I think his middle name is "Ain't"

Cry of racism in 3....2....1.....

There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

Dear Jerk: There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

Dear Jerk: There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

No it isn't.

Armond White is, literally, the opposite of James Berardinelli when it comes to who a rational adult moviegoer can trust.

Dear Jerk: There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

I'll just leave this here.

Well, he was banned from one screening, but it's a start.

Way to feed the troll, movie studio.

Yeah, but Armond White is consistently on if you simply do the opposite of what he says. If rottentomatoes just flipped his rating, it would be perfect.

FTA: "I generally don't like Tarantino films, but there are some he has made that I love (Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill) so the ones he made that I DON'T like won't change how I feel about those films."

Hasn't Tarantino only directed something like 6 films (Kill Bill counted as two)? So if you like half of the films of a director, you generally don't like their films???

Holy shiat, Norbit yes, Michael Clayton no? I feel dirty.

Just spitballing here, but if Farkers can push the MTV Jersey Shore polling to 80% for Detroit (though it mattered not), is there anyway we can get Armond fired?

I just kinda would like to see him on the street as a homeless beggar, yelling at whitey and playing the race card when he doesn't give him a quarter.

Obscure Login: Dear Jerk: There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

I'll just leave this here.

Damnit you beat me to it. But I spent entirely too long in MSpaint

TheManofPA: Yeah, but Armond White is consistently on if you simply do the opposite of what he says. If rottentomatoes just flipped his rating, it would be perfect.

He's only consistently on because he waits for the other reviewers to publish, sees whether the trend is positive or not, then does the opposite.

KradDrol: TheManofPA: Yeah, but Armond White is consistently on if you simply do the opposite of what he says. If rottentomatoes just flipped his rating, it would be perfect.

He's only consistently on because he waits for the other reviewers to publish, sees whether the trend is positive or not, then does the opposite.

Not entirely true. For the most part, yes... but he always gives positive reviews to wes anderson films, as a counter example.

He doesnt seem to critique more than he does insult. For instance "The Hangover" (78% fresh) - "Rising-star Bradley Cooper and gang represent the dirtbag element that has become acceptable in contemporary comedy."

And his political viewpoints often show as well as in his rotten rating of The Messenger (90% fresh) - " So bungled up with fashionable ambivalence about the Iraq War that every single behavioral detail is not just prejudicial but wrong."

Up In the Air (90% Fresh) - "" Only seriously deluded people could enjoy Reitman's funny-sad whiplash. He's playing that same Hollywood game: keeping people ignorant of political economy."

Bruno (67% Fresh) - " The fallacy that Baron Cohen's comedy is politically pertinent derives from its pandering to Lefty biases."

W (59% Fresh) - " By opposing the mob mentality that would hang Bush in effigy, W. imaginatively sympathizes with the most maligned president in modern history."

With his reviews, I'm surprised he didn't try to Fresh up "American Carol". He's either an epic troll, or a complete and utter douche who has preconceptions before the movie even starts.

How sad is it that I knew it was going to be Armond White from the headline?

Even Roger Ebert has disowned him as a troll.

Obscure Login: Dear Jerk: There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

I'll just leave this here.

Well, he's right about Gran Torino and 3:10 to Yuma.

I was pretty sure it would be Harry Knowles, or does he not review moviews anymore?

Mugato: How does one even become a movie critic? I'm a literal encyclopedia of movie knowledge but I would never impose my opinion on anyone else unless asked (or on a message board but I don't expect it to be taken seriously). What motivates someone to spread their worthless opinions on other people's work to others?

I think you have to look your sexiest. Try wearing tight size 42 pants.

What's his fark handle?

/no joke, he has to have one

skinink: I was pretty sure it would be Harry Knowles, or does he not review moviews anymore?

You know I don't really know who Harry Knowles is, so I tried to go to his wikipedia page, but for some reason it keeps sending me straight to the article on Walruses. Something must be wrong with wiki.

What a douche.

Tyler Perry's "Why Did I Get Married?" - It's alarming that American film critics alienate themselves from the aspects of Perry's films that should be universal.

"From Paris With Love" - Giddily succinct in ways literal-minded folk will not appreciate, From Paris With Love is an object lesson in the realities of what the Obama administration once euphemized as "man-made disaster."

"Synecdoche, New York" - Pity those nerds and fashion-sheep who'll waste time trying to connect Kaufman's symbols, cite the many David Lynch references and puzzle for ways to use 'synecdoche' in daily conversation.

I may also think Armond has piss-poor taste in movies (last I checked, he agrees with the Tomato-meter about 51% of the time, which is pretty low), but that is a pretty cowardly douche move by Baumbach. If he can't handle commentary from ALL critics, then maybe he needs to find other work. The next step is allowing only the critics whom you know would enjoy your type of film.

skinink: I was pretty sure it would be Harry Knowles, or does he not review moviews anymore?

The headline says "troll" not "shill".

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox: I may also think Armond has piss-poor taste in movies (last I checked, he agrees with the Tomato-meter about 51% of the time, which is pretty low), but that is a pretty cowardly douche move by Baumbach. If he can't handle commentary from ALL critics, then maybe he needs to find other work. The next step is allowing only the critics whom you know would enjoy your type of film.

Is that slippery slope greased with retard-oil?

Armond has shown that he isn't even a critic. This isn't about taste. If you've read his reviews you would realize that. If someone isn't honest with their reviews, then they don't have any business at a premier or being a critic in the first place.

Case in point. Armond gave a glowing review to The Hurt Locker when it was still relatively unknown. A few months later after it started to become popular, he changed his review to say it was over-rated.

after seeing that list, he shouldnt be allowed to critique anything.

Also his reviews are nothing but name-dropping ("hey look at me, I know who Truffaut is!") and insults ("hey look at me, I'm an attention whore!")

Mugato: How does one even become a movie critic? I'm a literal encyclopedia of movie knowledge but I would never impose my opinion on anyone else unless asked (or on a message board but I don't expect it to be taken seriously). What motivates someone to spread their worthless opinions on other people's work to others?

money?

Good film critics are useful. I can read an Ebert review and generally know if it's worth a look. Doesn't mean I'll agree entirely, but I'm rarely much out on his score.

That means I save money on which films I see at the cinema, which I watch on DVD and which I wait for a TV release.

The worst thing, even worse than troll reviewers are the positive reviews which are payback. Either a small newspaper that's part of a large media group gives a glowing review, or a magazine gives a positive review in exchange for getting an exclusive interview with the stars.

His reviews crack me up
but if he gets paid for that
I should be paid for posting on fark

Armond White may be a neocon troll who is more consistently wrong than even John Simon ever was, but at least he knows how to use the English language, which is more than one can say for "Rodney," the author of that incoherent blog post:

Films need to be critiqued on one film to the next and one actor to the next.

He tries to direct the comment to address his personal feelings on the director, but then hypocritically saying its not the director he dislikes, it is his films!

Sic semper ignoramus!

Not only is Rodney functionally illiterate, but his argument is all wrong. He claims that a critic compromises his integrity by forming an opinion of a director's talent based on the evidence of his past work. How is it possible for any informed viewer to do otherwise? If I'm going to see a Coen Brothers film, I expect to see plenty of verbal and visual wit, knowing references to an unusually wide range of American popular culture, and characters more complex and sympathetic than a lot of critics give them credit for. If I'm dragged off to a Steven Speilberg movie (one of White's favorite directors), I expect to see a well-paced, competently-acted story marred by a certain complacent, middlebrow worldview and too-obvious sentimentality. My only obligation my critical integrity owes the public is to be honest if I end up disappointed in the Coen film or pleasantly surprised by the Speilberg. In fact, I prefer to be aware of a critic's prejudices in advance. When reading Simon, for instance, I take his opinions of Robert Altman or Jean-Luc Godard with more skepticism than his opinions of Michael Richie or Ingmar Bergman.

farkeruk: Mugato: How does one even become a movie critic? I'm a literal encyclopedia of movie knowledge but I would never impose my opinion on anyone else unless asked (or on a message board but I don't expect it to be taken seriously). What motivates someone to spread their worthless opinions on other people's work to others?

money?

Good film critics are useful. I can read an Ebert review and generally know if it's worth a look. Doesn't mean I'll agree entirely, but I'm rarely much out on his score.

That means I save money on which films I see at the cinema, which I watch on DVD and which I wait for a TV release.

The worst thing, even worse than troll reviewers are the positive reviews which are payback. Either a small newspaper that's part of a large media group gives a glowing review, or a magazine gives a positive review in exchange for getting an exclusive interview with the stars.

Most critics, even if I disagree entirely with their opinion on a film, will give me some insight. Something along the lines of "this movie was terrible because of ___". well maybe I like "___", so I give it a shot.

Armond is the one "critic" who gives absolutely no insight whatsoever into a film.

The All-Powerful Atheismo:
Case in point. Armond gave a glowing review to The Hurt Locker when it was still relatively unknown. A few months later after it started to become popular, he changed his review to say it was over-rated.

Exactly what i was wondering, thank you for not having me look up his critic scores.

At first I thought everything should be reported, but that's impossible.
Then I thought writers should be unbiased, but again, not possible.
So I thought, well, writers should at least be fair. Again, that can't be done in a practical way.
So I came up with consistency.
You know what you're getting with White and you adjust accordingly.
You already do this with everybody you know.
Although I wouldn't decide whether to see a movie based on his writing, he brings up interesting points more often than the reviewer from, say, People magazine does.

Dear Jerk 2010-03-14 12:27:38 PM
There's more than one way to critique a movie. Being contrary is valid.

Actually, it isn't. Beimg contrary just to be contrary isn't criticism it'a attention-whoring.

Ater looking at what he thinks qualifies as a 'good' movie it's obvious he's let the color of his skin 'color' his taste in films; if a white critic did that s/he would called a 'racist'.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Case in point. Armond gave a glowing review to The Hurt Locker when it was still relatively unknown. A few months later after it started to become popular, he changed his review to say it was over-rated.

My guess is that this was less about the popularity of The Hurt Locker than about its politics. When he learned that the filmmakers were against the war, he reconsidered his opinion. That is, by the way, a major problem with that film. Bigelow thought she was making an anti-war film, but was so extra-careful about not criticizing the military that she ended up with a glass in which everyone saw the reflection of their own prejudices (hence all the Oscars).

That is not meant to justify White's about-face. There have been several famous instances of critics changing their mind about a film (for instance, Joe Morgenstern on "Bonnie and Clyde"), but for White to fail to explain or even to mention his change of heart was inexcusably dishonest.

Cornelius Dribble: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Case in point. Armond gave a glowing review to The Hurt Locker when it was still relatively unknown. A few months later after it started to become popular, he changed his review to say it was over-rated.

My guess is that this was less about the popularity of The Hurt Locker than about its politics. When he learned that the filmmakers were against the war, he reconsidered his opinion. That is, by the way, a major problem with that film. Bigelow thought she was making an anti-war film, but was so extra-careful about not criticizing the military that she ended up with a glass in which everyone saw the reflection of their own prejudices (hence all the Oscars).

That is not meant to justify White's about-face. There have been several famous instances of critics changing their mind about a film (for instance, Joe Morgenstern on "Bonnie and Clyde"), but for White to fail to explain or even to mention his change of heart was inexcusably dishonest.

I don't consider that a flaw in the film. I consider it more powerful because of that.

What good is a film of it is 100% unambiguous? Well it's less valuable to me anyway.

Obscure Login: I'll just leave this here.

I think that every one of those "Bad" movies is on Earl Dittman's "good" list, and every one of those "Good" movies is on Earl Dittman's "good" list.

/no, not a typo

sirbissel: FTA: "I generally don't like Tarantino films, but there are some he has made that I love (Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill) so the ones he made that I DON'T like won't change how I feel about those films."

Hasn't Tarantino only directed something like 6 films (Kill Bill counted as two)? So if you like half of the films of a director, you generally don't like their films???

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm banning him from my brain.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cornelius Dribble: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Case in point. Armond gave a glowing review to The Hurt Locker when it was still relatively unknown. A few months later after it started to become popular, he changed his review to say it was over-rated.

My guess is that this was less about the popularity of The Hurt Locker than about its politics. When he learned that the filmmakers were against the war, he reconsidered his opinion. That is, by the way, a major problem with that film. Bigelow thought she was making an anti-war film, but was so extra-careful about not criticizing the military that she ended up with a glass in which everyone saw the reflection of their own prejudices (hence all the Oscars).

That is not meant to justify White's about-face. There have been several famous instances of critics changing their mind about a film (for instance, Joe Morgenstern on "Bonnie and Clyde"), but for White to fail to explain or even to mention his change of heart was inexcusably dishonest.

I don't consider that a flaw in the film. I consider it more powerful because of that.

What good is a film of it is 100% unambiguous? Well it's less valuable to me anyway.

I too value ambiguity, but there is a difference between the complexity that arises from a multiplicity of points of view and the muddle that comes from a timid minimalism. There is of course a fine line between the two, and I could be wrong in this instance, but on first viewing, there seemed to me to be less than meets the eye.

Wasn't this the guy who said Avatar was some big message about white guilt?

Cornelius Dribble:
I too value ambiguity, but there is a difference between the complexity that arises from a multiplicity of points of view and the muddle that comes from a timid minimalism. There is of course a fine line between the two, and I could be wrong in this instance, but on first viewing, there seemed to me to be less than meets the eye.

I see it less as minimalism and more as portraying events honestly and succinctly, letting other people draw what conclusions they want to.