District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema -- the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture.
Armond White may be a troll, purposely going against the grain, but to all those people who hate him, who hate his reviews, etc. etc, why waste your time reading it?
Why not focus on the positive, who not go to better reviewers then? There's hundreds, thousands of other critics out there. All of which you're free to read, but yet all you "critics" of this critic seem to enjoy bashing him. It seems just as pathetic to me that those hating him will keep on coming back to bash his latest review.
It's as if you're just hoping he'll write something bad about a movie you like just so you can write your own negative comments. There's a pathetic connection there. It's rather hypocritical.
Many are criticizing him as predictable, but yet his bashers who just keep on saying the same old junk are predictable as well.
I'm not an Armond White fan, but he's just one of many critics. If I don't like what he writes, I won't read him.
If he's indeed a troll, you're all just giving him the attention he wants. You're helping to feed the troll. Does that make sense to any of you?
Aug 14 - 03:19 PM
This guy went to an Ivy League school. He's smarter than you clowns.
Aug 14 - 05:41 PM
lol at you if you think that going to an Ivy League school is a definite indicator of one's intelligence.
Aug 14 - 06:38 PM
556 comments, WOW.
Aug 14 - 07:40 PM
I've used RT for years and used to rely on it almost exclusively. Armond has been chipping away at my perception of it's quality and I've since been checking out Metacritic much more frequently.
Reading the entertaining back and forth in these comments, I figured a compromise could be reached to preserve the integrity of the tomatometer and allow Armond his revenue-generating soapbox.
Allow him to keep posting reviews with a N/A tag. He'll still undoubtedly generate alot of buzz and get his attention, he just won't be able to game the T-meter to do it.
RT's defense of his inclusion in the system is really disheartening. I mean, it really makes me sad. He doesn't provide meaningful film reviews, he blatantly abuses the system to generate personal traffic.
Until RT figures out they're being led around by the nose and puts a leash on this hack, I'll just be stopping by once every few weeks. Metacritic will fill the void nicely.
Aug 14 - 09:27 PM
Aug 14 - 10:18 PM
you are absolutely correct. His reviews are well worded gibberish. It's clear at this point that Armond White isn't a film critic but a writer with an agenda and his opinion doesn't mean anything to anyone anymore. He's a quote whore who loves reaction. His reviews are ruining the tomato-meter and Rotten Tomatoes should seriously look into these "critics" methods not just have them meet a criteria and unleash them with no control. To Rotten Tomatoes: Control your site, Kick Armond White already.
Aug 14 - 10:54 PM
oh my god!!! five hundred and sixty comments. Im guessing people are not huge fans of this guy.
Aug 14 - 10:43 PM
You know, it really bothers me that the RT staff support this guy because he was elected to some big position, and is supposedly respected by many other critics.As far as I'm concerned, this means nothing to us. It's like saying the manager at your job, who you know to be terrible at what he does and is loathed by his employees, gets a pass because all the other managers like him. It's unfair and it doesn't do us any good.Critics exist for our benefit, not for the benefit of other critics. We deserve intelligent, well thought out reviews that will help us decide what movies are worth the money to see. We neither need nor deserve racially charged, biased right-leaning drivel spewed forth with a vocabulary that Armond himself doesn't even understand.He does not deserve to be a movie critic, let alone a spot on Rotten Tomatoes.
Aug 15 - 12:57 AM
I HAVE NOW SEEN THE MOVIE, and can say - without a doubt - that Armond is a know-nothing, retarded *****in' a-hole.Best movie so far of this year!
Aug 15 - 12:59 AM
For those who haven't heard yet, Roger Ebert called Armond a troll. I don't care if a bunch of NY critics respect him, Ebert trumps them all.
Aug 15 - 02:22 AM
As much as I had to admit it... Mr. White is right... about a lot of this film.Now let me just say right off that just because a film is an allegory to a real life situation (i.e. South African apartheid) doesn't necessarily mean that it has to get every specific detail of that situation historically precise. It must merely bear resemblance to it thematically. I didn't think it was necessary, for example, to see the aliens mounting a protest akin to the student demonstration of 1976. The filmmaker did a decent job of establishing a feeling of "self determination" through the alien Christopher's attempts at escaping earth. He strategically undermined the system that attempted to oppress him.*ahem*HOWEVER... White couldn't be more correct when he says:"Wikus%u2019 semi-polite attitude is a reversal of the European imperialism that started South African colonization. But the allegory is also misapplied because the prawn, who resent their mistreatment, primarily yearn to beamup back to their Mothership. Blomkamp and Jackson want it every which way..."Exactly. The allegory is definitely misapplied and the filmmakers definitely seem to want things every which way. Native people of a land fight from being pushed out... because it is their land (see the Battle of Algiers)... The aliens of this story were being mistreated certainly... but not being pushed off "their" land. The whole scenario is backwards and therefore fails as a true allegory. It doesn't hold up thematically. Moreover, it's not even revealed that their essential desire is to return to their world (even though that assumption is made somewhere in the back of an audience's mind) until about halfway through the film. So we don't know what the heck the aliens' objective is - which is generally an essential element of basic dramatic conflict (two parties who want something that the other isn't willing to give).AND... if these aliens were supposed to represent black folks (or illegal immigrants, or refugees, or any other group of disenfranchised people), I've got some SERIOUS questions. Early in the film non-humans are portrayed as having absolutely no sense of boundaries, rules, "humanity", dignity, intelligence, etc. And I'm not talking about how they are portrayed by the media within the world of the film... I mean the way the filmmaker chose to characterize them. They are shown beating people who approach them with clipboards. They are accused of rape, murder, theft etc. Most disturbing though, is the fact that we are never really privy to "their side of the story". We never get a true sense of the alien community within D-9 (which is the satisfaction I totally expected as Wikus's metamorphosis begins). What do they value as a group? What are their shared memories of home? Why do they resort to stealing and killing. How do they expect to continue to survive on earth... or do they? The only non-humans who seem to have any redeeming qualities (and provide us with any real insight into the race) are Christopher and his son. We know how humans feel about them... but no idea how they feel about themselves. And so as a result, they remain "alien" to us.Another major problem is that even the REAL-LIFE black folks are portrayed as either ultra-tough guys, alien-crazed criminals, or doofuses (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any doctors of color working at MNU).Don't agree with this though:"That cartoonish Mothership image suggests the high-concept inanity featured in Children of Men and Cloverfield: It%u2019s apocalyptic silliness."It's not "silliness"... it's just science fiction. "Silliness" (or what most would call "make believe") is generally accepted in fantastical genres.Or this:"South African fantasia from director Neill Blomkamp was produced by the intellectually juvenile New Zealander Peter Jackson"Calling people names just isn't nice.All in all this movie is definitely overrated. As much I disagree with most of his reviews (Armond's review for Up was pure rubbish), I have to agree with him here. The crazy thing is that I'd read it prior to viewing the film thinking that what I would see what directly contradict his opinions... it didn't. District 9 doesn't suck, but it won't be held with this much acclaim 10 years from now either. Oh and I didn't think Sharlto Copley's acting was great either.Lastly, for those who for some reason don't believe this is an allegory, you'd be wise to check out Roger Ebert's semi-defense of Armond's review (http://3.ly/roger). Or information on the real District 6 (http://3.ly/southaf).
Aug 15 - 09:25 AM
The problem with this type of criticism is that it assumes that this movie is an allegory for apartheid. Everyone is making this assumption incorrectly. If you read an interview or two with Blomkamp, he says that it's not supposed to be that.
Aug 15 - 11:14 AM
The problem with the support of what he's saying is that Neill Blomkamp has specifically said this movie isn't meant to be taken as any allegory or representation of past events in South Africa. While yes, obviously, there are close similarities that can be drawn, Blomkamp was born and grew up in South Africa during Apartheid, and he chose to incorporate the sentiments and feel of the times in the film. Armond White seems to fail at catching that. Now, I can respect him and anyone else for having a differing opinion; one should not be so arrogant as to think their own opinions and choices are the best. Yet, here lies the problem: Armond is that arrogant, believing his reviews and opinions to be greater than the rest, this sentiment being apparent in many, MANY, of his reviews over time.
Aug 16 - 01:10 PM
Right. Where on earth would White get the idea that this movie based and filmed in South Africa, using locations that are or are identical to racially segregated slums, about a population imprisoned and despised due their species-otherness, would have anything to do with apartheid?
Aug 18 - 08:00 PM
And exactly how many times have you taken a car to a mechanic and they can't figure out whats wrong with it, or fix the wrong thing?Whether a mechanic or doctor or what have you, a profession is defined by certain parameters. If someone in a position is unable to abide by or perform the requirements of that position, then they should not hold it.People are not arguing over the merit (good or bad) of his opinion, what everyone is so angry about is that his opinions are not relevant at all to the movie.If a critic were to post a review, negative lets say, and backs up his opinion with rational reasons, then usually they get very few comments, and the ones they do receive are at least constructive.Unless you've been living under a rock for the last couple of years, you'd realize Armond is a hack writer and poor critic who goes out of his way to cause negative reactions to his reviews in the hopes of driving traffic to the NYP and RT for advertising revenue.The fact that he's duped you into accepting his opinions as relevant is something I would not admit to, for it makes you look like a fool.
Aug 15 - 10:14 AM
LOL. I actually search for this guys review. He is, without a doubt, the most consistent reviewer around.I think it's time for RT to consider his negative reviews a Fresh review and positive reviews a rotten tomatoes.If Armond hates it, it has to be good.
Aug 15 - 10:28 AM
Armond White is a boss
Aug 15 - 03:36 PM
Basically he hates this movie because it isn't a right wing take on it's content
Aug 15 - 03:39 PM
He is a self hating conservative essentially. Wants blacks to be put on a pedestal but hates the fact that his political party of choice (for no doubt tax reasons as a New Yorker) is the one that openly makes racist comments and is connected to ultra-religious bigotry.Nice try Armond, you're a shill for your own cause and it's transparent as hell.
Aug 15 - 03:44 PM
What do you expect when his tummy is craving cat food? Poor guy just can't focus. ;)
Aug 15 - 11:54 PM
Dont feed the ****** troll...
Aug 15 - 05:13 PM
hmm... is this movie going to be good at the box office? yes? ok im giving it a bad review.
Aug 15 - 06:14 PM
Maybe is Armond would stop eating cat food long enough to actually watch the movies he's reviewing then he might now a good one from a bad one.
Aug 15 - 11:49 PM
LOL even Ebert thinks this guy is a troll.http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.htmlMan I hate this guy.
Aug 15 - 11:56 PM
He lambastes the apparent "racism" that he perceives in films, yet is constantly forming a very blatant form of preference by holding films like next day air and dance flick so much higher because of their apparent culture differences.He also says in interviews that he "doesn't give a sh*t" that the rest of the "moronic" reviews and readers hate what he says about films. Yet, this foolish and stupid excuse for a film critic seems to forget that it is the general public that create the need for these film critics; he exists because we, the general public, ask for these film critics. By attacking the very public that has literally created, and sustained, his job and very purpose, this man is missing the entire point of what he does, and does very badly: dropping idiotic opinions to the point where what he says is viewed now as cliched, along with the idea that he himself doesn't understand what he's saying.
Aug 16 - 12:53 PM
Wow this guy is a reverse racist. Doesn't even understand the concept of the movie. Ether way don't trust this fool, because he see in 2 colors black and white. The movie was epic by all means the best i have seen in years. This guy needs to go back to watching unintelligent sci-fi movies like Independence Day.
Aug 16 - 04:02 PM
Oh Armond, sometimes I think you just pan movies just so you can be intellectual's comic relief.I'm sure that intellectually juvenile Peter Jackson is getting a good laugh while he polishes up those pieces of metal that you movie-types call Academy Awards while his movie grosses $37 million in its first weekend run.
Aug 16 - 05:55 PM