Showing 1 - 1 of 1 Movie Blogs
We all know the notorious Armond White. Some hate him, some love him, and most importantly, everyone hates him greatly. I am going to tell you why. I'm not going to waste your time with an intro, because to be honest, I'm a pretty straight to the point kind of writer and that would be a waste of time because this man's stupidity speaks for itself.
On Fast and the Furious:
[color=blue][QUOTE] Director Justin Lin doesn?t have the love of design that made the 2001 The Fast and the Furious a deliriously beautiful noir. [/QUOTE][/color]
Oh yeah, who can forget the influential classic film-noir The Fast and the Furious. I loved how it emphasized moral ambiguity and the sexual motivation between Vin Diesel and his car. I also loved the hard boiled and iconicly distinctive characteristics it portrayed, particularly the ones concerning Michelle Rodriguez' ass in tight jeans. Oh wait, no it didn't. It was an action popcorn blockbuster. So what the fuck is he talking about? I have no idea. No one does. It's one of those things you'd see posted on 4chan.
[QUOTE] Such indie banality -- linked to liberal message-mongering -- proves Fleck-Boden go into a slump long before rookie Miguel. [/QUOTE]
Armond White seems to think that big words make you look smart, but as usual, he's a fucking idiot who messes up simple things. Like for example, not looking and sounding like a pompous moron. Read that headline out loud three times. Does it start to make any sense? No. Atleast Victoria Alexander's reviews are coherent and are easy to understand for the most part. The reviews of Armond White on the other hand are enigmas, something that needs to be studied. And when I read your entire review and still have no idea what the hell you actually thought of the movie, you are a pretty bad critic. I mean hey, isn't that the point?
[color=blue][QUOTE] Adventureland adds appreciable humanity to the genre, improving the adolescent egotism inflected by Dazed and Confused and the vulgar excesses of Superbad. [/QUOTE] [/color]
Alright, I saw Adventureland, and I loved it. But as much as the cult classic Dazed an Confused? No fucking way, not even close. Furthermore saying it's that much better than Superbad, isn't that quite an underhanded complement? It's like saying ''Oh good job on A Clockwork Orange Mr. Kubrick, this film was much better than your really flawed 2001: A Space Odyssey''. And the fact that he thinks Adventureland is superior to Superbad would actually mean the opposite is true, considering he's a fucking idiot and has no idea what normal people enjoy watching. I don't even think he knows what normal people are.
Plus the fact that he actually likes this movie must either mean it's one of the best movies ever made, or fuckin' terrible. Maybe both.
[color=blue][QUOTE] Tokyo! presents a generation of filmmakers who succumb to sudden, dull, solipsistic hipsterism -- not the life force of Boccaccio ?70 or even 2007's Paris, Je T'aime[/QUOTE] [/color]
Let's make a checklist that all his writing has in common:
1) Misses the point of the movie, no matter how simple
2) Uses big irrelevant words
3) Mentions random movies that have nothing in common with the actual film he's talking about
4) Hates random things that have no relevance to the actual movie, usually things that are considered cult favorites or critical darlings
Does this review have all four? Yup. And for the record, Michel Gondry > who ever the fuck he has in mind (it's very confusing, as usual). Though in his defense, he's not much of a fan of the whole Charlie Kaufman thing, though again, he's an idiot so it makes perfect sense. Oh and furthermore in his defense, he wrote the review in record speed. I guess kindergarten got off early that day. I think he also fired off a few paragraphs during nap time.
Besides, what's wrong with hipsters? Not all of them are pretentious, some make pretty badass music. Regina Spektor, Leslie Feist, Zooey Deschanel. What's not to like? (seriously though I hope they all die)
On Revolutionary Road:
[color=blue][QUOTE]It?s cynical dramedy for people who pride themselves on being smart -- that is, unsentimental. [/QUOTE] [/color]
I don't have much to say about this review, I just thought it was worth bringing up because how ironic and funny it actually is. It's basically the equivalent of someone saying ''Anyone who doesn't like Disaster Movie is an idiot'', though again, Armond had to mess up my metaphor by being confusing again. It's like the pot calling the kettle black - assuming the pot was me and being black meant you failed at your career.
On Transporter 3:
[color=blue][QUOTE] Forget the Oscar bait, Transporter 3 is the only movie you need to see this season. [/QUOTE] [/color]
Let's take a page from Slumdog Millionaire and play a game. That statement was:
A) A simple, tongue-in-cheek joke
B) An over exaggeration to emphasis his like of Transporter 3
C) A satire of the over seriousness of Oscar-baiters
D) What he actually thinks
So that's right, he thinks Transporter 3 deserved Best Picture. I know he likes Luc Besson, but come the fuck on Whitey. I liked Taken as much as the next guy, but this is insanity. And now, for the five Best Picture nominated films.
Spoiler: he didn't like any of them, not even a little
Note: He didn't review Frost/Nixon, but I assume he hated it for some stupid reason like Sam Rockwell's hair was too shiny (it was pretty shiny)
On The Reader:
[color=blue][QUOTE] By the time The Reader lays on Jewish guilt, the calculation of sex, morbidity and piety becomes risible if not offensive. [/QUOTE] [/color]
Sexist, racist and stupid. Two are debatable, one is not. And yeah, let's not forget this controversial film about reading, we all know how tons of people were offended by the mild nudity and moderate swearing. No real controversy to speak of. Well, other than it snubbing The Dark Knight and The Wrestler for Best picture, but that's clearly not what he was talking about considering he didn't like The Dark Knight or The Wrestler (nor WALL-E or Doubt for that matter). He obviously is unable to tell what kind of emotional impact a film will have on it's audience. Which is major part of being a film critic.
I mean really, when has the following ever happened?
Guy: Yo, let's see a movie.
Girl: Cool, what should we see.
Guy: There Will Be Blood sounds amazing.
Girl: Let's check the news paper to see what Armond White thinks about it.
Guy: Did he like it?
Girl: No, he hated it. He liked Norbit though.
Guy: Great, let's rent that.
Answer: never. Because no one has ever listened to Armond White regarding anything concerning cinema and no one ever will.
On The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:
[color=blue][QUOTE]Indifferent to [F. Scott] Fitzgerald?s ideas about society and ambition, Fincher falls back on Hollywood cliché.[/QUOTE] [/color]
Holy hell, he was kinda right for once... kinda. I liked the film but even I will admit he has a point. Though considering the film still managed to get a Best Picture nomination plus 12 others, plus a massive Box-office account, it just proves even when he's right he's still irrelevant and unpopular. Though at the end of day it's still just an excuse to insult David Fincher. Look at his review of Zodiac for example. Oh what the hell, here's a list of great movies he hates just for shits and giggles:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
I'm Not There
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days
Hearts and Minds
Across the Universe
The Dark Knight
All the Real Girls
The Assassination of Jesse James
The End of the World
Gone Baby Gone
Flight of the Red Balloon
Talk to Me
There Will Be Blood (really!)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Synecdoche, New York
I Love You, Man
3:10 to Yuma
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
A Christmas Tale
If you've ever seen a more impressive ''missed the point'' list, please tell me.
[QUOTE] A bizarre manipulation of the gay political impulse. [font=Courier New][size=3][color=blue][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
Now this review surprised me, because as far as I know, Armond is a fan of Gus Van Sant. However in a way it doesn't, because he's a miserable abomination of a human being.
Anyways I cant quite tell if the reason why he didn't like the movie was because he's homophobic, or just some other random thing like it lacked the visceral punch of Shrek 2 or that it didn't have the surrealistic touches of a Jan Svankmajer film. Though his review is only subtletly condescending to homosexuality, it just seems like a general Armond-White-misses-the-fucking-the-point-fest. So in a way this review is an accomplishment because he didn't annoy anyone more than he usually does. (people with common sense for example)
On Slumdog Millionaire:
[color=blue][QUOTE]There hasn?t been a social drama this decadently over-hyped since City of God. Boyle plays the same game of pandering to liberal sensibilities while entertaining safe, middle-class distance.[/QUOTE] [/color]
Here's why he's wrong, word by word:
1) Calls City of God bad for no apparent reason. Yes, they kinda share plot elements, but so do Watchmen and Brazil. Evil Dead and Pulp Fiction. Elf and Monty Python. Etc, etc.
2) ''Social drama''? Again, he over analyzes something so much he misses the point, which is actually quite simple. It's a crowd-pleasing romance epic, not some... oh who the fuck knows what he thought it was. He probably thought it was a musical.
3) ''Decadently over-hyped''? Well for one, what's decadent about being over-hyped? Secondly now that it's swept Award season and made over 300 hundred million worldwide, he once again spoke too soon.
4) ''Boyle plays the same game''? One of the most consistently variety filled directors working today, a guy who has made a science fiction film, a horror film, a kids film, a crime film, a drug film and a romance film in the past 15 years is playing his usual game? And if ''playing the same game'' wins you an Oscar, I'd say fucking go for it.
5) Pandering to liberal sensibilities? Lololololol I put politics where they don't need to be, I'm smart. Liberal-bias - democratic-bias - either way, who cares?
6) While entertaining safe, middle-class distance? Did he just contradict himself or prove the film as a pleaser to all demographics? Or both? That's like saying ''[REC] panders to the horror-fan community and thus will be a huge pleaser to them, while also also making sure to entertain every other fan base with something to enjoy. What a freakin' terrible shit-fest.''
7) Have you ever heard, in your entire life, anyone ever complain about that, regarding any movie, ever? Go up to random people and ask them if they liked Slumdog. If they say no, ask them why, and if they say something like There hasn?t been a social drama this decadently over-hyped since City of God. Boyle plays the same game of pandering to liberal sensibilities while entertaining safe, middle-class distance, call them a fucking weirdo. Who the fuck thinks like that? This must be the mind set Charles Manson must have. Except atleast he's funny and makes much more sense than Mr.Whitey on a regular basis.
And, for an extra bonus:
On The Wrestler
[color=blue][QUOTE]Aronofsky inflicts as much pain on the audience as self-flagellating Ram Jam does when brutalizing/mutilating himself in and outside the ring. [/QUOTE] [/color]
Note: The Wrestler was my favorite movie of the year so I may be a bit biased. Kinda like what Armond is all the time, but atleast I don't hide it.
1) ''Ram Jam''? WTF? God is this man surreal.
2) Aronofsky (who is now an even bigger cult favorite) inflicts as much pain on the audience? Is that why The Wrestler is such a crowd favorite, and why Mickey Rourke got an Oscar nomination based totally on word of mouth, despite having very little hype or promotion? This is man is too fucking strange and stupid to know what audiences actually want. (he didn't like The Dark Knight for example)
That's why he's always wrong and why everyone hates him so much, he's just so fucking alone on everything he thinks and he just doesn't seem to care. I don't even think he knows because he seems to live in his own little world. But hey, atleast he has respect and credibility. But wait, according to his RT profile:
[size=6]This user agrees with the tomatometer 49% of the time[/size]
That's right, this guy is actually proven wrong by this actual website. The majority of his reviews are now officially wrong, as he's actually rotten. I mean for shit's sake I probably wouldn't be certified fresh (like Ebert), but if I actually became rotten, I'd pack it in. Hell, he has a lower rating than most of the films he pans. It's people like him that make me want to take up racism, just so I could hate him a little bit more fully.
There should be a rule where you cant write a bad review for a film if that film's tomatometer is higher than your own. No really, they should consider it.
3) When brutalizing/mutilating himself in and outside the ring? Like when? Like when he got depressed and decided to actually have someone pay him attention (White can relate to that) and got drunk, meaning he accidentally forgot to go to dinner with his daughter, who over-reacted? Or like when he decided that the only thing he could ever do right was wrestling, therefore deciding to wrestle, even if it cost him his life? Jesus it makes me sad even thinking about it, you'd have to not have a fucking heart (or brain) to hate this film. Infact, here is my theory:
[size=6]Armond White is a zombie[/size]
That's right, I think Armond White is a zombie. It would explain the following things:
1) Why he talks so fucking strange. His brain is half-dissolved, meaning he cant think in a normal way.
2) Why he only likes simple movies. Zombies cant think very well, and can only understand simple objectives like their desire to devour human flesh and chew on brains.
3) Why his reviews are so fucking random, how can one write coherently when they're a zombie?
4) Why it always looks like he's just trolling. No troll would do this much work for that little pay-off, but it's the only other non-zombie explanation.
5) He thought the casting call for Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables said you have to be a ''dumbass'' and not a ''badass'' - zombies usually get stuff like that mixed up I think.
6) Why he's always so wrong. Zombies make no sense. That's why George Romero didn't try to explain them, because, as I said, they just don't make any fucking sense.
And what do we do with zombies?