another maniacal Armond White review, this time "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Really ought to give Norbit a try, given I even liked Murphy's fat schtick in the second Nutty Prof.

I love his fat schtick but Nutty Professor looks like Lubitsch next to Norbit.

(Lubitsch means nothing to you, of course)

Means not as funny as There Will Be Blood.

Fat schtick is the worst, you guys.

Raging Bull is the worst kind of sports film, an insult to true art like Mighty Ducks 3.

It's been a while since I saw it, but I think that Armond White is right and that columnist wrong about the scene from Metropolitan. I mean, Eigeman's character says the lines the columnist says he says, but the point is that the toys ARE the protagonist's childhood toys abandoned by his father. Great movie, but far from the best scene in it.

The older article linked w/in that one is also amazing, w/ AW's 'top ten' quotes.

He was totally OTM re Chameleon Street, which I saw him introduce at AMMI in Astoria.

I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. 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.

Armond discusses the state of film criticism on the slashfilmcast

complete bullshit, as per ush.

david effing bordwell did the preface for ebert's most recent collection. willing to bet he's more 'pedigreed' than armond white.

the internet has stolen the impact and prestige and effect that traditional professional film criticism used to have.

ha gimme a fuckin break. "traditional professional" yeah sorry, that never existed.

someone broke Armondbot

He's like the Spencer Pratt of film crit.

lol armond is a trained and pedigreed film critic. congratufuckinglations.

bet he had a small stroke Richard Roeper took over from Siskel.

Taking his argument at face value: Does he really think that there are no "pedigreed" film critics in the US other than himself? There are plenty of other film professors in the world, and many of them write about film in some way or another, and many of them are over 30! But he can't even name one of them to pay lip service to? Terrible.

oh man I wish they'd replaced Siskel with Armond...

polyphonic, you are missing the point, which is that Armond White is a raging egomaniac with terrible taste

i like the conclusion of that article, "he's not a troll, just an attention whore"

"i've got the training" lol

he trained for years, eating popcorn, sitting on his ass, making shit up...

polyphonic, you are missing the point, which is that Armond White is a raging egomaniac with terrible taste

I don't really agree that he has terrible taste. I just think his tastes are too narrow. His favorite films are all good films, in my experience.

Definitely a raging egomaniac, though.

I don't know what he lists as his favorite films but he gave a very positive review to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and he is not 10.

I guarantee you that he will never watch that movie a second time.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/white.html

I take back the "terrible taste" comment; the good far outweighs the terrible on these lists.

still gonna be "lol he liked the Transformers sequel" though

Armond BlackandWhite.

08. Out of Sight (Steven Spielberg)

lol

i think that's the website's type, and not armond's. hope so anyway.

those lists don't capture the sheer joy he gets out of big-upping terrible movies just because everyone else is panning them.

typO

xp

He also hadn't yet wrapped his vagina around Pismol Beach in 1998.

Pismo

01. Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg)

my man

09. Mr. 3000 (Charles Stone III)

god i hope i can find the review of this

It's actually really good imo.

Ebert a couple of days ago.

mr. 3000 or armond's review of mr. 3000?

Andre 3000's review of Armond.

I don't know what he lists as his favorite films but he gave a very positive review to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and he is not 10.

― he does NOT have the training (HI DERE), Tuesday, 20 July 2010 20:01 (56 minutes ago)

The problem with the positive review for transformers 2 is the negative review for transformers 1, which is better in all ways. I fucking love giant robots fighting, and transformers 1 is just definitively a better giant robot movie.

he genuinely loves Norbit and considers it one of the high points of African American culture.

It is. That and Arthur Lee.

And Armond White

he genuinely loves Norbit and considers it one of the high points of African American culture.

― orakle-krake (Gukbe), Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Def. a low point for chinese-american culture.

Rasputia: What... the...? What just fell on my car?
Mr. Wong: Not what - who! Who just fell on your car? Ching chong ching chong!

---

also: the Japanese title for Norbit is "Mad Fat Wife"

You guys' obsession w/ Armond-bashing is as tiresome as your finding Christopher Nolan's blitzkriegs the most fascinating films of our time.

if only i could think of something else tiresome

Threads aren't revived because of obsessions -- it's fun!

you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them.

Yeah, I don't think so. Ebert will call shit for being shit, always has.

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?

This from a man who loves THE CAT IN THE HAT. Has anyone else here seen THE CAT IN THE HAT?

Ebert is an intelligent, readable hack who had admitted he dumbed himself down on TV.

please, more critics with religious awareness