web
counter
 

Compiling Armond White's Greatest (Contrarian) Hits (2007 - 2011)

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (43)



armond-white-interview (1).jpg

Pans for Otherwise Well-Reviewed Films (Tomatometer Percentage in Parenthesis)

Toy Story 3 (99%): “Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination — the usefulness of toys — and strictly celebrates consumerism.”

Up (98%): “All this deflated cinema and Pixarism mischaracterizes what good animation can be (as in Coraline, Monster House, Chicken Little, Teacher’s Pet, The Iron Giant). Up’s aesthetic failure stems from its emotional letdown.”

The Wrestler (98%): “Aronofsky inflicts as much pain on the audience as self-flagellating Ram Jam does when brutalizing/mutilating himself in and outside the ring.”

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (97%): “Now that the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises.”

The Social Network: (96%) “Like one of those fake-smart, middlebrow TV shows, the speciousness of The Social Network is disguised by topicality. It’s really a movie excusing Hollywood ruthlessness.”

King’s Speech: (95%): “Each scene in The King’s Speech is so poorly staged that its ineptitude sometimes borders on the avant-garde.”

The Dark Knight (94%): “The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.”

Iron Man (94%): “Iron Man is a dispiriting attempt to apply superficial principles to inherently silly kid culture.”

Milk (94%): “A bizarre manipulation of the gay political impulse.”

In the Loop (94%): ” Instead of inspiring geniuses, Iraq war backlash has only resulted in snarky self-righteousness that — from Charlie Wilson’s War and now British import In the Loop — has demonstrated the low ebb of modern comedy.”

The Town (94%): “The Town is nearly as ludicrous as [Affleck’s] debut Gone Baby Gone — another poison pen letter to Beantown.”

Gone Baby Gone (94%): “So far this year, no other movie has more risible dialogue.”

Midnight in Paris: (92%): “The groupie-like celebration of Allen’s doubled-up cultural insecurity and ambition represents a global degradation of culture standards.”

District 9: (91%): “District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema — the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture.”

There Will Be Blood (91%): “‘No!’ is the first word spoken in There Will Be Blood, and it should be the last said in response to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest pretend epic.”

Up in the Air: (90%): “Only seriously deluded people could enjoy Reitman’s funny-sad whiplash. He’s playing that same Hollywood game: keeping people ignorant of political economy.”

Michael Clayton (90%): “Hipster filmmakers keep looking backwards to the 1970s, hoping to disguise how ill-equipped they are to deal with contemporary social issues.”

Bridesmaids (90%): “It’s an overly contrived jumble, trying out too many comic ideas that eventually swamp the central subject of what a modern young woman expects regarding friendship, courtship and marriage.”

Tangled: (89%): ” By mixing up and confusing the purpose of cinematic amusement and fairy tales, Tangled is aptly named for the mass misperception of popular entertainment as a mechanism of gimmicks rather than an expression of feelings.”

Black Swan (88%): “Aronofsky’s ethnic denial and escape into Nina’s psychological trauma actually trivializes her artistic pursuit. Turning art into genre movie silliness is a careerist’s dance.”

Blue Valentine (88%): “Despite Blue Valentine’s blatant sensememories of nakedness and affection, irritation and itch, what Gosling and Williams reveal about their own concepts of heterosexual experience is ultimately inane.”

Easy A (85%): “Easy A is now frontrunner for worst film of 2010.”


Accolades for Otherwise Panned Films

Clash of the Titans (28%): “Leterrier certainly shows a better sense of meaningful, economic narrative than the mess that Peter Jackson made of the interminable, incoherent Lord of the Rings trilogy.”

Your Highness (26%): “By trashing fairytale propriety, Green and McBride personalize the genre enthusiasm of the Star Wars generation.”

Lions for Lambs (27%): “In the best directing of his auteur career, Robert Redford turns Carnahan’s original script into a modern-day version of what Sergei Eisenstein called ‘Intellectual Montage.’”

Resident Evil Afterlife (26%): “If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level.”

Next Day Air (21%): “Filmgoers who think outside the artmovie box will discover that the artful and enjoyable Next Day Air offers an episode of 21st-century black American life that August Wilson never got to.”

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (20%): ” Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof [Bay] has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement.”

Just Go With It (19%): “The humorous tangents of Just Go With It are testaments to the fine art of improvisation and of comedy that doesn’t take itself overly seriously.”

Dance Flick (18%): ” It isn’t highbrow — or encumbered by scruples — but the Wayanses retain their vulgar, adolescent derision of sex, class and race. In this bow down to Hollywood millennium, their irreverence is almost subversive.”

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (14%): “It’s a modern classic (despite a cheap-shot plug for Giuliani). By comparison, Hollywood’s most celebrated gay comedies — In and Out, Chuck and Buck, Blades of Glory, even the laughable Brokeback Mountain — were all failures of nerve.”

Grown Ups (10%): ” Cheerful and surprisingly heartfelt.”


Bonus

Precious (91%): “Winfrey, Perry and Daniels make an unholy triumvirate. They come together at some intersection of race exploitation and opportunism.”

The Blindside (66%): ” All Bullock’s films promote an edifying sense of human experience — she has an instinct for what people like to see — and that gift makes The Blind Side the perfect, God-sent antidote to Precious.”










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Sex Talk: You Can Be Dirty without Being "Unclean" | The Solution to Lost Television Revenue Due to Piracy is Simple: Make Everything Available Immediately and Free









Comments

Wait... This guy had the gall to say Resident Evil Afterlife was better than INCEPTION??

What the fuck??

Posted by: Danny from Puerto Rico at August 24, 2011 12:07 AM

So you're saying he is a reliable guide?

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at August 24, 2011 12:15 AM

Ugh, Eff this troll. It would be bad enough if he were just a contrarian for laffs; making it worse is that he really seems like an honest-to-goodness douche.

His review of Inception on /filmcast is staggaringly unpleasant.

http://www.slashfilm.com/filmcast-ep-109-inception-guest-armond-white-from-new-york-press/

Posted by: Skyler Durden at August 24, 2011 12:23 AM

Is this guy for real? O.o

Posted by: Jifaner at August 24, 2011 12:56 AM

I like to imagine that he's sitting across from a friend and they're just saying the names of these movies, and these are his full reviews.

Posted by: Marcela at August 24, 2011 1:07 AM

All of that is mind-blowingly stupid, but this sticks out to me a little more:

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (14%): “It’s a modern classic (despite a cheap-shot plug for Giuliani). By comparison, Hollywood’s most celebrated gay comedies — In and Out, Chuck and Buck, Blades of Glory, even the laughable Brokeback Mountain — were all failures of nerve.”

WHAT? Since when is Blades of Glory a gay movie? Since when is an Adam Sandler comedy about gay marriage more of a modern classic than Brokeback? Ugh. UGH I say!

Posted by: Sassafrass Green at August 24, 2011 1:29 AM

I'm also fairly certain Brokeback Mountain is not a comedy. Unless I'm watching it wrong.

Posted by: Even Stevens at August 24, 2011 2:34 AM

Wow

Posted by: Protoguy at August 24, 2011 3:58 AM

I have to say, I HATE Harry Potter. The books, the films. Hate. HATE. JK Rowling can suck ALL THE DICKS

Posted by: Nadine at August 24, 2011 4:26 AM

I think that what urks many about Mr. White is that he not a relativist like many a reviewer. Granted, he loves Spielberg to the point of Hagiography; but his criticism is at least grounded in some sense social consciousness, a rarity these days in film criticism.

Posted by: Mr.West at August 24, 2011 5:26 AM

/cue Keanu Reeves

"whoa"

Posted by: Rest In Peace at August 24, 2011 5:48 AM

But, Mr. West - what shits me (and possibly a lot of others) most about White is that he seems to feel that EVERY film should have some sort of social commentary. His. And if they dare have a message that is not his, then they are crap.

Or to use the language of the internet - dude be trollin'.

Posted by: Shane at August 24, 2011 6:28 AM

Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to understand his brilliance but a lot of his writing just looks like word salad. [I]ts ineptitude sometimes borders on the avant-garde... er, what?

Posted by: snapnhiss at August 24, 2011 7:19 AM

You can't argue that White has legitimate interest in social commentary when he criticises Toy Story 3 for celebrating consumerism but is prepared to endorse Transformers 2.

Posted by: Caillan at August 24, 2011 8:14 AM

Being contrarian for free publicity.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at August 24, 2011 8:32 AM

That's because it is word salad snaphiss.

A handful of reviews like this and it'd be easy to give him credit for sticking to his opinion even when it was an unpopular one, but such a consistent pattern smells like attention seeking.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 24, 2011 8:36 AM

I would only agree with ONE review.
The Harry Potter films are grossly over-rated.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at August 24, 2011 8:36 AM

I've seen this approach before. Andy Kaufman was better at it.

Posted by: ed newman at August 24, 2011 8:46 AM

Don't know what to say to you if it isn't abundantly apparent that Armond White is IRL trolling. That's his job, he's an IRL Trolling Film Critic. Pretty great, actually; in an endless landscape of film writers, he stands alone.

Posted by: the new transported man at August 24, 2011 8:58 AM

I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you I trusted you, I trusted you, I trusted YOU.

Ahem.

Ooh he troll read good.

Posted by: zeke the pig at August 24, 2011 9:28 AM

Dustin Rowles compiles a list that is ingenious in its preternatural tumescence while still managing to grasp the reader in a delicate swaddling of down. This single oratory is indisputable proof that Rowles has mastered the art of pontification but laces it with such nuance and verve that one is left in a state of euphoric happenstance rivaled only by the most insidious of opioids.

(EXACTLY! -- DR)

Posted by: Admin White at August 24, 2011 9:36 AM

Why don't we have EE anymore? That comment needs to be honoured in some way.

Posted by: becks at August 24, 2011 9:49 AM

So if your movie is praised by White, do you immediately think, "Oh shit"? Conversely, if he pans your film, do you frame the review and hang it on your wall?

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at August 24, 2011 10:07 AM

Exactly right snapnhiss.

I read his work and I know what the words he's using are, individually, by themselves. But the context he uses them in, I can't understand a single godsdamn sentence.

Posted by: Doric at August 24, 2011 10:24 AM

@Shane, I agree with you to an extent. White, unlike some, will not always bash the usual suspects. He does have respect for actioners and B-movies when he believes they are done well. But if he thinks a film is being masqueraded by the powers that be as something else other then what he thinks it appears to be he will sniff it out and pounce on it with houndish glee.And yet to go along with what you said he does at times project himself onto what he sees. But this trait, which annoys some, endears him to others. Also, there is possibility that he is trying to appeal to a particular class of film-goer with his reviews. But that is merely speculation on my part.

Posted by: Mr.West at August 24, 2011 10:30 AM

Actually, after seeing the fucking uber atomic Puppy Kick that was Precious at the 2010 Best Picture Showcase, I was begging for The Blind Side to follow it up so I didn't sink into a massive depression. Well that, and if they were going to show it to us anyway, that would have been the least painful time to do so.

Mr. White has the right suspect, just the wrong motive and weapon. And crime scene.

Posted by: DoctorControversy at August 24, 2011 10:51 AM

I agree with Becks. This week we need a very special EE to honor Admin White's comment.

Posted by: lubeg at August 24, 2011 11:08 AM

I'm with him on The Wrestler and Milk, I must say. Well said, sir!

Posted by: Caspar at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM

A bizarre manipulation of the gay political impulse

I wouldn't let him manipulate my gay political impulse with a vibrating 10-foot pole.

Posted by: Drake at August 24, 2011 12:19 PM

As much as I can hate another human being that I have never met, I hate Armond White. He is a horrible person.

Posted by: asdff at August 24, 2011 12:44 PM

Oh god, I actually agree with two of his bad reviews for "good" movies. I'm not sure what that makes me in this world, but I'm at least a little bit worried that the closest comparison would be one of those deluded conservatives who "agree" with Colbert because they think he's for real.

Posted by: Amanda6 at August 24, 2011 1:04 PM

The saddest part: He's right on the money about Precious. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: JHEMP50 at August 24, 2011 4:26 PM

my personal favorite Armond White blurb:

"Cube may not have seen René Clair's 1931 lottery masterpiece Le Million, but, as a film impresario, he captures some of its culturally-specific charm."

this was about the film Lottery Ticket.

Posted by: ivn at August 24, 2011 6:36 PM

All the people calling him an attention seeker: you can't steal or kidnap attention, you have to be paid attention to.
Are you bothered by him? Do you want to know who the responsible of his fame is? Well, I'd start with:
a) The guy who wrote a blog post about him for no reason whatsover. For the most part those aren't even recent reviews. Yes, we know he hated Toy Story 3 and loved Transformers 2. We knew it more than a year ago, when it was Every-Fucking-Where, but thanks for reminding.
b) All the people who saw an article about him in the front page or the feed reader, and promptly pressed the link and maybe, even, left a comment, because Goddamn! They HATE him! and need the world to know, thus confirming the poster's idea that posts about him drive up pageviews, help engaging the readership and create a sense of community. Which means MORE posts about him.
Does it personally offend you that he affirms he has a different outlook and opinions about film than yours, and you want him to go away? Well, of course, that's a very reasonable and mature sentiment, luckily with a very easy solution: STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO HIM AND WHAT HE DOES. That easy. You don't have to do anything, literally. There is even a pretty fine Simpsons episode that explains the whole concept, if you still find it too hard to grasp. Paul Anka guest stars. Look it up.

Posted by: pfranks at August 25, 2011 4:42 AM

pfranks, I could not have summed up the beauty of the free market any better than you. I am serious.

Posted by: Mr.West at August 25, 2011 5:46 AM

I mean, I love the guy, so the more people talk about him the better. I just wish people would stop complaining about things that are, largely, their fault. Let's say my love for Armond is only comparable to my hate for whinies

Posted by: pfranks at August 25, 2011 9:08 AM

One might ask why you felt the need to click, then comment on an article you so clearly don't agree with.

I, for one, have never clicked on an Armond White review as far as I can recall, mostly because places like this make it pretty clear that his opinion doesn't align with my own in anyway whatsoever.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 25, 2011 10:01 AM

White is a pseudo-intellectual. He comes across as insightful and intelligent because of his wide-range of vocabulary and his habit of drawing incredibly strange socio-political messages from films that are otherwise devoid of them. If you just read his articles straight, he seems to be the smartest guy in the room, and he admittedly has seen a LOT of movies. But when you actually read and think about what he's saying, then you can begin to realize just how full of shit the man is. He obviously thinks VERY highly of himself and he masks his ignorance and his idiocy with big and smart-sounding words (so it's easy to fool people into believing he's more intelligent than he is), but the fact is, Armond White is a sham.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2011 2:02 PM

No, Jim, White may be arrogant and arcane in his criticism. But one thing that he is not is a sham. He truly believes in what he writes and articulates such in his reviews. As far as his vocabulary is concerned he either is catering to his readership, possibly the intelligentsia or elites, or more likely does not desire to dumb down his criticism for facile consumption.

Posted by: Mr.West at August 25, 2011 8:07 PM

I didn't mean he was faking his opinions. I meant, the man is NOT as intelligent as he would like others to believe, nor as much as he seems to believe he is. He's a sham in the sense that his work is not intellectual.

Posted by: Jim at August 26, 2011 3:08 AM

Jim, I see your reasoning. But I don't think White really cares what people think of him. Like Mooney said in "master piece" "I ain't afraid!" I imagine that this could be White's mantra when he begins to write every review.I still am of the opinion that he's very erudite and bluff.

Posted by: Mr.West at August 26, 2011 11:16 AM

I think the Chuck and Larry snatch proves unequivocally that Armond is a troll.

Posted by: Camytaru at August 27, 2011 7:49 PM

You're never too old to learn something stupid.

Posted by: photovoltaic modules at August 31, 2011 5:56 AM