Page 4 of 59
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:50 am
by tavernier
Perhaps we should give Armond his own 'rediculous' thread:
his review of Defiance may be the first ever to reference both Straub and Spielberg.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:35 am
by tavernier
Armond is at it again.
The opening paragraph of his
Taken review is a doozy (although the whole review is a must-read):
If French producer - director Luc Besson worked in Hollywood, he’d have won his Irving G.Thalberg Award by now. That particular Oscar, presented to “creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production” previously went to Darryl F. Zanuck, David O. Selznick,Walt Disney, Arthur Freed, Cecil B. DeMille, William Wyler, Albert R. Broccoli, Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder, George Lucas, Clint Eastwood and Dino De Laurentis and—hear me now—Besson is in their class. Over the past two decades, attentive moviegoers witnessed Besson refine and revolutionize the action film. Those who saw La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Fifth Element, the Transporter series, Ong Bak, Unleashed, District B-13 and Revolver know it. His impact could also be seen in War, Crank and Hitman—all innovative, intelligent and sleek.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:43 am
by domino harvey
Oh my God, did we all forget to discuss his
Better Than- 2008 List?
Who Else But Armond White wrote:Transporter 3 BETTER THAN The Dark Knight Olivier Megaton, Jason Statham and Luc Besson reinvent the action movie as kinetic art, but impressionable teenagers mistook Chris Nolan’s nihilistic graphic novel for kool fun.
Cadillac Records BETTER THAN Synecdoche, New York Darnell Martin treats Black American history as R&B and her sizzling cast (Jeffrey Wright, Beyoncé, Eamonn Walker, Columbus Short, Mos Def, Cedric the Entertainer) salutes pop music legends. Charlie Kaufman’s Actors Studio cast merely imitated Fellini’s 8 1/2 like amateurs.
And of course, his use of the word "abortionhorny" trumps all White witticisms that ever were and ever will be
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:47 am
by cdnchris
armond wrote: Hitman—all innovative, intelligent and sleek.
Say wha'?
Armond's an idiot, but I'm so going to see this movie. Liam Nesson + ass kicking = awesome
Plus this one line from Ebert's 2 1/2 star review sells me
ebert wrote:Headquarters also tells Mills he has 96 hours to rescue his daughter before she meets a fate worse than death, followed by death.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:54 am
by tavernier
The best line in Armond's idiotic "better than" column is this posted comment:
John Doe wrote:
I am surprised Armond could take Spielberg's dick out of his mouth long enough to write this list.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:27 am
by swo17
It's one thing to champion overlooked movies, or to, say, hate on
Slumdog, but Armond is clearly just baiting people here.
Twilight BETTER THAN Let the Right One In
My brain tried to process this and just plain stopped working.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:17 pm
by Antoine Doinel
The most shocking thing about that list is that Armond White likes Guy Maddin. Who knew?
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:20 pm
by Jean-Luc Garbo
Just the fact that he championed
Indiana and
Twilight on his list invalidates the whole thing. He needs to take a cue from John Waters' Artforum top tens.
Re: Fingers (Toback, 1977)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:43 pm
by Barmy
Bump. Toback is one of America's greatest filmmakers. It's a shame that much of his early work is unavailable on DVD (although it is reputedly subpar).
Re: Fingers (Toback, 1977)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:12 pm
by tavernier
Barmy wrote:Toback is one of America's greatest filmmakers.
Armond, it really is you!
Re: Fingers (James Toback, 1978)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:21 pm
by Barmy
Does Armond like him? He seems like an anti-Spielberg to me. By the way a delicious documentary about JT is coming out on
DVD
Re: Fingers (James Toback, 1978)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:37 pm
by tavernier
Barmy wrote:Does Armond like him? He seems like an anti-Spielberg to me.
Here's AW's Top 10 from 2000:
1. George Washington (d: David Gordon Green)
2. L'Humanité (d: Bruno Dumont)
3. Time Regained (d: Raul Ruiz)
4. The House Of Mirth (d: Terence Davies)
5. Orphans (d: Peter Mullan)
6. Black And White (d: James Toback)
7. Mission To Mars (d: Brian De Palma)
8. The Little Thief (d: Erick Zonca)
9. Trixie (d: Alan Rudolph)
10. Pola X (d: Leos Carax)
Of course, there was no SS movie that year, so take it with a grain of salt.
Re: Fingers (James Toback, 1978)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:46 pm
by Barmy
Wow that's a good list. =P~
Re: Fingers (James Toback, 1978)
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:00 pm
by Cash Flagg
tavernier wrote:
7. Mission To Mars (d: Brian De Palma)
That wacky Armond is always good for a chuckle.
Re: Fingers (James Toback, 1978)
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:48 am
by The Fanciful Norwegian
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:16 pm
by tavernier
Armond's
at it again--"
Coraline makes
Wall-E look like shit!" (I'm paraphrasing.)
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:24 pm
by knives
Wasn't he supposed to be talking about Coraline? I'm actually surprised he liked it, the original story at least, doesn't seem like his cup of tea.
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:14 pm
by swo17
Wow. He actually mentioned Wall-E seventeen times in that review.
My favorite part was when he namedropped Paranoid Park, There Will Be Blood, Chaplin, Stephen Chow, E.T., and A.I., all in a matter of three consecutive sentences, none of which were even brought up in reference to the film he was supposed to be reviewing, but rather to, you guessed it, Wall-E.
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:18 pm
by tavernier
Welcome to the wonderful and wacky world of AW!
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:05 pm
by Murdoch
The title of Armond's "review" alone puts it pretty far up there on the Armond-ridiculousness scale.
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:13 pm
by Dylan
Looking over it, he doesn't even spell Selick correctly.
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:16 pm
by essrog
As much as I enjoy the takedowns of Armond on these boards, my new favorite is the comment by John Doe at the end of that review. The last line is the best.
EDIT: Jeff (rightly) quotes the entire comment two posts down
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:23 pm
by domino harvey
John Doe consistently leaves good messages on Armond White's reviews
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:32 am
by Jeff
There are three John Doe comments now. I love the line about schoolkids seeing
Finding Nemo out of a sense of duty, but this comment so thoroughly encapsulates White's character (or lack thereof) that I feel the need to quote it for posterity.
You are such a useless and worthless writer, Armond. Everything has to be either/or, doesn't it? You have to create battles where none exist because you're so obviously a complete sociopath, a misanthrope, desperate for attention, so weak and pitiful and cowardly that you're prone to lashing outwards contemptuously at phantom strawmen like "hipster critics" and the like. You even create critical bashings and the ignoring of films you decide to enjoy (I use "decide" intentionally here); you create the fiction that certain films are completely beloved and others completely hated, all merely as a means to tell people, "Dammit I'm the only one who knows the truth." Your sickness is the same that I've seen in conspiracy theorists and lonely old creeps, where you want to be on the outside standing in, passing judgment, your every opinion and turn of phrase an exercise in complete disingenuousness. Nothing you say has a basis in the reality or experience of watching a film and yet your critical dishonesty is transparent to everyone else and likely opaque to yourself. I worry about you.
Re: Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:45 am
by Jean-Luc Garbo
That review is one too many bulls in a china shop. The first three paragraphs are alright, but the fourth totally goes haywire. The man has a point, but he so gracelessly steamrolls everything - and what is his fixation with Wall-E? - that the point in question is utterly negated. It's so polemical that it's hardly a proper review. Should you see it? Not see it? Who cares since it's not Wall-E! I feel almost dared not to go - and I've been telling friends and random goths in malls to see it. Doesn't this man have an editor?