Apologies if there is already another thread on this guy but in my near infinite ignorance I'd never heard of him until I logged onto here, and I spent last evening looking through some of his stuff. And yes, he is...let's say... 'interesting'.

Is he a troll? Part of me thinks yes....sometimes. He gives positive reviews to the following


Transformers 2
Transformers 3
Chuck and Larry - which he called a modern classic
Jack and Jill

I've seen two of the above and they are uber-shit. I'm also pretty confident the other two are. An intelligent man liking Transformers 2 and Chuck and Larry, I just cannot comprehend. I really can't! This is f8cked.

But wait a minute. He then gives the single greatest review I've ever seen.

Avatar - "Cameron’s superficial B-movie tropes pretend philosophical significance. His story’s rampant imperialism and manifest destiny recalls Vietnam-era revisionist westerns like Soldier Blue, but it’s essentially a sentimental cartoon with a pacifist, naturalist message. Avatar condemns mankind’s plundering and ruin of a metaphorical planet’s ecology and the aboriginals’ way of life. Cameron fashionably denounces the same economic and military system that make his technological extravaganza possible. It’s like condemning NASA—yet joyriding on the Mars Exploration Rover".......that's not all......" " The corniest movie ever made about the white man's need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt."

This is the truest and greatest deconstruction of pious, Hollywood liberal bullshit I've read in recent years. He also gives great commentary on Matt Damon and Easy-A.

Interesting character.

I don't have much more to add to the White discussion, although I will point out he gave a negative review to Dark of the Moon. Every once in a while he gives us a review like the ones he wrote for A.I., Femme Fatale or Made in U.S.A. but then we get ramblings about pop art in Revenge of the Fallen. A critic with a strange idea of taste and the uncanny ability to write illogical nonsense alongside passionate and pointed criticism, like him or not he's a legitimate figure in his field.

I think we had a thread about him a while back. The gist of my opinion is that while he's extremely adept at persuasion, I'm fairly certain he isn't honest about what he likes and why he likes it. For that reason, he's a terrible critic.

Are you sure by "persuasion" you didn't mean "pretentiousness"? Whether the guy was a good critic or not, his reviews were often exercises in frustration to read, so I never bothered to try and figure him out.

-Jeremy

Many of his reviews clearly take the piss and are intended to rile.

Every so often it looks like he gives a true one, and I couldn't agree more with his opinions on Avatar.

Yeah, after JB and Ebert overrated that film to the max, it was a relief to see SOMEBODY take the piss out of it. That said, I strongly disagree that an "intelligent" person can't love both TF2 and Chuck and Larry, everyone has different tastes in film, I like both of those films and i'm not stupid. I could say that anyone who likes I Heart Huckabees isn't very smart, but that would be rude and untrue, bottom line is, you can't call a perosn unntelligent solely because of their choice in films.

I agree that liking any good or bad movie does not make one an idiot or a genius. However, even you state that you enjoyed the movies because they were dumb fun, not because they were "good" movies. I feel the same about many action movies and comedies. Sometimes a poorly made, stupid, and possibly offensive movie can be enjoyable in a dumb fun way.

That said, I think the point that the man who is definitely not Hugh Grant was making is that to call such movies modern classics, or to praise the depth of philosophical insight of a movie that comes from a director that very clearly intended to make a dumb movie WITHOUT any depth, philosophical or otherwise, is a legitimate reason to question such a critic's motivations. I don't think Mr. White is unintelligent, but very definitely do not understand what he is passionate about and why he chose to review film.

I'm not saying intelligent people can't enjoy shit movies - so I worded myself badly there - just that White's reasons for why such movies are good are, quite frankly, not believable. He has a unique (bullshit in other words) ability to see deep and meaningful things in films like Transformers and Chuck and Larry that no-one else on earth does, yet wholly rejects something like Gone Baby Gone as 'risible'.

Agree with you Hugh, the guy is a serious troll. I can generally value a personal opinion but if someone finds value in Chuck and Larry over Gone Baby Gone (a flawed but solid picture) I would seriously have to consider their mental health. In fact anyone who finds that homophobic nonsense movie a better picture than pretty much anything has a lot to answer for.

You can also count me as surprised if I see a positive review of The Muppets from him since its been extremley positive so far.

Well I perosnally never saw what was so great about Gone Baby Gone(The Town was a superior effort form Affleck if you ask me) it just wasn't my thing, so yes, I honestly would prefer watching Chuck And Larry over that film, and yes, maybe that does have something to do with me having Aspberger's Syndrome, but that dosen't mean i'm insane, I just have differnet tastes then the norm, though i'll admit Armond White didn't do a very good job reviewing "Gone" I odn't even know what the hell "risable" means.

Central trait of a great liar: mixing in just enough plausibility to dilute the smell of bullshit.

Nicely said. Because it's extra annoying when you happen to read a terrific article or review by him

That's probably the same reason he used such an extensive vocabulary, if people don't understand what their reading because it uses a lot of technical words that they don't understand, then most of them will assume it means something profound.

Armond White (from what I read of him) was very rarely genuinely profound.



I would not however call White a troll. His behavior was certainly troll like and designed to be inflammatory but he himself was not what I would consider a troll.
-Jeremy

I apologise Vexer for my poor choice of words, I meant it as a light-hearted questioning of sanity. Chuck & Larry is so offensive to the point of me getting worked up whenever its mentioned, the film ticks all three boxes of my most hated traits in people – racist, homophobic and sexist. The damn thing has Rob Schneider (which is bad enough in itself) as an Asian in one of the most deplorable and unfunny bits i've ever witnessed in film history.

I was diagnosed with Asperger's, and I hate Adam Sandler movies.

But I didn't like The Dark Knight, and I did like Dracula 2000, so my taste in movies is certainly suspect enough for most people.

As for White, you won't hear me defending him – I mean, I'm guilty of making fun of him in my signature – but I'm kind of disturbed by a lot of the criticism that he gets. So much of it is simply "he disagrees with the majority, therefore his opinion is invalid and Rotten Tomatoes should not count his reviews," which is just horseshit. I'm glad to see people in this topic actually delving into what he says and responding to it.

By the way, nobody ever seems to mention this, but most of the time, he actually agrees with the majority by a slim percentage, according to Rotten Tomatoes.

Okay, I waiver the right to be offended by this bullshit at this point. People call me crazy for labeling Nolan a con artist, then they do the same thing to another member of the industry who makes maybe....00001% of Nolan's salary? Look, I'll admit I'm biased and I'm immediately ready to admit White's faults. So can we please make the point of this thread to discuss his reviews like intelligent film buffs? Calling him a troll is cookie cutter bullshit at this point, and since I'm a fan of his, I must ask everyone to pull the plug out of their asses and get over the fact that one critic out of 500 disagrees with you. I repeat: So can we please make the point of this thread to discuss his reviews like intelligent film buffs? I honestly don't think I'm asking too much.

By the way, those who hate him should take note that even though he has taken up a new job for City Arts magazine, Rottentomatoes has not incorporated his new reviews into their system. So don't worry...the precious RT ratings are safe for now.

That sounds like a threat.

Alright. Let's discuss Armond White.

It is important to make a distinction here: I (and most people here, I'd imagine) could not give less of a crap about whether or not any of White's specific opinions agree with anybody else's. The trouble lies in the nature of his disagreements. There is a weird, denialist quality to the comparisons that he devises. One of his most famous moves is to downplay the quality of the movie he's reviewing, then assert that a completely different movie--typically a critical dud--is "better". As criticism, such comparisons intrinsically have no content whatsoever, but they do accomplish the goal of riling people up. White does this with such consistency that one rationally has to assume that it's deliberate.

Remember the Simpsons episode, "You Only Move Twice"? Remember when Scorpio blows up the bridge and the U.N. guy goes, "Maybe the bridge collapsed on its own"? That's the guy who takes White's bizarre movie comparisons at face value. Sure, the alternative scenario is possible, but only a fool or a sucker would take those odds to Vegas.

Furthermore, White obfuscates meaning with his use of language. The quality of many of his explanatory sentences is just as garbled as the quality of a car chase in a Christopher Nolan movie. If you find yourself disoriented and unsure of what's going on, it's because of central design flaws--perhaps deliberate ones--in the construction of the work. Many of White's reviews could be used in a master class on writing that appears dense but conveys very little in the way of a clear idea.

This is what I mean when I characterize him as very persuasive. His writing often conveys only the sensation of reading something learned and carefully considered. It's a magician's sleight-of-hand. If I valued criticism for its ability to deceive people in the same way that I value stage magic, I might be very impressed with his work.

Then there's his tasteless and completely unprofessional remarks about Noah Baumbach. They add no value to anybody's understanding of movies and they only serve to shock the readers. While there is at least a remote possibility that his stated opinions on movies are genuine, there is simply no justifying these comments. They validate the impression that White is more of an attention-seeker than a critic.

I don't think it's at all out of line to refer to this man as a troll. It might not add much new to the discussion, but it's a fitting descriptor.

Except it's not a fitting descriptor, Ken. Before getting into the specifics of his writing, let's take a look at the attackers' arguments. The last one that really pissed people off, from what I can remember, was Toy Story 3. But you know, it's okay to dislike that movie and think that Coraline and Legend of Guardians are better. It's no secret that Pixar has had a drop-off of late. WALL-E was grossly overrated, and I consider Up to be as much of a dud as Cars 2. Therefore, I'm perfectly open to consider that other animated films might be better; it's entirely logical. I suppose people had problems with his HP8 bashing, but everyone knows that movie wasn't very good on its own. He spoke against There Will Be Blood's supposed greatness at a time when people wanted to believe it was as good as No Country for Old Men. He called bullshit on everyone who tried to bash War of the Worlds. He has spoken against all the Apatow and Reitman bullshit, and praised Sandler. I personally grew up on Mr. Deeds, 50 First Dates, Happy Gilmore, and they're pretty damn funny and relaxing. I could go on, but as for his style...

Of course he's trying to piss you off. I've gone out of my way to piss people off numerous times regarding Nolan and other things, but that doesn't mean I don't believe what I say. I don't think anyone on this forum has read as much from White as I have, because if they had, they would understand how passionate he is about film and the kinds of films he wants to see. Calling him a troll is sheer ignorance; not only ignorance about his writing, but ignorance about film criticism, film theory, and film history.

I think it was you, Ken, who advocated a movie being "kind of good." Well, White writes for people who enjoys films that are kind of good. JB writes for people who are ashamed to call themselves movie buffs unless a new 3.5 star review shows up a couple times a month. I can certainly empathize with those people...it must be pretty tough for them to enjoy an Adam Sandler film.

If JB's too-little-too-late mind change about Avatar isn't enough proof, take another look at his HP7 review. Read his words; he fuckin hated that movie, as a lot of people did, but he still gave it 3 stars because he's afraid to do otherwise. Armond White is for people who are tired of that.



Sounds like what a 3rd grader would say when trying to read Shakespeare. But I find White's language to be crystal clear, so I guess I'm a genius. I will say this for White's writing: it is designed to allow the reader to form his/her own reactions and opinions. I'd take that over JB's spoon-feeding. Am I wrong to say that if you've read a JB or Ebert review before seeing the film, you've basically already seen it anyway? That's another thing I'm tired of.

WTF is all this shite? I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me on anything. I'd be pretty f*cking worried if everyone agreed with me all the time.

White's reviews just strike me as dishonest. That's right, he's a bullshitter. He claims that he's the real deal and everyone is a hack then moans like a little bitch when people laugh at his reviews. His reviews sometimes start with how he perceives 'inferior' critics will review them before he even gets the to the film itself. One that he will somehow have an insight into that literally no-one, not even the director, has.

His only talent is to position himself simultaneously as bully and victim. As Lord of all he surveys and neglected outcast. I have little doubt he's an intelligent man. But a lot of trolls are. He strikes me as a huge ego who can't bare the thought of being part of the pleb masses, so seeks to distance himself from them at all costs. And by the way, I don't hate him. I don't hate anybody. You need to get past such childlish notions of hating people you've never met.

But I will say this....... f*ck him.