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

people are weird, man

Filling columns of what a critic likes and hates as selectively as they made Armond's is pointless. Countless music critics may have dismissed Radiohead while enjoying a Katy Perry song, but that doesn't mean it's fair to sum a critic's career as "he thinks Katy Perry is great while Radiohead is stupid LOL," although, actually, plenty of critics would probably be proud to stamp that quote on their mission statement, so never mind.

And the Mothra is right about White being fun to read when you know he'll trash something you also hate.

he sucks

Read a dozen or so of his reviews last night, and they were for the most part alright. I could get where he was coming from. I actually agree with his review of Dark Knight about the current hip way to make a comic book movie seem 'adult' and 'serious' is to make it as grim as possible. I enjoyed that movie but left feeling that I had just gone through an ordeal that I probably won't want to revisit.

In the review of Love Guru he stops to heap praise on Cat in the Hat which is seriously one of the most disturbing things anybody could do. His noting in the aside that critics attacked it does much to help the case that he makes his living by being reactionary.

His Transformers review should be summed up in two sentences:

Sam’s insipid subplot is less urgent than the Iraq War plot; neither gains from the sci-fi metaphor (although the sense of American freedom in both suggests why envious cultures hate us).

which is fairly senseless doublespeak propaganda straight from W's mouth. And..

When the Transformers explode from common tools into super beings, the kinetic imagery fulfills the surrealism of Fernand Léger, El Lissitzky—if only they had digital.

which is a huge insult to "Ballet Mechanique"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/ephender/armond.jpg

It may be fun to write fake AW reviews for movies he hasn't done. Or maybe just to write a list of rules:

1. If movie is made/set in the 1980s, mention Ronald Reagan in every paragraph.
2. If movie is critically lambasted for being shallow trash, praise its glorification of American pop culture.
etc

He would argue that you can't review a film you haven't seen on a theater screen, which is an ideal I subscribe to (that is not practicable for all but a few people).

― Indiana Morbs and the Curse of the Ivy League Chorister (Dr Morbius), Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OK, never saw that one; never liked the clips. I prefer Candy in the unalloyed brilliance that was SCTV.

― Indiana Morbs and the Curse of the Ivy League Chorister (Dr Morbius), Friday, August 7, 2009 9:02 PM (1 week ago)

That's no contradiction bcz I'm not even talking about the same things there, new anti-me obsessive. The first post is about the merits of your ideal/choice of viewing medium. I think the second one is about Planes Trains, which I never wanted to see. Now drink your milk.

"all films must be seen in the theater before being reviewed"

=

"All his films are fucking terrible.... ok I didn't see that one, but I didn't like the clips"

perhaps you saw the clips in the theater?

it was John Hughes doing adults, looked like bad TV

I'm sure Only the Lonely looks like bad tv if you've only seen clips too.

no, Chris Columbus can actually direct.

Hahaha, LOCK THREAD.

Glenn Kenny tries some parsing:

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/we-went-to-white-castle-and-we-got-thrown-out.html

he's right funny tho

ArmondWhite @hoosteen I find your opinions to be of the misguided nature, typical of intellectual juveniles like Peter Jackson. TRUTHBOMB!12:52 PM Sep 8th from web in reply to hoosteen

s1ocki??????????

Follow!

haha no!

I noticed Armond shoehorned another gratuitous Roy Andersson reference into his "District 9" review.

haha now I'm kinda curious: five years on, do people here still vehemently disagree with that Fahrenheit 9/11 review? it's overlong and ranty and repetitive and over-strident for a piece that's criticizing Moore, but I don't know that I disagree with it all that deeply.

As Kevin Costner worried in JFK, we are indeed through the looking glass now.

Michael Moore is a POPULIST* worth defending, to a point

really, ppl who passionately voted for a Change Agent bought by Wall Street give MM shit for staying in nice hotels? Sit 'n spin.

also mm makes fun movies

not really tho?

fun?

yeah theyre hella entertaining and hilarious

his movies are variable, and guilty of some of the superficial sins armond and others accuse him of, but at he's best he's a good rabblerouser (which includes being a good entertainer). the tendency on the left to disown him seems like a needlessly defensive move. he's not right about everything, but god knows his heart is in the right place. and he's a much better filmmaker than a lot of the diy documentarians who have come after him.

harassing congressmen from an ice cream truck - challenging phil knight to a footrace - paul wolfowitz w/the spit comb

guy is putting full effort into entertaining us and all anyone can do is complain abt how hes not a serious upright truth broker - talk abt missing the boat jeez

and generally hes right abt the big picture stuff in a way most people w/a public voice will not fuck with ever

aye.

really, ppl who passionately voted for a Change Agent bought by Wall Street give MM shit for staying in nice hotels? Sit 'n spin.

― A Patch on Blazing Saddles (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:12 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

in my experience there is no overlap between these two groups

G Kenny finds that AW is making sense lately, in praising A Serious Man and panning An Education (scroll to end):

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1130

i've found that to be a v distressing turn of events

o shit @ his precious review

lotsa folks saying the same thing really -- my editor: "Stuff White People Like"

did they compare it to birth of a nation

well, AW always takes that extra step. (btw I have no doubt it's nowhere as well made as BoaN)

Excellent recent films with black themes—Next Day Air, Cadillac Records, Meet Dave, Norbit, Little Man, Akeelah and the Bee, First Sunday, The Ladykillers, Marci X, Palindromes, Mr. 3000, even back to the great Beloved (also produced by Oprah)...

I really liked Mr. 3000 but wow

To be fair he is right that most critics would praise a new Birth Of A Nation before they'd rave about Little Man.

Mr. 3000 is great

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/01/white_vs_olberm.php

what

jeezus, who cares

"this is the rudest thing I've ever [dealt with]"

rough life

Keith Olbermann: kind of a prissy bitch

"The final upshot was that Us critic Thelma Adams was asked to present the award. Which she did, and very robustly."

Oh thank heavens.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=awardcentral&jump=news&articleid=VR1118013553&cs=1

armond white is a prissier bitch imo, plus he seems a little unbalanced

About the only person I can think of who could out-fussy Armond White is maybe P. Diddy? Perez Hilton on a good day?

Us critic Thelma Adams was asked to present the award. Which she did, and very robustly."

oh DID she.

White's concept of using only past winners as presenters led to another odd decision in which 1984 NYFCC Best Supporting Actress winner Christine Lahti (for Swing Shift) presented George Clooney with his Best Actor award. She and Clooney have a history, apparently, but the general reaction was "why is Lahti presenting this again?" Clooney's people, I'm told, were at the front of the line with this question.

lol Armond that naughty boy!