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

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

That's actually one of his other coherent points.

Seriously, you guys, Mr. 3000 is much better than it needs to be and I highly recommend it.

Unlike smugly cynical humanist ogres Ebert Armond White is a thoughtful, sensitive critic and the best argument for America since David Bowie's transcendent cameo in "Zoolander".

such as Ebert

d'oh

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

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:52 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

At least Armond has probably bothered to watch the movies he criticizes, I'll give him that.

zing!

i think Armond's point about review-everything mass media middlebrow film criticism in general isn't a terrible one, though it would probably be better to direct it at, say, Peter Travers. Ebert is probably one of the least offensive examples.

physician heal thyself imo

it's extremely difficult for physicians to actually heal themselves, the stethescope lead just gets twisted

physician heal thyself imo

yeah excellent point. and it doesn't help that Armond's bluster often seems borne of a persecution complex for being excluded from that particular clique.

I really don't think 'middlebrow critics' are a clique, they just appeal to the Great Unwashed rather than hang out at the malt shop together.

Matt, pay me to see all the movies, or go fuck yourself.

the stethescope lead just gets twisted

― Everytime I hit 'submit post' the internet gets dumber (darraghmac), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:04 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

no it doesn't

heh how did i know you'd have a second opinion on that

i dunno Morbs he has a point, I could be wrong, but from my experience, generally reviews written by people who were actually in the theatre at the exact time the film was scheduled to show tend to contain a greater level of accuracy then dart throwing by an internet troll.

ya there's just a certain ... je ne sais quoi... about having actually seen the art in question before criticizing it that elevates the writing to another level

it's like they're reviewing it on a deeper level somehow.

And yet we can all criticize Armond White without actually reading him.

it would be kinda interesting if someone consistently reviewed movies they hadn't seen for a major publication and then wait to see if anyone ever caught on.

i read armond white and then i criticize him

there is, his name is david denby, and yes weve noticed (xp)

really? Which movies?

as Bob Dole said, "Stop lying about my record."

So do you guys think Armond was right about Vincere and Wild Grass?

YOU KNOW, MOVIES THAT DON'T MATTER

everything i've criticized him for, i've read.

really? Which movies?

haha well obviously...

but i was mostly thinking abt his winter's bone review that characterized it as "something new in movies: a 'country-noir' thriller."

i didn't read his vincere review. i did interview marco bellochio and write a feature about the film for my paper tho. it's possible to think more than one kind of movie is worthwhile.

you mean like The Girl on the Train and Despicable Me?

not... specifically...?

those were the exact two types of movies i was thinking it was possible to like