criterionforum.org

Fiery Angel wrote:Dunkirk sucks, Valerian doesn't

Amusing that he calls Nolan apolitical when it is a documented fact that he contributed to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Also from what I've seen of Nolan nihilistic isn't correct either.

He's like a compass always pointing the south.

Life's short, and there are some words I just won't read past anymore, such as "fanboy".

At this point, if he wants to retain his "shock," he needs to start praising things everyone else likes

tenia wrote:He's like a compass always pointing the south.

Except when he's actually _facing_ south.

And Metropolis is from 1927, not '25.

It's for the National Review. The guy knows his audience.

What the hell is wrong with the people?

Armond has defended James Toback against the "Lynch-mobbers," calling him one of the most honest directors in America. Forget his banal schtick for just a second, White is defending a serial rapist/harasser who's called out against repeated offenders as being "cocksuckers" or "cunts". He's truly sunken to a new low with this defense.

He did it when the allegations first came to light too. He published an old interview in defense of him. Why Armond thought this somehow absolved Toback of guilt is beyond me. White's Twitter feed is a WILD ride if you're curious.

It's a bit fascinating to see what Armond White used to be like as a writer and what he's become. I imagine this Elvis Costello-loving critic is the same Armond White. And according to Greil Marcus, when Paul Simon's boycott-breaking Graceland was released, "Armond White wrote at the time—not an exact quote—“'Paul Simon had the right to say anything he wanted to say about South Africa on Graceland except what he did say: nothing.'”

Isn't this review the second time he has invoked My Man Godfrey as owing its sparkling wit to "a psychological framework of personal responsibility"? Because that's the only reason I watch it: to encourage my bootstrap-lifting.

EDIT: Sorry, old news. I probably read this in October.

New lows might seem difficult for Armond these days, but he's presently getting ratioed for a "crisis actor" tweet on the Parkland shooting.

What does ratioed mean? It is fucking sickening that some loonies are calling the survivors of this tragedy "crisis actors" and on top of that, it's an implied insult to teenagers-- I've worked with teens for years and guess what? They're bright, not stupid, care about things, and know how to use social media. It is unsurprising in the least that some of these kids have gained public traction in the wake of the shooting

domino harvey wrote:What does ratioed mean? It is fucking sickening that some loonies are calling the survivors of this tragedy "crisis actors" and on top of that, it's an implied insult to teenagers-- I've worked with teens for years and guess what? They're bright, not stupid, care about things, and know how to use social media. It is unsurprising in the least that some of these kids have gained public traction in the wake of the shooting

This X10. (Thank you.)

I have no further comment on the troll employed by the National Review who's apparently getting paid to regurgitate talking points from Russian bots. How very contrarian.

I guess this confirms once and for all that Armand isn’t just an individualist/contrarian or doing criticism as performance art, but really is a delusional lunatic. I never considered him as a conspiracy theorist but it makes too much sense now.

knives wrote:Possible explanation?

Yeah, sorry, guess I'm on Twitter too much. In practice it means people are jumping all over him (cathartically so, in this case) rather than indicating agreement.

Edit: Meanwhile, during my nap, Armond doubled down and posted "proof" (a link to some rightwing claptrap) that one of the kids is a fake. Wish I could say I was surprised.

Yes. Mr. White has, at long last, gone irretrievably from the loony side to the (utterly) dark side. Not content with stupidity he has moved on to outright evil...

Perkins Cobb wrote:

knives wrote:Possible explanation?

Yeah, sorry, guess I'm on Twitter too much. In practice it means people are jumping all over him (cathartically so, in this case) rather than indicating agreement.

Edit: Meanwhile, during my nap, Armond doubled down and posted "proof" (a link to some rightwing claptrap) that one of the kids is a fake. Wish I could say I was surprised.

Ratio means more people are replying to your tweet than liking it, generally meaning that they are telling you your tweet sucks. More here.

I never understood the line of thinking of people like Armond and right wing conspiracy theorists like him. So Deep State is smart enough to do these "fake massacres" but dumb enough to recast the same actors over and over in all of them? Of course, I shouldn't expect these assholes to have any common sense and dignity.

There's one guy I used to work with who was easily one of the stupidest people I had ever met and how he got a job as a developer I'll never know, but he started insisting that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that all of the survivors were crisis actors. In fairness, though, I think it was his way of dealing with it. When the news first came out I recall him being extremely bothered by it, genuinely upset about it. I think his latching onto the conspiracy was a way to deal with it: pretend it just didn't happen at all. He never showed any extreme political leaning but he really did latch onto the conspiracy and never let up on it. I put that down to maybe a sort of empathy, though he was still incredibly stupid.

As to these other nut jobs it's probably something similar though far more nefarious: as long as they don't have to accept what happened they can continue living in their little bubble and they don't have to change any of their thinking. The world is still as it was, facts be damned!

Screw these facts screwing the world we're living in ! So much simpler if all was just a conspiracy instead of us having to, you know, actually do stuff to try and avoid future similar issues !