criterionforum.org

You left out the best part

The Ever-Humble Armond White wrote:For the record: Let Slate readers know that not every intelligent person in American excoriates The Passion of the Christ. Some of us admire it.

My favourite comment about The Passion of the Christ was Jonathan Romney's, who concluded his review with:

It's hard to see what the film does for Christianity, or for Christ, whose identity - as man or icon, religious teacher or political militant - is barely visible under the rain of blood. With its punishing sensibility, the film does nothing for cinema either, except to help us imagine how things might have been if the art form had been invented in the 11th century.

(I borrowed that last line - with attribution - when reviewing a later DVD release of The Colour of Pomegranates.)

jbeall wrote:Cotton Mather writes more interesting and less predictable reviews than Armond White

Utterly non-authentic. Dancing and music (viz. Playford's Dancing Master) were part of Puritan life (though Cotton Mather preferred "unmixt" dancing, whatever that was -- and strongly reproved balls given on the occasion of Christmas). ;~}

When did the New Yorker start publishing McSweeneys' rejects?

How did we miss this? Armond White writes for, who else, National Review now!

EDIT: Oh man, read the comments. Even the conservatives think he's pretending to be conservative in order to "troll" readers because his opinions don't even make sense to them!

domino harvey wrote:EDIT: Oh man, read the comments. Even the conservatives think he's pretending to be conservative in order to "troll" readers because his opinions don't even make sense to them!

Soon the Republican Party will be voting to expel him.

He also has a column in OUT magazine.

domino harvey wrote:How did we miss this? Armond White writes for, who else, National Review now!

In the grand tradition of John Simon. From one crank to another.

I was reading Armond's article on the national review about the new X-Men film for my weekly dose of Armond humour and something utterly terrible was happening and I felt sick. I actually agreed with what he was saying about the X-men franchise. I was very worried that I had fallen and hit my head and had suffered a terrible brain injury, but then I scrolled down further and read his article defending Adam Sandler arguing that the liberal media are against Sandler because he is a Republican... and then I felt much better

Scared myself for a moment there 8-[

I still don't like the fact that I even agreed with Armond about even one thing, but at least I know I'm not entirely crazy and didn't lose enough brain cells to think Armond White was actually beginning to sound intelligent.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... mond-white" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know what they say, even a broken clock is right two times a day. He liked Scott Pilgrim almost as much as me, but that fact doesn't help either of us!

EDIT: I didn't even notice til I posted that you have a Scott Pilgrim avatar. Sorry to double your bad news!

That "review" seems more like a slam against Hollywood franchises in general than this movie in particular. Aside from the time travel stuff (where he doesn't really explain his criticism beyond the fact that it's cliche, though at least he he acknowledges that the original story predated Terminator by a few years) you could probably make a few tweaks and have the same review apply to any number of movies released this summer. He doesn't seem to be reviewing the movie as much as he reviews the genre.

jindianajonz wrote:That "review" seems more like a slam against Hollywood franchises in general than this movie in particular. Aside from the time travel stuff (where he doesn't really explain his criticism beyond the fact that it's cliche, though at least he he acknowledges that the original story predated Terminator by a few years) you could probably make a few tweaks and have the same review apply to any number of movies released this summer. He doesn't seem to be reviewing the movie as much as he reviews the genre.

You're right, his argument was, in actuality, less about Days of Future Past and more about the state of blockbuster Hollywood films and people blindly going to see the films, and on this fact I found myself in the ever rare (and quite uncomfortable) position of agreeing with Armond. A couple of friends of mine wanted to go see this film and the latest Spider-Man film without so much as watching a trailer or hearing any buzz around the film; they were complacent consumers who bought in on a film based upon the promise that it was another film in a well established saga with familiar faces.

But yes Domino you are right, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Speaking of which I'm incredibly surprised Armond likes Scott Pilgrim, I remember hearing that 3 years ago when the film came out, but I went and read his review just now and I can't believe it. The film seems so far off base from what he typically likes that I would be almost certain that he would pan it as being Hipster or part of the Liberal agenda. But I guess that's the beauty of Armond, when you expect him to go one way he goes right in the opposite direction

A gentleman has manners.

Black filmmakers has moved way beyond Townsend and Matty Rich. Start with THE COLOR PURPLE, BELOVED and AMISTAD.

You aren't misreading it, Armond White recommends three films directed by white men as representative of the best in black cinema.

Well, one white man and then Steven Spielberg, who transcends race.

Maybe his cinema is white, but Spielberg isn't.

In full-on hack mode, Armond White tells National Review readers what they want to hear: liberals destroyed film culture.

13) Slumdog Millionaire (2008) — an Oscar-winning tale of game-show greed as an answer to systemic poverty.

Man, I hate the film and all but what?

Armond White wrote:The Dark Knight (2008) used the Batman myth to undermine heroism

Wut ? With its ending "Look son, here is a true hero, one that can get his hands dirty to save us all", that's the complete opposite.

The same goes for

The Social Network (2010) — David Fincher’s new Horatio Alger tale glorified technocrat Mark Zuckerberg with chic, digital-era arrogance.

Which repeats quite a lot how Zuckerberg "might not be one, but definitely does his best to look like an asshole".

White does get one right though (well, half right) :

The Hangover (2009) infantilized privileged adulthood, a celebration of chaos and irresponsibility.

But my favourite WTF might be :

Inglourious Basterds (2009) — Quentin Tarantino’s answer to Abu Ghraib

If anyone's around here can tell me who is White's dealer and what's he's taking, it would be marvelous. Because either he should really stop watching movies at all since he doesn't seem to get 10% of them, or he's really having the trip of the century.

I am interested to see which critics "fawned" over Manderlay, if they exist outside of Armond White's head.

He clearly wanted to do Dogville but it wasn't released during his 10 year discussion period

Armond White wrote:The Hangover (2009) infantilized privileged adulthood, a celebration of chaos and irresponsibility.

Clearly, it should have been a comedy all about the importance of responsibility and stability, featuring characters who recognize their social privilege and use it to further important social purposes. They could help the strippers and drug dealers to be upstanding citizens, and show their friend the groom how to be a husband who's a role model of decency. It would have been hilarious—and educational!

To me, these little blurbs have an unsettling "propaganda ministry"/"state board of censors" quality, as they show White's inability to deal with films as creative works, in terms of how well crafted they are or how effectively they tell a story, and instead treats them as if their purpose was to instruct viewers about some rigid set of vague principles that he holds above reproach and will not reveal in any detail (or cannot do so because he writes with the skill of the average ranting reviewer at Amazon).
Plus, he seems to think in polarizing terms that reach almost paranoid levels (e.g., our culture is ruined because vengeful leftists created controversy about The Passion of the Christ and ostracized Mel Gibson). No wonder he hated Good Night and Good Luck—he probably took it almost personally, as a kindred spirit of McCarthy.

domino harvey wrote:

13) Slumdog Millionaire (2008) — an Oscar-winning tale of game-show greed as an answer to systemic poverty.

Man, I hate the film and all but what?

And what, I wonder, would be the conservative answer to systemic poverty? <coughAtlasShruggedcough>

Isn't the conservative answer The Full Monty? Who cares that you have lost an entire industry and way of being - get on your bike and take a service sector job such as stripping for a living! It's only slightly less demeaning than signing on for benefits!