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

god Armond "ruining" the 100% Rotten Tomatoes score for Get Out is still so fucking funny to me, such a classic Armond move

That seems to be the only one, yes.

alas my two friends who thought Get Out sucked are not critics.

Ned's reaction to that review is also amazing:

White wrote of Peele’s film: “‘Get Out’ does not rank with America’s notable race comedies — Brian De Palma’s ‘Hi, Mom!’, Ossie Davis’s ‘Gone Are the Days! (Purlie Victorious)’, Robert Downey Sr.’s ‘Putney Swope,’ Melvin Van Peebles’s ‘Sweet Sweetback’, Hal Ashby’s ‘The Landlord,’ Rusty Cundieff’s ‘Fear of a Black Hat,’ or any of the genre spoofs by the Wayans family, … or the recent Eddie Murphy films that are so personal and ingenious, they transcend racial categorization.”

Still taking this in.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:51 PM (three months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ned, still taking it in?

he had me through The Landlord, at the v minimum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_a_100%25_rating_on_Rotten_Tomatoes

The list of movies Armond hasn't "ruined" on RT is pretty long tbh.

the personal and ingenious movies of Griffith, they transcend racial categorizatoin.

24: Redemption

Eddie Murphy has recent films?

Ned, still taking it in?

I've moved towards taking it on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_(2015_film)

57 positive reviews?!

I'm more sick of Rotten Tomatoes than I am of Armond.

xpost Perhaps that should have been called Julian's Complicated Situation.

I've never used it.

I prefer meat critic.

I don't either, but it has a certain cultural ubiquity that I finally noticed last semester when some of my students were discussing some movie or another (Get Out? La La Land?) and contrasting their reactions towards the RT score.

reactions towards against the RT score

the tomato has become totally ubiquitous, shows up whenever you google a movie, listed right next to the running time. i use the Flixster app and that fuckin tomato is always right there. in a way it's cool because shit blockbusters like Baywatch and Pirates 800 or whatever wither on the vine, but their whole process of determining how to categorize middling reviews as positive or negative seems fishy.

wither on the vine

I see what you did

lol damn that was unintentional

i saw Pirates at a drive in a few weeks ago and had a blast, fuck the tomatoes

i read that as meaning the Polanski film w/ Matthau

All I have left to look forward to is Armond's Detroit review.

— ＮＯＴ ＲＥＣＯＮＣＩＬＥＤ (@NickPinkerton) July 30, 2017

hell yea

Here you go:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450145/kathyrn-bigelow-detroit-romanticizes-riots-equates-detroit-riots-ferguson

By his standards, this is actually a somewhat tempered take.

It's official. His first NRO post that isn't a review:

Now, after the mess of Charlottesville and the mainstream media’s deliberate misreading of White House statements, these czars have uncustomarily succumbed to show-business, art-world, and theater-bubble peer pressure. Peer pressure is an undeniable part of the arts-panel experience — as it is also evidence of millennial virtue-posturing.

"deliberate misreading"

wow

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450637/nea-resignations-good-riddance

Refute the Obama revolution that “transformed” America into an elitist state of empowered celebrities. It had filled the government with uncompromising progressives — wealthy ones at that — who would rather see the system collapse than compromise their egotism. Let freeloader grant applicants squirm, or let Hollywood, Broadway and the mainstream media — our new czars — get off the government tit and totally fund themselves.

On the fall of Armond

http://hazlitt.net/feature/critical-failure

Good read, thanks

Level headed in every way. The diametric opposite to Armond today.

Q&A with James Toback smartest, most honest director in America. https://t.co/f9GWEiPVSE

— armond white (@3xchair) October 23, 2017

armond white is what happens when you're a creep to those around you and subsequently rejected and forgotten, i.e. the perfect mark for the alt-right.

excellent point.

well times, Armond https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/22/james-toback-sexual-harassment-writer-director-accused

well that's why he revived a 17-year-old interview.

There might be a perceptive, level-headed critic out there who can cogently make the argument that a filmmaker can be a great artist AND still be a sexual predator. But Armond isn't that critic, and Toback isn't that filmmaker.

I think Armond could, but Toback no fucking way

Armond's timing and wording dare you not to assume that being a great filmmaker and being a sexual predator go hand-in-hand.

Armond White can't, because his entire POV is untrustworthy, it's a reaction to the people who rejected him for being a creep. sorry you can't call female film critics cunts anymore, Armond!

he follows 17 twitter accounts, and he's probably the only guy on Twitter who follows Saint Etienne, Bryan Ferry, Curt Schilling, Mike Cernovich, *and* Scott Adams.

he's been pathetic his entire career but now it's almost a tragedy. i suspect he's deeply unwell.

he follows 17 twitter accounts

No, but he does check his @'s religiously.

AW used to do a good annual music-video review show at Lincoln Center earlier in the century, before he lost his mind.

I liked him as a music critic.

I even liked him as a film critic for a time.

Now I only like him as a cautionary tale.

An oasis of civilization in the California desert

Some of those music video review thingys used to be (are?) up on YouTube in poor quality recordings. I watched enough of them that I'm convinced they were his best work.

I called this one:

A few years back, as chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, I hosted a criticism panel at Columbia University and was bemused when one participant from a national weekly entertainment magazine, insisted that his “reviews are not political!” It’s demonstrable that most movie critics, like most journalists, work under an unacknowledged left bias. I was reminded of this again yesterday when a conglomerate of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, Boston Society of Film Critics, and the National Society of Film Critics all rounded their wagons, moving to disqualify Disney films from the groups’ upcoming awards consideration, subsequent to a feud — over a news article the L.A. Times wrote about Disneyland — in which the corporation refused to invite the paper’s critic to a movie screening.

Reviewers who normally resist writing political analyses of films, even when praising movies that are blatantly partisan, now presume to form a united front by issuing the quasi-political statement that Disney’s interdiction was “antithetical to the principles of a free press and set a dangerous precedent in a time of already heightened hostility towards journalists. . . . [This] should gravely concern all who believe in the importance of a free press, artists included.”

But this is delusional. It is the typical liberal “free press” blather followed by punitive action. Involvement in an individual business dispute diminishes the idea of journalistic solidarity unless there’s recognition that Disney exercised a legitimate right to choose its audience for film previews—even to withhold advertising to whatever media outlet it chooses. Ignoring the business facts of the matter to pretend this is a First Amendment issue exposes the critics’ hypocrisy.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner