same scrutiny
at the end of the day he knows what he's talking about and him being contrarian is more of his persona talking than being indicative of his actual knowledge especially when said knowledge has been proven time and time again in his other reviews, even said reviews don't end as pleasingly as you'd like
put it this way
you have shit taste and if you tried telling me that celine and juliet goes boating was awful but the avengers was great i'd tell you to fuck off whereas if armond had the same opinion i'd listen for entertainment purposes and to get an informed opinion as to why someone would find something like celine and juliet go boating awful because he doesn't just say "me no like", he has the education needed to be a true contrarian as he can recognise why something is good THEN shit on it rather than shit on it because it's popular
get it now big guy?
>at the end of the day he knows what he's talking about
by giving garbage reviews he's filtering redditors/morons out while giving himself more exposure
a perosn with an IQ above 90 should discern his mocking vs his actual opinions
I like reddit too bro
Fuck these ''contrarians''
How to spot a redditot
>blade runner
This is it
Blade runner is a shitty movie that is watchable only because the Goose, Batista and Ana are extremely charismatic
I agree with him. Even though I often don't agree with his reviews of film I can usually understand his points and I enjoy the way he writes.
haven't seen it, maybe he's right
have you?
don't tell me you hate it purely because the premise is flawed, that'd be horrible
think about how you feel when people look at the retard you are and judge you without even bothering to enquire as to what your favourite marvel film is, do your really wanna be as horrible as they are?
>while giving himself more exposure
He writes for a pro-Israel rag and a magazine for faggots where he talks about his Chris Pratt fantasies
>have you?
Yes, it's entirely mediocre garbage
>don't tell me you hate it purely because the premise is flawed, that'd be horrible
Fucking lol, that's exactly what Armond does
I mostly agree, and its good to have someone who's able to give a "non-orthodox" opinion.
Still, it often feels like he's being contrarian for contrarianism sake and some of his reviews boil down to libtards bad, which feels lazy imo.
For you.
Not him, but I agree with the statement that White is a contrarian. His defenses of movies that are widely panned isn't the problem. In fact, it's often quite admirable how he aims to illustrate deeper meaning and cultural relevance in films that people are otherwise inclined to casually dismiss as bad or "just a movie."
No, the problem is how he derides film that, regardless of how one feel about the ideology they espouse, unquestionably carry the hallmarks of craftsmanship and quality. I think he very often confuses not liking what a movie is doing with not liking how it does it. My mom thinks The Godfather is about evil, morally reprehensible people and that it advocates for violence and sin, thus she doesn't particularly like it. But, she still sees that it's a great piece of film that is doing what it does exceptionally well, just that what it's doing isn't really her cup of tea. Armond seems to lack the capacity for that differentiation.
I don't care what anyone says, it's absurd to dismiss BR 2049, La La Land, The Tree of Life as wholly bad movies. And if you read between the lines of his disarmingly eloquent rhetoric, his arguments against literally boil down to things like "so-and so French New Wave director did it better" and "pseudo intellectual" and "it's too Hollywood" and shit like that. It's nonsense, but you really can't expect anything different from someone who idolizes Pauline Kael.
Bottom line, he likes criticism more than he likes movies, and that's a problem.
>not just the vapid "it was funny/dull/heartwarming/action-packed, etc." which is what most people write for reviews, dressed up with lots of verbiage
true, I completely stopped reading movie reviews when I noticed 99% of them aren't even reviews, just synopsis with buzzwords thrown around about the actors' performances and director's earlier works
The point is that while he knows how to do film criticism and he's very articulate and shit, he's dishonest. He knows his claim to fame is being the biggest contrarian in film criticism, and if he started agreeing with popular opinions he would lose relevancy, and so you can't expect him to be honest. When he argues that a mediocre film like batman vs superman is a milestone in filmmaking and just what he world needs right now, he's bullshitting to stay relevant, and he does it well.
I mean, he writes for the National Review. Do you know anything about the National Review beyon the fact that White writes there?
why didn't you guys just say "I agree" instead of this weak facade of rejecting acquiescence
yes he's contrarian
yes he knows what he's talking about
yes you might not like that
yes you very well might not like that
does that change the aforementioned?
no
also I agree with the point about relevancy and his dishonesty but you and I both know it's literally a persona he puts on in order to make money and a name for himself, you can have your own issues with that but it's whatever in the grand scheme of things
He recently gave a very positive review for John Wick 3, which "normal" critics also rated well.
>It’s a great pop-culture moment when the title character of John Wick 3: Parabellum (Keanu Reeves) is asked, “What do you need?” and straight-faced Reeves, in the lanky hair and facial scars denoting underworld conflict, responds, “Guns, lots of guns.” Finally, the “gun violence” cliché favored by hack politicians and robotic media spokespeople becomes the butt of a joke.
>Reeves’s answer repeats his 1999 futurist hit The Matrix, but it also defies moralizing pundits of all persuasions who repeat that “gun violence” malapropism as if screaming for redundant gun-control laws will get to the core of an American social problem. Their hypocrisy ignores the popular, real-world use of weaponry for self-protection and Second Amendment license.
>John Wick 3: Parabellum is impudent fun precisely because it exults in all-American freedom from victimhood. The title comes from the Latin Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you desire peace, prepare for war). Wick, a crime-world renegade, defends himself however possible — with guns, fisticuffs, martial arts, any object at hand used as slapstick.
>Not a pantywaist proselytizer for world peace, Stahelski knows there’s pleasure in movie kinetics. The sheer nerve of the relentless fight scenes is hilarious, and their proficiency is cinematically gratifying. Parabellum lifts him to action-movie heights.
>The violent game is honestly understood as a game. At a time when a Trump-hating transsexual commits school shootings that trigger a coverup from moralizing phonies, the gun-control argument continues, but moviegoers can use the clear-headed catharsis provided by Parabellum’s comic understanding about the use of self-protective force. The certain popularity of John Wick 3: Parabellum is the strongest repudiation of political correctness imaginable.
good review
Even then he's using the opportunity to make controversial remarks about politics. Don't get me wrong, I like what he does but I wouldn't follow his advice on what movie to see.
>umm... why should I be made to feel morally responsible for what I put in the films I release??
>NOOOOO DON'T POINT OUT MY AGENDA NOOOOOOO YOU'RE JUST BEING CONTRARIAN AND READING TOO MUCH INTO IT DON'T CALL ME A HACK NOOOOOOOOO
Based Armond dabbing on modern soi film culture
>it's literally a persona he puts on in order to make money and a name for himself, you can have your own issues with that but it's whatever in the grand scheme of things
Then he shouldn't insult dead men about their legacy and contribution to a profession he himself represents with dubious integrity.
The guy writes like an absolute twat.
>NOO YOU HAVE TO SAY NICE THINGS, DON'T SAY BAD THINGS IN JEST
oof
bigerrer werds hurt hed, he no rite gud!!
Being a verbose faggot doesn't make you intelligent.
>dude like why the big words bro? like it doesnt make you any smarter you know what i mean? dude if you cant sum it up in one simple sentence for retards like me to understand then like dude MAYBE YOU'RE THE DUMB ONE
cringe
how about you grow up and realise people aren't being verbose when they use "big" words, words are very important especially when discussing important concepts
>YOU HAVE TO SAY NICE THINGS
No, just don't be a hypocrite.
This is the worst fake-crticism thrown at Armond. Go away.
>Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
Youtube """critics""" BTFO
Do you enjoy life?
this is so true desu i was absolutely shocked how primitive and basic siskel and ebert was
Armond single handedly stopped me from being a complete racist
>Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
So making critical observations about how well the technical aspects of the film-making have been undertaken, one of these being continuity, is NOT criticism? What is??
Is there more to this review than this?
Because while I agree about the layers of meaning in that particular line, that's hardly the only thing to consider in reviewing a movie and it's a lot of political weight to assign to such a small piece of dialogue in a movie with so many elements.
>does a review of the new lion king movie
>criticizes disney for trying to promote nihilism wit the song hakuna matata
>doesn't realize that the care-free, no responsibilities attitude presented by timon and pumba is revealed as a farce and part of simba's character arc is accepting his fate as king
all that film education and he's defeated by a movie for children, shame
>Is there more to this review than this?
A lot more, I hit the 2000 character limit.
nationalreview.com
Exactly. He's just talking out of his ass when you unpack so much of what he says.
Dan Schneider did it better
cosmoetica.com
Continuity errors/techincal hiccups are well tolerated by most audiences as long as it doesn't screw up the story, if that's all you have bad to say on a film (cinemasins) it's shallow, technical aspects are there to serve the story; flicking popcorn at poor ADR is Youtuber shit.
more like rodger sneedbert amirite!
I'm not those people, in fact they all appear to be from different countries
I’ve always known that people think he’s a contrarian, but until now I’ve never looked into his reviews myself. I just looked at some for recent poorly received movies, and he always mentions one of two things first: critics who didn’t like if, or similar movies that were better received. Yep, don’t need fo read further if that’s what he bases his reviews around.
based Armond btfoing his shallow critics
armond based
you unbased
>I wouldn't argue that he sometimes gives bad/mediocre films good reviews to get a rise out of people, but the majority of his reviews actually are spot-on.
cringe
that's not even one of his best ones
bump
Nah, he's just a typical "2deep4you" fag who unironically think of people as sheeple.
I remember when I started not liking Ebert. It was when the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out. I forget his exact critique but what stood out was him saying something to the extent of 'Pirates is an amazing romp...that overstays his welcome.' I made the mistake of catching that before I watched the film and it nagged at me until the end. The fat fuck was right to a degree and it took the fun out of the film before I even had it finished.
There are two people in this world that you will be remembered as: nothing but a dreamer, or nothing but a critic. Those that can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym. Ebert directed at least one film in his life, but shat on everything else and somehow made a living doing it by thebmost minimalistic laziest way possible by pointing his thumb either up or down. Ebert is the fat gym teacher we all knew who taught everything from a text book but would croak at the finish line of a 100m run.
Googly jawed faggot.
>Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism.
DUDE JUST TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN
art hounds, those that tried and found they couldn't do
youtu.be
does he even realize that a lot of authors are/were literary critics?
>There are two people in this world that you will be remembered as: nothing but a dreamer, or nothing but a critic. Those that can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym.
is there any more reddit way of phrasing that?
>shat on everything
yeah you would never catch Ebert giving someone a positive review
dude is just atomically jelly that nobody gives a shit what he has to say.
its like the "niceguy" in class crying in the corner that HE deserves all the girls, not the mean ol chad who's banging his sister and mom
That's not what he's saying at all, retard. Goodfellas is full of continuity errors and it's pure kino, those sort of mistakes are mostly irrelevant to actual film criticism
Except people constantly seethe about him having different opinions from the liberal hivemind
He wasn't the only one. Siskel, Paglia, and anyone else who lavished Star Wars with praise is just as guilty.
Deep Cringe.
Never been to Reddit, never gone to Reddit, never said Ebert never gave positive reviews for anything. Fuck off, faggotron.
>backpedal
Even if you think he's wrong, he at least made you think. He has to compare the masterpieces he watched to the garbage he reviews now. If you don't do this, there cannot be a benchmark for quality and every movie could be classified as good on their own which is stupid. And that's what we're seeing now with the shill reviews.
Look at this thread and the people attacking him for being "contrarian" "edgy" or whatever, ignoring the reviews completely. The moment you criticize their favorite movies, they panic and start insulting, the sign of a braindead faggot who never watched actual cinema or read a single book in his entire life. Humanity isn't a moment in history, it's an ever building foundation of cultural works. If you ignore the past, you lose all anchors and fall in pure consumerism. It's so easy to manipulate people now that you can convince them that a turn movie is good. X said Y is good then I will say Y is good too because I want to be the same as X. How the fuck do you want your art with this mindset??
Shut up, Roger.
>shat on everything
Film critics are a racket, always have been. It's a bunch of con men who found a way to get paid for sitting on their was and doing nothing.
You're upset because you couldn't separate his criticism from your own viewing experience?
You are one of the most pathetic people on this board
Why isn't Yea Forums mad Armond White called Ryan Gosling autistic and claimed Refn doesn't know how to write masculine characters?
we're very chill and don't get angry at stuff
Name 5 popular movies lol
but that's just not true
>>>/reddit/
sure it is
you probably got us mixed up
Watchmen was infantile schlock
I was a kid at the time and it was an off-hand chance I managed to catch his review of the film and I hated that I ended up agreeing with him; that for as much fun as the first Pirates movie was, it was longer than it needed to be to tell the story it told.
I've long held that most modern film critics care more about making themselves look witty and intelligent than they do giving opinions.
>no longer
fucking burgers
the problem is that films don't matter
Pseudo intellectual and its too hollywood are proper criticisms because they allude to more than just hamdwaiving insults
And armond frequently refers to a film's otherwise good qualities as ultimately not being sufficient to carry the whole
I dont like him because he comes off as a tryhard in a sense, comparing all movies on the same plane of quality. But what you're talking about is utterly ridiculous
One man doesn't get crowned King of Yea Forums for nothing. Stay based, Armond
Because its true
Why does Yea Forums love to suck this nigga's dick so hard? And why do people get so defensive when you point it out?
Why would we be mad? He always provides arguments to everything he says, disneyshills call him contrarian because they can't refute him
>Whoever you read, hold them to a standard, and don’t simply enjoy a critic because they say what you want to hear. But read as many people as you care to, but ask yourself: Are they REALLY talking about what’s on the screen?
Complaining about shit like "indoctrination" makes White a hack.
People don't have to be wickedly tricked into liking the shit they like just because they don't like the shit you want them to like.
If you can't deal with the reality that other people simply make different choices and have different preferences from yours without writing it off as evil conspiracy, you aren't qualified to comment on much of anything related to human culture or society.
Because he's the best critic alive and the most honest man in this dying medium
>Yea Forums is full of racist incels™!
>our favourite critic is a gay black man
How does that compute in your MCU shill brain?
Please be more defensive.
true cringe
You should read his whole reviews. The distillation into fresh or rotten simply doesn't work for the way he writes. See, you read that comment and think it's praising the movie, but he's essentially saying it's a barely passable film that survives only on charm, and should not be considered for any other reason. That's essentially condemning it to the pile of forgettable flicks from cinema's history.
Pauline Kael actually had ethics and some sorta interesting ideas though. She would stand up for misfit, tonally somewhat uneven but interesting and well crafted-type indie movies that no one remembers now.
Her criticisms of Cassavetes, Antonioni, etc. were ridiculous but they were idealistic deep down, I think
Armond White is your average Yea Forums-poster, just with a bigger vocabulary.
His opinion is almost entirely decided by how much attention something will give him, because his livelyhood depends on it. Notice how almost all his contrarian opinions apply mostly to bigger movies.
He's a clickbait critic.
You asked and I answered, sorry you didn't like the truth
>contrarian
Just this week he shat on the Lion King just like every other critic was doing, last year he praised Lady Bird just like every other critics did. Why don't you have any arguments?
Both Marvel and DC are adolescent fantasies. The paragraph you posted has White attribute qualities to Snyder's films without ever justifying them in any way. I would argue that his movies are also nihilistic and juvenile, just for the 15 year-old crowd rather than for the 13 year-old crowd. It's a surface-level acknowledgement of a few plot-points without seriously engaging in whether they were executed well via writing, acting, or elements of cinematography.
White is clearly an intelligent guy, but he absolutely writes half of every review of mainstream and blockbuster movies as jokes. If you don't get that and try to take him seriously all the time, then you aren't in on the joke.
>actually defending a blatant niggerwash of history
I'm surprised Armond didn't submit that piece to the NYT
Yea Forums really likes Drive and Gosling
Post-irony killed civilization.
WAAAAAHHH A MOVIE ABOUT BLACK WOMEN!!!
>He's a clickbait critic.
No, he's definitely contrarian and a more eloquent Yea Forums poster, but to me Clickbait critics are those that have really blatant titles and hot takes. There's no craft to theirs. Armond White as much of his reviews have bad takes, are crafted well enough to come off sincere.
Reminder no one has refuted his claim that all Marvel movies are atrocious garbage. Reminder this feeling is most likely shared by most people in the industry because Marvel movies have never won any significant awards despite the Oscars being basically owned by Disney
You need to brush your teeth.
I can see the melanin from your post
It's just regular irony dumbass. Not everything you don't like is "post", "meta", or "neo" anything.
I could see the melanin on a fucking VALKYRIE in a movie, go back to rddit mouseshill your kind is not welcome here
White as snow actually, you just give white people a bad name. White supremacists have done more to harm white people and western civilization than almost anything and cretins like you can't see it.
Is this regular irony as well?
>How many youngsters will see Chris Pratt in Jurassic World and deposit his image in their spank bank?
Just a reminder that Armond White is a contrarian
He slammed TDK, BR2049, Infinity War, Goodfellas, Fight Club, Toy Story 3, Knocked Up, Pulp Fiction, Inception, Logan, Drive
He Praised movies like
>Man of Steel
>Pain & Gain
>Mr.. Deeds
>Killing Them Softly
>A Serious Man
>Dawn of the Dead terrible remake
>Artificial Intelligence
>The Neon Demon
They did but you just don't like listening to it.
Prove it
yikes! there are actual NIGGERS in this thread!
I’m saving this thread for later. Hope it’s worth it
>Infinity War
>Toy Story 3
>Knocked Up
Too on the nose, subtlety is half of the bait
Bait. You can fuck right off
It is, we have SEETHING discord marvel shills and all
He did. Go look at his reviews, moron. He was fine with Toy Story 2 but hated 3 rottentomatoes.com
I've diagnosed him with a heavy case of narcissistic personality disorder.
based iPhone poster
It's not bait, you dumbfuck. Look it up. He slammed Casino and The Godfather but loved the Godfather 3 because it had "humanity" and wasn't nihilist (which is his fav word btw). Go ahead, look it up retard
Armond, are you in here??
I know he hated those pieces of shit, I'm saying your bait post doesn't work because they are too obvious.
>Armond shit on the new Blade Runner.
Pls no. He will ruin it forever for me.
Not everyone thinks like you, fucktard. Plenty of threads on Yea Forums AGREE Toy Story 3 was great and anons were mad about Toy Story 4 because it fucked up the conclusion set in the previous film. And Seth Rogen didn't become obnoxious till the 2010s and Infinity War is actually one of the few good MCU (Winter Soldier and Iron Man 1 being the only two) and Endgame ruined it
He's right user. It may be a pretty, well-made movie, but the things it has to say is babby shit.
He sounds like a fucking narcissistic dick head. When your so fucking opinionated that you start attacking other critics, it means you need special attention.
If you're taking his reviews seriously, the joke is on you. They are merely reflections. Personally, I think he's hilarious, though I'd have to meet the guy to know if I'm really laughing with him or at him.
The fact that NR hired another, simpler, more down-to-earth reviewer (Kyle Smith) to write actual, helpful reviews should tell you all you need to know about what even the people who pay White's salary think of him as a critic.
if you actually read his reviews he is able to reference older works to get his point across, so he actually knows what he is talking about and has done his homework, unlike a lot of other reviewers.
If you are so dumb that you can’t understand his shtick than I don’t know what to tell you. If he doesn’t like a movie it doesn’t mean that he hates how it’s done, the camera work, the actors the script and etc. it means he doesn’t like it’s ideology and it’s message. Oh I’m sorry that your little brain can’t comprehend that. I have a bunch of movies that I love as a cinematic achievement but I hate it’s ideology. But yeah go watch some more YouTube “critics” that have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Armond views movies as something that can change our mind and society that is why he’s so political and is always talking about how cynical movies have gotten, and he’s totally right about that. Of all critics he basically never even discusses the technical aspects of the movies he reviews. He understands that modern American cinema is a pure undistilled propaganda and deconstructs it. If you can’t see past “B-BUT MUH GODFATHER I-IS SO BASED HOW CAN HE NOT LIKE IT????” Well surprise surprise not all people like it because it’s overlong it’s fucking boring and it’s fucking old, get over it. “B-BUT ITS IN SO MANY COOL MOVIES LISTS ITS A MILESTONE!!!!” The fact that you get so butthurt about some guy hating your favorite piece of media is simply pathetic and proves Armond’s point. You are a part of that hysteria that has skewed morals and understanding what’s good and bad. I myself sometimes can’t get past his contrarionism but even then he’s still right in what he says and believes. He calls the bullshit and people hate him for that cuz they want to live a lie
Have Sex.
Kyle Smith's reviews are tepid as fuck.
Movies can be for entertainment, moron. Please tell me the good and profound ideology you get from Mr. Deeds and Dawn of the Dead remake
So I imagine you can't fault left leaning critics who praise films for their pro feminism and pro liberal slants even if the movie isn't that good (like Cap Marvel) because at least it has a good message in their eyes. So basically, that's how Armond reviews shit. He's like a right wing SJW who makes everything political
Typical leftist: pro feminism mean moobie good
Armond White: pro guns mean moobie good
See they both use the same retarded logic to review film
HE'S HERE
Based Armond will never stop btfo Yea Forumsmblr trash
Friendly reminder a couple of months ago, Armond White confirmed to some user on Twitter that he thinks Yea Forums is filled with intelligent readers
That might just be sarcastic disdain.
Is it? See
Honestly, in today's political climate, only a gay black person is allowed to speak as freely as this and be as frank about the world as possible.
He is the voice we need in the current era.
Everything is political, and you can utilize multiple lenses with which to approach media criticism. Armond White liking the portrayal of guns in a movie doesn't "make it political". It already was, White is just exposing his opinion of the film's politics, or at least one interpretation of it.
>Everybody already knows that Disney’s new remake of The Lion King is a sham; that its “live-action” selling point misrepresents the fact that the real-looking animals are actually digitally generated images. Only the casual acceptance of this blatant deception is new.
>Disney’s “family entertainment” crest, a decades-old axiom, is also a euphemism for the millennium’s new reorganized cultural habits. Parents are expected to induct children into the process of mindless consumer gratitude. Knowing you’re being rooked is part of the fun, which gives new meaning to Mufasa teaching his cub Simba to appreciate his role in the never-changing production-purchase cycle — called “The Circle of Life” in the highly merchandized Oscar-nominated theme song.
>Jon Favreau (Director): After turning Marvel’s Iron Man to visual dung, he is now Disney’s fake-reality hack and is key to understanding how this digitally rejiggered Lion King (like Favreau’s Jungle Book) continues the con job of Marvel’s Black Panther. Favreau’s unnamed African veldt might as well be New Wakanda.
>None of this wink-wink inauthenticity was a problem when Zack Snyder’s Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’hoole — the most exquisitely designed animated film since Fantasia — respected the moral values in coming-of-age narratives. Biblical and Shakespearean archetypes are trivialized by the new Disney. Its style of fake realism prevents one from imaginatively projecting onto the animation. When Simba comes into his own and must defend his tribe against his scheming uncle Scar and the menacing, invasive Hyenas, there’s no emotional power. The Lion King’s parallels to the historical lessons of Greek mythology or fairy-tale morality just feel like vague memories.
Keep up the good work Almonds
He's fine and all but he sucks Snyder's cock too much.
what previous animated movie was marketed as live-action and wasn't accepted by people because of this?
>>Jon Favreau (Director): After turning Marvel’s Iron Man to visual dung, he is now Disney’s fake-reality hack and is key to understanding how this digitally rejiggered Lion King (like Favreau’s Jungle Book) continues the con job of Marvel’s Black Panther.
Top kek
>The Toy Story franchise is the closest thing we have to an undisputed national anthem, a popular belief that celebrates what we think we all stand for — cooperation, ingenuity, and simple values, such as perpetual hope. This fact of our infantile, desensitized culture became apparent back in 2010 when I took a knee on Toy Story 3 and Rotten Tomatoes sprouted death threats — as if I had made Ilhan Omar–style comments against the history of America and its institutions.
>That mob-like mania is depicted during a fairly creepy sequence in Toy Story 4 when cowboy doll Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) explores an antiques-and-consignment store and is threatened by a menacing phalanx of lookalike, thinkalike, actalike Pee-wee Herman dolls. It’s a Pixar vision of a high-tech lynching, but this mad dash by revengeful analog gadgets also, inadvertently, symbolizes the conformity that has taken over amusement culture: The Toy Story franchise proves that movies (especially from Disney and Pixar) are produced to be critic-proof.
>My heretical point, when writing about Toy Story 3, was that this insulting franchise delimited movies — particularly those targeted at children — as no longer expressive art but mere products synonymous with toys and the utility of toys: All reflection and imagination is left to the manufacturer. There’s nothing for the viewer to do but worship the formula.
Not my point, retard. I'm saying film should be judged for its technical achievements, story, acting, pacing etc.
Judging a film based on ideology is the reason why people say Rotten Tomatoes has a liberal bias. It's because shit films like Cap Marvel get great reviews by critics for its message even when said critics admit the film is poor or mediocre
Armond is just like them but with a different ideology. Do we really want extreme leftists and right wingers judging film based on which ideology lines up with their values?
Yes, it obviously is. He specifically says Pratt will "haunt fanboys wet dreams" and calls the movie insubstantial. He is saying Pratt's costume design exists to superficially make him a "virile" "manly" figure". White starts right off the bat by saying the movie is bland, so he uses his review to dive into the ways it tries to give Pratt the appeal of an Indiana Jones or a Han Solo. He literally calls this shallow attempt at creating a manly love interest a joke "unconvincing, half-parodistic".
Did you not read the screenshot you linked me? He has a ton of disdain for Pratt's character in Jurassic World, and for the "fanboys" that might like him.
While he's entertaining as a person, he's too preoccupied with didacticism. The stuff he writes about is irrelevant and reads like a sociology paper. Does he even care about aesthetic, technique or originality? In this regard, film makers are the best critics.
Theme is part of story dude. Captain Marvel was fine, in that I think that all Marvel movies are basically interchangeable trash with the consistency of tone and relative excitement of a bowl of tapioca pudding. I'm very left leaning, I can understand the merits of applying a feminist critique to a film without freaking out and insisting that all reviews must follow a certain approach and a specific critical framework.
I think you misunderstand anyway, a critique isn't supposed to be some sweeping final statement of value, just an analysis. You are looking at film criticism the way people look at vacuum cleaner reviews on Amazon.
>He's fine and all
he's a literal niggerfaggot
shit bait
You want to know how I know that you have never read a sociology paper?
I like how you ignored how he also lustfully describes Pratt's forearms, eyes, blonde hair and all the fixation on his groin. But I guess this homolust is also ironic coming from an open homosexual, right?
shit skin
I'm just sick of these retards. They used to be trolls. NOw they've trolled themselves.
>le videogames are not art nojaw meme man
put the game down school shooter
>dude it's just sarcasm
Don't mean the style, but his focus on society and political fashion.
Yes, he's a reasonably attractive man in a leading role in which he is also a romantic lead. These are all qualities that either describe the costume design, choice of actor, and camerawork. Do you not understand that people need to understand these when things when they talk about archetypal design elements? He can think Pratt is attractive while also thinking the character is a shallow attempt to make a "manly" love interest that fanboys will eat up because they suck. I suspect you think you are making some kind of point here, but you really aren't.
This seems sincere. I wouldn't be surprised if gay dudes love them some Aquaman after Justice League. What about this needs to be sarcasm?
But the point is that he's not being sarcastic when he puts the pedophilic image of youngsters putting Chris Pratt in their spank banks right at the beginning of his article. This is how the argument started and you're going off on a completely different tangent to defend this homosexual.
>every new blockbuster is fucking garbage and further contributes to the downfall of American film
>despite this, they're all critically acclaimed and have legions of fans
>based Armond articulates exactly what is going on with these movies, their intent and impact on the consumer
lol what a contrarian
Dude calm down, he only takes dicks up his butt ironically.
>>every new blockbuster is fucking garbage and further contributes to the downfall of American film
Except Snyder kinos!!!!
there is no human being who has ever lived more based than armond
libtard detected
fpbp
>DUDE ATHEISM LMAO
>DUDE X LMAO
based
Correction, talking about "fanboys" putting him in their spank bank. Armond White has consistently derided fanboys as being obnoxious manchildren, not actual children. Armond White being gay and finding dudes attractive doesn't make him calling a character a design-by-committee joke that fanboys will love any less disdainful. I said his reviews were often sarcastic, but specifically said this one was not.
See
>Correction, talking about "fanboys" putting him in their spank bank.
>How many youngsters will see Chris Pratt in Jurassic World and deposit his image in their spank bank?
>Maybe a lesbian critic could try justifying her cold acting but who can say what hetero guys who see Jurassic World put into their spank banks? I bet it’s Owen.
>Dawn of the Dead terrible remake
>Pain & Gain
>A Serious Man
>Artificial Intelligence
all good movies desu
wooow he shid on marble dam he BASTE
So if I translate the r*dditspeak in this thread does "Contrarian" now just mean "Not a sycophantic fanboy"?
contrarian means niggerfaggot
>A Serious Man
>Not praiseworthy
DEFAMATION.