criterionforum.org

I don't believe in censorship. As for my personal opinion, fuck him. He is a terrible human being.

rs98762001 wrote:one (rather obvious) reason

I consider it beneath me to make fun of one of the great love stories of our time. Oh, the passion that blinds!

But seriously though ... Rotten Tomatoes is so filled with predictable shills and writers/bloggers of dubious provenance that it's absurd to discuss banning a real, credentialed film critic, no matter how gonzo his opinions.

Just the fact that a bunch of RT groupies are incensed about the possibility of Armond "spoiling" some future fanboy fave's 100% rating is the best reason I've heard for keeping him around.

MichaelB wrote:Unless someone's tied you to a chair for the purpose of reading Armond White reviews to you very very loudly (and slowly), I don't see what the problem is. Personally, I'm all for reliably contrary opinion - I may usually disagree with it, but it's much more stimulating to read than something that merely chimes with my own prejudices. Which is why my first reaction on seeing something I really loved (or hated) is to go to the IMDB and actively solicit opposing opinions in the comments.

Agreed, especially the IMDB bit.
If you guys really wanted him gone so bad you'd ignore him, and kill his career through ignorance. You guys, and the RT people, must get some pleasure to keep going back.
But I must say his reasoning for giving a bad review to District 9 is silly.

Perkins Cobb wrote:But seriously though ... Rotten Tomatoes is so filled with predictable shills and writers/bloggers of dubious provenance that it's absurd to discuss banning a real, credentialed film critic, no matter how gonzo his opinions.

Not just absurd, but more than a little sinister.

Just the fact that a bunch of RT groupies are incensed about the possibility of Armond "spoiling" some future fanboy fave's 100% rating is the best reason I've heard for keeping him around.

Absolutely agree. This idea that we must all cleave to a particular orthodoxy or risk a ban is positively Stalinist. I'm no fan of Armond White, but I'd back him to the hilt over his would-be censors any day.

He hates what many love. He is black while his name is "white". He's just born ironic....

Perkins Cobb wrote:Just the fact that a bunch of RT groupies are incensed about the possibility of Armond "spoiling" some future fanboy fave's 100% rating is the best reason I've heard for keeping him around.

Win!

I got bored in general with Rottentomatoes fairly quickly. The only thing that sends me back with any regularity is to watch the fanboys splutter when he inevitably craps on them. The fact that they know it's coming only makes it better. He's doing a public service when he rips Dark Knight or Up or Iron Man and praises Transformers 2. I don't know if he believes these things or not, but he's certainly annoying the right people. The calls to "ban" him from RT are juvenile, but also great entertainment. Poor poor fanboys.

So Armond is useful, after all!

Apparently Armond's review of District 9 has gotten the attention of Ebert. Here's a link to the defense of Armond's review from Ebert.

Also, this is a list of the movies Armond likes, and dislikes. Very interesting. Look for Ebert's reaction after reading this himself.

Ebert backpedaled after digging a little more deep on Armond's criticism and reading the list that is mentioned above. I think White does a complete disservice to the film critics who already have hard time defending their reputations and work when imbeciles like Lyons are given air time to become quote whores.

Ebert called him a troll. I call him an asshole. This goes beyond Tomatometer and all that other stuff. There are many people that take White seriously, like Criterion, and while I'm all for listening to different points of views, White's film criticism is just a call for attention (in a negative way), which is not that different from what Ben Lyons does. White is like a food critic that complains about an Italian restaurant not having good hamburgers, but then praises Taco Bell for serving great, original Mexican food. What Armond is doing is just digging a hole for every other black person that wants to be a film critic. Instead of serving as someone future film critics, especially minorities, can look up to, he is just portraying the "angry black man with power" stereotype that just turn people away.

Generally I would agree with you, yes. But in this particular case, let's not lose perspective: all he has done is tarnish the arbitrarily determined score (padded by how many fanboys already?) on an only mildly reputable website for a Peter Jackson-produced alien invasion flick. This score means even less than Armond White himself.

Also, on the plus side, this is possibly the best advertising You, the Living will ever get.

All this reminds me of an incident in the 1990s involving the London Evening Standard's art critic Brian Sewell, who used to get other art critics so wound up that thirteen of them wrote a letter to the paper demanding that he be fired.

To say that this tactic backfired is a bit of an understatement. He not only kept his column, he was given an additional column to write about anything he felt like, and his freelance commissions and TV appearances went through the roof. I imagine he thinks that that letter was the best thing that ever happened to him.

There is nothing more beneficial to a controversial columnists career than people complaining about him. Especially if the complaints are absurdly hyperbolic.

According to MetaCritic (which doesn't include AWs review) there are plenty of other critics who didn't care for District 9 either, so the AW witch-hunt (of the week) is a little out of line.

Generally, it's not AWs contrarian attitude that bothers me, so much as his arguments are usually completely nonsensical, built around a pseudo-intellectual approach that usually reads a bad term paper by a freshman in college. Yes, he's a bad critic, but I think the far worse crime is that he's a horrible writer. If his reviews were actually passionate, or even hinted of conviction or sincerity, I think a lot of the AW hate would go away.

swo17 wrote: Also, on the plus side, this is possibly the best advertising You, the Living will ever get.

That is really true! =D>

Antoine Doinel wrote:If his reviews were actually passionate, or even hinted of conviction or sincerity, I think a lot of the AW hate would go away.

You don't find this sincere?

Armond White wrote:NOTHING IN CINEMA this week is more important than Transporter 3. It’s been a long time since a new movie has been so spiritually and aesthetically exhilarating. Producer Luc Besson, director Olivier Megaton and star Jason Statham work at the top of their imagination and abilities—not like they’re completing a formulaic sequel but reinventing the action movie genre...When Megaton makes Godardian symbolism of Martin’s hand retrieving a key from Valentina’s, Transporter 3 evinces greater art than Van Sant’s studied poetic effects...It’s true visual wit. These are not stunts; they’re objets d’art. Somewhere, Buster Keaton is smiling and Spielberg should take notes."

That review shows that he is worse than rappers who drop names in their songs.

Seems a lot like some sort of elaborate performance art stunt to me.

Reads like a movie review Mad Lib to me.

I didn't realize people actually took that meter that seriously. I always figured most people used that site just to get a general idea of the critical concensus of a film, which I did -- before they changed the layout anyways and now I can barely make heads or tails of it.

I have little to no interest in District 9 but I'll probably NetFlix it (which still isn't an endorsement since I plan on NetFlixing G.I.Joe as well) but I have to agree with DX that he is worse than a Lyons (who is just an idiot) because he obivously has the background. I honestly think he's fucking around and trolling. His negative reviews read like faux-intellectual B.S. and in just about every paragraph there is a layout like this:
I usually have to read his paragraphs a few times before I figure out what his actual criticism is.

dx23 wrote: He destroyed Up! as many other in his review, while praising films like Dance Flick and Next Day Air.

I know this is petty, but I found it amusing:

Up! = Russ Meyer
Up = Pixar

The Pixar movie has no exclamation point.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Reads like a movie review Mad Lib to me.

And then you guys beat me to it, but yeah, that's all they are. (I see he even name dropped Van Sant in a review of Transporter 3. I would have been more impressed with Godard but he saved that for Transformers 2 apparently.)

cdnchris wrote:And then you guys beat me to it, but yeah, that's all they are. (I see he even name dropped Van Sant in a review of Transporter 3. I would have been more impressed with Godard but he saved that for Transformers 2 apparently.)

Read that Transporter 3 review excerpt I quoted again, Chris. Godard is in there too!

When Megaton makes Godardian symbolism of Martin’s hand retrieving a key

you obviously didn't read close enough

Jeff wrote:

cdnchris wrote:And then you guys beat me to it, but yeah, that's all they are. (I see he even name dropped Van Sant in a review of Transporter 3. I would have been more impressed with Godard but he saved that for Transformers 2 apparently.)

Read that Transporter 3 review excerpt I quoted again, Chris. Godard is in there too!

Holy shit, I missed that. Damn, I have to applaud him on that.

I'm surprised Ehrenstein hasn't appeared. Where's he been anyhow?