The Armond White Thread
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Re: Film Criticism
He's exhausted his allowable Spielberg references for the rest of his career. At this point I wouldn't even accept a Jurassic Park comment in reference to Carnosaur
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Film Criticism
Oh, fair enough.domino harvey wrote:He's exhausted his allowable Spielberg references for the rest of his career.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: Film Criticism
I would agree with Michael's defence of Armond White's reference to The Terminal, though with the caveat that even a stopped clock is correct twice a day! It was only a matter of time before a Spielberg reference would actually turn out to be relevant to the matter at hand! Enjoy the fleeting moment of appropriate alignment before he continues on with applying the use of sound in the latest Terence Malick film unfavourably to the soundtrack of Always or something similar.
-
JonathanM
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Film Criticism
The problem is that the goods are all in that first paragraph. The rest of it is just padding and re-iteration.domino harvey wrote:Though based on everything I've heard about the film, he's probably right in his negative opinion, Armond White's review for Observe and Report is one of the most ineptly structured and executed pieces of writing to ever appear in a major publication. There is no way in hell this isn't the first draft result of a 2AM email to his editor an hour after the film was over.
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:18 pm
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
That has Armond's fingerprints all over it.domino harvey wrote:Time to fire whichever intern wrote this shitCriterion wrote:With its giddily complex noir plot and color-drenched widescreen images, Made in U.S.A was a final burst of exuberance from Jean-Luc Godard’s early sixties barrage of delirious movie-movies. Yet this chaotic crime thriller and acidly funny critique of consumerism—featuring Anna Karina as the most brightly dressed private investigator in film history, rummaging through an intricate plot for a former lover who might have been assassinated—also points toward the more political cinema that would come to define Godard. Featuring characters with names such as Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, David Goodis, and Doris Mizoguchi, and appearances by a slapstick Jean-Pierre Léaud and a sweetly singing Marianne Faithfull, this piece of pop art is like a Looney Tunes rendition of The Big Sleep gone New Wave.
- kaujot
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
If there isn't a Spielberg reference, it's not Armond.
- Barmy
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 7:59 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
It's Godard's wackiest, zaniest flick! 
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:18 pm
Re: Gigli (Martin Brest, 2003)
AW loves Melville's Leon Morin, Priest.
My favorite bit of Armondian inscrutability:
My favorite bit of Armondian inscrutability:
It doesn’t deny the kind of spirituality today’s critics desperately avoid in Steve McQueen’s Hunger
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
I do like the film but
No it could notArmond White wrote:An argument could be made for Leon Morin, Priest as Melville’s finest film
-
Nothing
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:04 am
Re: Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009)
And, yet, Armond is almost certainly right, as usual.domino harvey wrote:I was just going to say "All we need now to confirm it might be good is an Armond White pan," and then wouldn't you know:
Armond White wrote:It’s watchable, yet still terrible cinema.
-
Cde.
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009)
Despite his habit of delving head first into irrelevancies and comparing everything to his list of favourites, I don't think Armond is wrong more often than any other critic working for a major print publication in America.
- Fiery Angel
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:59 pm
Re: Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009)
That's more an indictment of his profession than a defense of his critical acumen.Cde. wrote:Despite his habit of delving head first into irrelevancies and comparing everything to his list of favourites, I don't think Armond is wrong more often than any other critic working for a major print publication in America.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: The Armond White Thread
It's not that he is wrong, but how he is wrong that puts Armond in a whole other league.
- Fiery Angel
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:59 pm
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
Posted and discussed on the second page of this thread
- Fiery Angel
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:59 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
Sorry, I didn't notice that piece was April 30, 2008. It looked familiar but I just assumed it was Armond repeating himself, not me not paying attention. 
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
How can he decry sentimentality, and then worship Spielberg?
-
Nothing
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:04 am
Re: The Armond White Thread
As usual, there's a use and a justification for Armond's attack but he goes a little overboard. I've seen most of the Pixar flicks, with children, and in such a context the films provide reasonable entertainment. The problem arises when so-called film critics start to claim that Wall-E is one of the best of year - it isn't, it's sentimental corporate trash at heart, just as Armond says. But the films are harmless enough and they have a function, so, ultimately, Armond comes off looking like a scrooge. Or, to quote The Big Lebowski, "you're not wrong, Donny, you're just an asshole."
Indeed it's this article that makes me sick.
Oh NO, how could anyone POSSIBLY dislike The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, Star Trek and Iron Man... How entirely contrarian, either that or the man must be crazy... :-#
Indeed it's this article that makes me sick.
Oh NO, how could anyone POSSIBLY dislike The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, Star Trek and Iron Man... How entirely contrarian, either that or the man must be crazy... :-#
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: The Armond White Thread
Okay Armie
On a more serious note, why can't a pixar movie be considered great just because it comes from the Pixar house? Using your logic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has no artistic merit, something I'll fight you tooth and nail for. Just because something comes from a corporation or big studio does not by virtue reduce its merits to nothing. Let's say Pixar was the company that put out your favorite movie, does that take away the artistic merits of that movie?
Not liking Wall-e or the Incredibles is perfectly fine. No one movie can get a 100% consensus, but to say that those movies have no artistic merit, as White continues to do and you have suggested, because you don't like the product, or aspects of the product is superficial and ridiculous.
And like I said in my earlier post, if White is going to attack an aspect of a film because of what his pattern for liking is, it shouldn't be, and would be hypocritical to be, sentimentality.
On a more serious note, why can't a pixar movie be considered great just because it comes from the Pixar house? Using your logic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has no artistic merit, something I'll fight you tooth and nail for. Just because something comes from a corporation or big studio does not by virtue reduce its merits to nothing. Let's say Pixar was the company that put out your favorite movie, does that take away the artistic merits of that movie?
Not liking Wall-e or the Incredibles is perfectly fine. No one movie can get a 100% consensus, but to say that those movies have no artistic merit, as White continues to do and you have suggested, because you don't like the product, or aspects of the product is superficial and ridiculous.
And like I said in my earlier post, if White is going to attack an aspect of a film because of what his pattern for liking is, it shouldn't be, and would be hypocritical to be, sentimentality.
-
JonathanM
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: The Armond White Thread
If he'd said that about the Dreamworks cartoons then I'd agree with him.
And that's coming from someone who thought that Ratatouille was unrelentingly terrible.
And that's coming from someone who thought that Ratatouille was unrelentingly terrible.
-
Caged Horse
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 6:41 pm
- Location: Dead
Re: The Armond White Thread
As would I -- but any film from that era, animated or not, has earned the valediction of history, which is to say the attention and endorsement (conscious or otherwise) of several generations of audiences, critics and scholars. Pixar's 1995-onwards oeuvre hasn't -- yet -- though I'm quietly confident some of the 'animation masterpieces' AW mentions (Chicken Little?!) stand a lot less chance.knives wrote:Using your logic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has no artistic merit, something I'll fight you tooth and nail for..
- bunuelian
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: San Diego
Re: The Armond White Thread
I thought I'd read his Star Trek review to see if it would satisfy me as someone who thinks it's terrible, despite my Trekkieness. I think his review is about as terrible as the movie, but possibly more entertaining.
Is Mission to Mars really a "visionary standard-setter"?
Is Mission to Mars really a "visionary standard-setter"?
- dx23
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
- Location: Puerto Rico
Re: The Armond White Thread
I think is it just his gimmick. That is the way he has brought readers to his reviews. Look at the fact that we have a thread dedicated to him and it says enough about the impact of this "I hate everything everyone likes" gimmick.Nothing wrote:Oh NO, how could anyone POSSIBLY dislike The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, Star Trek and Iron Man... How entirely contrarian, either that or the man must be crazy...
This is what it is going to say in his tombstone, since it clearly describes his legacy. 20 years from now, people will still read Roger Ebert reviews, while Mr White here will be long forgotten or just dismissed as the asshole reviewer who didn't like movies.Nothing wrote:"you're not wrong, Donny, you're just an asshole."
-
Vic Pardo
- Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:24 am
Re: The Armond White Thread
Just for the record, I didn't like DARK KNIGHT, SLUMDOG, STAR TREK or IRON MAN either. The only reason I can't say I didn't like THE WRESTLER is because I haven't seen it. I might like THE WRESTLER, though. Unlike those other films, it actually seems to be about something. I tend not to like big-budget special effects movies anyway, unless they have a sense of humor and don't take themselves too seriously, like TRANSFORMERS. Or have some interesting design schemes, like 300, which also had a sense of humor--and wasn't that big-budget either.Nothing wrote:Oh NO, how could anyone POSSIBLY dislike The Dark Knight, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, Star Trek and Iron Man... How entirely contrarian, either that or the man must be crazy...