criterionforum.org

accatone wrote:What are you talking about?

being a prick does not make you wrong.

JonathanM wrote:being a prick does not make you wrong.

True, but you do invariably end up sounding like a prick, as Armond exemplifies. Trying to extract worth from under the colossal weight of pot-shot contrarianism in his writing is a wearying exercise. Our great critics (Bordwell, Martin, Jones, Rosenbaum, etc.) don't employ any such traits, and their work is all the better for it.

A writer friend of mine sits down with Armond White.

Armond likes Gigli. =D>

Fiery Angel wrote:Armond likes Gigli. =D>

The only shocking thing about this review was the revelation that he didn't like Bad Boys II

So does a few others.

This critic gave it a four star review and believes it to be a great examination of sexuality. And placed it on his top ten list of the year. Pay attention to the other films on the list, and it proves he's no doof who rates crappy like Armond does.

Dustin Putman (not a well-know critic, but a strict one nonetheless) gave it ***, and called it a "a small, lyrical gem, with moments bordering on brilliance!" His review.

And then of course Roger Ebert gave it **1/2, yes praised many aspects of it including the acting, ideas, and screenplay!

There a few that like it.

domino harvey wrote:

Fiery Angel wrote:Armond likes Gigli.

The only shocking thing about this review was the revelation that he didn't like Bad Boys II

Thank God he didn't fall for the "guileful" Seabiscuit, either.

Was that meant as a film essay or a review. Also on his Sugar review: No one should be able to get away with saying 'crucified with kindness' and be taken seriously in any field involving abstract thought.

Armond White wrote:This authentic experience makes Adventureland nearly as endearing as Fanboys and The Wackness.

Oh, Armond. [-X

Armond realized that he liked a film popular among critics, so he had to throw in some references to unpopular 'alternatives' to prove he's still cool.

tavernier wrote:No comment necessary.

Armond White wrote:By paring down the franchise, Lin not only left out the prepositions...

#-o

Armond White wrote:By paring down the franchise, Lin not only left out the prepositions...

I KNEW somebody was going to do that ... and I should've known who it would be.

Ebert at least got it right:

Roger Ebert wrote:They know how to make these movies by now. Producer Neil Moritz is on his fourth, and director Justin Lin on his second. Vin Diesel and other major actors are back from "The Fast and the Furious" (2001). All they left behind were two definite articles.

I thought professional publications had sub-editors who are supposed to spot and correct these things?

Mind you, to be fair to Armond, it's not entirely unknown for errors to be introduced at the subbing stage - I've had some horrendous howlers go out under my name, and (thankfully) spotted some more at the last possible minute.

A particularly toe-curling one (I won't name the publication, but it's not one I write for regularly) saw a reference to the banning of a film by Jaromil Jireš getting "corrected" to "banned forever", by a sub-editor who clearly knew enough about Czech cinema to know that some films were officially "banned forever", but not enough to know that only four titles actually had that specific distinction, and this film wasn't one of them. True, even if I hadn't managed to change it back, 99% of readers simply wouldn't have noticed - but it's the 1% I'd be worried about, as they'd then mistrust anything else I wrote about the subject, under the entirely reasonable impression that it was my mistake!

MichaelB wrote:I thought professional publications had sub-editors who are supposed to spot and correct these things?

They do, but Armond writes for the New York Press.

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.

Oddly enough that's one of the few reviews of his that I could manage through. It really makes me want to see O&R though.

Famous last words

knives wrote:Oddly enough that's one of the few reviews of his that I could manage through. It really makes me want to see O&R though.

Exactly what part of "Ronnie is a renegade: but not in the good way of downscale comic figures such as Tyler Perry’s Madea and Larry the Cable Guy" or "it’s a nasty revelation—unlike Kevin James’ kindhearted clown in Paul Blart:Mall Cop" do you find a) is easy to manage through, and b) makes you want to see this movie?

Gotta love Armond's Anvil review, where he manages a Spielberg reference (to The Terminal, of all things!).

swo17 wrote:

knives wrote:Oddly enough that's one of the few reviews of his that I could manage through. It really makes me want to see O&R though.

Exactly what part of "Ronnie is a renegade: but not in the good way of downscale comic figures such as Tyler Perry’s Madea and Larry the Cable Guy" or "it’s a nasty revelation—unlike Kevin James’ kindhearted clown in Paul Blart:Mall Cop" do you find a) is easy to manage through, and b) makes you want to see this movie?

Maybe I phrased things wrong. Firstly I meant to say that somehow I could get through all of White's crap and read the whole dammed thing, something I usually don't do with the man. For the second thing I was trying to say he failed at discouraging me from watching the film. Saying some one isn't like Madea is always good in my book.

I'm glad that even the most modest praise for Armond is now being shouted down by the crowd.

Fiery Angel wrote:Gotta love Armond's Anvil review, where he manages a Spielberg reference (to The Terminal, of all things!).

If he'd brought up a reference to any Spielberg film except The Terminal, I'd understand where you were coming from with the bemused-seeming "of all things!".

But there's actually a strong connection between it and Anvil, and one that he spells out in the review, so you'll presumably be aware of it...

...so why the bafflement? Surely this is a rare instance of an Armond White Spielberg reference that is actually legitimate?