Honest opinions on this guy?
>>68688061
Why is /tv/ obsessed with Denzel Washington?
>>68688061
the gay nigger king of /tv/
>>68688061
he seems to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian so i can't take him seriously
his sole contribution to humanity: contrarian memes.
>>68688061
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>68688061
His opinions diverge from the mainstream too often to be anything other than contrarianism
>>68688061
Great writing that doesn't feel forced
Lukewarm opinions
What did he mean by this?
He's on point when it comes to capeshit and he has a sense of humor many people miss.
>>68688128
This.
i can't say i agree with a lot of his stuff but when he's right, he's really spot on.
>>68688344
>he actually liked Transformers Revenge of the Fallen and Resident Evil Afterlife, Fantastic 4 Silver Surfer and GI Joe 2
>he actually hated Toy Story 3, Up and The Dark Knight
Contrarian is mostly a buzzword, but jesus fucking christ.
>>68688061
Contrarian, but he makes valid points in every contraire review.
>>68688061
The devil's advocate the modern movier goer needs. His intentional "au contraire" style is done so to highlight the good and the bad that is invisibile to the common plebian's eye.
Legit good writer, legit smart, legit loves movies, and legit know movies very well. That's enough for me to like him overall, although I disagree with some of his ratings and don't belief there's as much liberal subtext in movies where he sees political undercurrents.
>>68688169
Anything that doesn't agree with mainstream consensus is wrong and just "contrarianism"? What the fuck is wrong with you? This is what we get for having Richard Dawkins be the intellectual hero of a generation of millenialshits.
>>68688344
>literally perfect review of captain america
BASED
>>68688061
>liked BvS
Trashed
>>68689391
Of course he did, he is being contrarian.
He liked BvS, but he hated The Dark Knight.
Hell, he liked fucking Transformers 2, but he shat on Transformers 3, even though this one had a much more coherent plot.
>>68688344
what do the tomato and snot symbols mean?
>>68689591
Tomato means positive, tomato with something yellow around it means it's very positive.
Snot is negative.
Two symbols per movie, first his opinion, then the overall score.
>>68689197
Reread my post you illiterate fuck. I'm saying he disagrees TOO OFTEN for it to be a coincidence.
>>68688344
>agrees with the Tomatometer 52% of the time
thats pretty good evidence that he is just sticking to his own opinion, not that he is a contrarian
>>68688344
>people are posting things i made
feelsgoodman
>>68689847
Yes, but look at the movies he likes.
There's no way anyone would like all of those unironically.
>>68689467
>agrees with main stream 52% of the time
>contrarian
pick one
i
c
k
o
n
e
self-hating gay guy who craves attention.
>>68689927
So he unironically likes those movies?
That's even worse.
>>68688061
His opinions aren't even really contrarian, I don't think. They're just really strange, and don't match up with popular opinion on many movies. He doesn't even agree with /tv/ on most aspects of movies, it's just that sometimes when a movie has near universal acclaim and /tv/ doesn't like it, they'll look up his opinion, and often he didn't like it either for a completely separate reason, but it's enough for people here to go BASED ARMOND and feel validated.
Is there any other picture of him?
>>68689880
read the fresh reviews senpai,he literally says fantastic four 2 is the least shitty blockbuster that came out that year and Transformers dark side of the moon was pretty and Bay has an eye for scale which is true
>>68689985
This desu senpai
But he is pretty red pilled on his opinions on movies about the blacks
>>68689847
It's evidence that he's essentially judging movies on criteria completely of his own making, that don't mesh with most other people.
>>68689953
redditor please leave, this board is 18+
>>68688061
I literally thought this was Denzel
>>68689197
>This is what we get for having Richard Dawkins be the intellectual hero
Dawkins is pretty based desu. Constantly BTFO muslims. Not your typical limp-wristed liberal cuck.
>>68689880
You don't watch the movies with the same critical view he does. He tends to call most movies he doesn't like cynical or nihilistic. His reviews are the most well written of any critic and worth reading even though you will probably disagree
>>68688504
>he likes Transformers, afterlife, silver surfer, and GI joe 2 for being the least shitty and best eye candy
>he hates overrated shit
wow what a conterabarrian guise
go back
>>68689673
>52% is too often
>he needs to agree with the mainstream 99% of the time goyim!!!!
>>68688061
The only real critic left.
>>68688344
Lol I actually thought it was Denzel until I read this. I thought he looked kinda funny, but chalked it up to a weird angle.
>>68689847
The problem is that "agreement with the Tomatometer" isn't a continuum; you either agree with some consensus of "fresh" or "rotten."
Mediocre movies could still be considered fresh at 60%. And if Armond lavishingly praises the film, he's technically "in agreement."
>>68689985
>/tv/ is one person
>>68690598
so what you're saying is that if he agrees with the meter then he is agreeing with the majority.
he's not a contrarian, he's just based armond
I don't agree with him on a lot but the buttblasting he delivered on RT with his Toy Story 3 review was legendary.
>>68690598
there's one example of that in the pic
>>68690770
Toystory 3 was trash though
i thought that before hearing about him
>there are redditors here who use the word "contrarian" and think it means something other than that the person using it is a huge pleb and redditor who can't form his own arguments
>>68688344
>tfw only ones I really don't agree with him on are the Social Network, Frost/Nixon and TDK
>>68690887
this
contrarian is a reddit buzzword used to downvote actual opinions outside of plebbit
>>68690273
read the snippet on what he says about GI joe, hes a massive faggot of the likes who writes a thesis on man of steel
>>68688061
is he the black kermode or is kermode the white armond?
>>68690766
That's not what I'm saying. There are borderline cases that have to be considered fresh or rotten. And perhaps he has a strong opinion that happens to "agree" with the majority. So if a movie gets 60% (which isn't great but still considered fresh), Armond could give a personal rating of 100% and still be in agreement.
>>68690774
The pic isn't a truly random sample. What you'd want to do is plot all the Tomatometer scores vs whatever metric he uses.
>>68691054
havent seen TSN so i cant say, but TDK is a bit overrated even if it's a good watch and Frost/Nixon took too much freedoms over trying to actually tell the story of Frost interviewing Nixon
>>68689391
This.
>>68691488
so now agreeing too much with the majority is considered contrarian?
>>68691488
desu famalam i made that and only a few movies i skipped over that i wanted to put in for relevant discussion, like Watchmen which he gave rotten.
There were much more 70-90 scores that he shat on than 60 scores. i went through his list about 5 times and only picked the more interesting choices.
I still regret leaving off Watchmen though desu
>>68691694
I agree that Frost/Nixon took a few liberties but it's still a pretty damn good movie, I would recommend checking out TSN sometime.
>>68691870
yes
>>68691870
No. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
>>68688344
>that spot on review of avatar
how can people hate this man?
>>68692149
you just keep telling me he agrees with the majority in different words
>>68688061
Isn't that OJ? He's still in jail, right?
>>68688344
Are those words his review of Avatar?
based as fuck holy hshit
>>68692370
60% is considered fresh. 59% is considered rotten. Both quantitatively and qualitatively speaking, there actually isn't much difference here. But RT created this dividing line and this binary system sacrifices a lot of information for the sake of simplicity.
For example, his personal score can be 100%, but on average, people give the film 60%. And that's considered "agreement." But if that score was just slightly lower, suddenly he'd be in disagreement and suddenly contrarian.
So I question the robustness of "agrees with the Tomatometer X% of the time" for many cases of borderline movies and don't agree that this information alone is evidence that he's not a contrarian.
>>68693334
so the RT system is bad then. rotten should be below 50%. since it's below 60% that means there could also be films that were considered rotten that he gave a fresh review to but he was still agreeing with the majority.
likely the situation you (and me in the opposite way) are referring to occurs a negligible amount of times
>>68688061
A nigger
>>68693586
"Bad" in the sense that it may not do borderline movies any justice? Sure. But it's an easily digestible metric and the fresh/rotten concepts are just flair. If you read into it too much, then it can become a bad system.
>rotten should be below 50%
Would you consider a 2.5/5 star movie "fresh"? I wouldn't.
>likely the situation you (and me in the opposite way) are referring to occurs a negligible amount of times
Until I see the data actually showing this, this >>68688344 is not clearly evidence for >>68689847
But putting all of that aside, how often does one have to agree with the Tomatometer to not be considered contrarian?
>>68688344
>disliked Toy Story 3, Captain America, Hurt Locker, fucking Up, and Hellboy 2
>liked Transformers 2, Fantastic Four, Jonah Hex, and Death Race
I'm so glad RT kicked this nog to the curb
>>68693998
>Would you consider a 2.5/5 star movie "fresh"? I wouldn't.
That's not what the RT score represents. The percentage reflects how many critics gave the movie a favorable review, which is why it doesn't make sense that the fresh number is 60% instead of 50%
>But putting all of that aside, how often does one have to agree with the Tomatometer to not be considered contrarian?
Since the majority of critics can give the movie a favorable review but it can still be considered rotten, the number has to be higher than 0% but idk what the highest % could be. 25%?
>>68694408
>That's not what the RT score represents. The percentage reflects how many critics gave the movie a favorable review, which is why it doesn't make sense that the fresh number is 60% instead of 50%
But how do they determine a favorable review? If a reviewer has a X/5 scoring system, they probably consider some threshold value like 3/5.
But this is missing my point. 50% seems just as arbitrary as 60%.
>the number has to be higher than 0% but idk what the highest % could be. 25%?
Here's a list of critics: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/authors. Clicking on their page show the agreement percentage up top. I clicked through the first 10. 9/10 floated around 75-82%. 1/10 was 63%. If Armond were not contrarian, I would think his agreement percentage would be typical amongst other reviewers. This does not seem to be the case.
He's a critic who works with his own criteria as to why things are good or bad in a world full of droll idiots that just parrot general consensus. BVS pretty much illustrated that.
He doesn't review based on what he wants the story to be or how he wants it told to him, he looks instead at what kind of story the director was telling and how he wanted to tell it, and examines whether the director accomplished that.
Many of his positive reviews of movies that are generally considered poor are made on this basis, though the public was not receptive, the director did a good job at executing a distinct vision. He tends to slam any movie that is crassly commercial in nature, product placement, design by board elements, tokenism, and clear imitation cash ins are generally rated quite poorly unless they stand out as at least decent flicks in a particularly poor year.
He also reviews on that assumption, that a film that is relatively better than the other films releasing around the same time deserves a better rating because people who like movies want to see movies and should be informed of what is the best of the bunch even if it is a not-so-good movie.
You can call him contrarian but it's not true, he's just operating on a different plane of existence from the other critics which is why they hate him.
>>68688165
4chan is an 18+ board and it's a school night
>>68694650
>But this is missing my point. 50% seems just as arbitrary as 60%.
If 59% of the critics gave the movie a favorable review and armond was one of them, it would count as him disagreeing with the tomatometer, which is what we are using as a determiner of his contrarianism, even though he is actually agreeing with the majority. The point is that he might be agreeing with the majority more often then it appears. If the fresh number was 50% then we could get a truer reflection of his allegedly contrarian ways.
>If Armond were not contrarian, I would think his agreement percentage would be typical amongst other reviewers. This does not seem to be the case.
Depends on how strictly you are following the definition of "contrarian".
>>68694240
He's back now.
>>68690859
the beginning and the end are fine
the middle is foaming horse anus
>>68694901
Excellent analysis. 5 stars.
Seriously.
>>68694240
He put Hurt Locker in his personal pantheon of Iraq movies, maybe you could learn to read instead of looking at the emoji next time /v/edditor
>>68694901
>He doesn't review based on what he wants the story to be or how he wants it told to him
that's literally the basis of his complaints, do you need to suckle his chococock some more
>>68694901
>He also reviews on that assumption, that a film that is relatively better than the other films releasing around the same time deserves a better rating because people who like movies want to see movies and should be informed of what is the best of the bunch even if it is a not-so-good movie.
He wavers on that. I think it was Interstellar that he shat on because it wasn't as good as 2001, and some other old scifi movie
>>68688061
i like how he makes immature nihilist and hipsters cry
Armond is classic /tv/. Only neo/v/edditors dislike him
>>68688344
notice how he never mentions acting, editing, cinematography or plot structure
>>68695864
tbf in his reviews he generally mentions when an actor does a noteworthy job
>>68695188
>If the fresh number was 50% then we could get a truer reflection of his allegedly contrarian ways.
If critics are evenly divided, then one extra review can tilt things from fresh to rotten. This is true at any threshold, but a 50% is by definition in "mixed review" territory. Therefore, I don't think anything around 50% should be deemed "fresh." At least with 60%, you're able to say that a robust majority gave favorable reviews.
>Depends on how strictly you are following the definition of "contrarian".
In this case, I would think if your agreement with the Tomatometer is drastically different from typical critics. If the agreement was a nice Gaussian centered at 80% with a standard deviation of 7%, then 52% would be contrarian (as would 100% ironically).
>>68695864
>acting, editing, cinematography or plot structure
Holy shit could you list a more plebeian list of criteria to judge a film on?
>>68696137
xDDD good one
>>68688061
armond is a symbol of new sincerity in a post ironic twitter culture
that's why all the hipster manchildren on twitter and reddit hate him
>>68695962
>At least with 60%, you're able to say that a robust majority gave favorable reviews.
I agree. But if we were following a strict definition of contrarian (opposing popular opinion) then putting the number at 50% would be the best option.
>(as would 100% ironically).
Then that can't be the way we define it. There probably isn't a numerical way to define it. It is likely more of a "know it when I see it" thing. Maybe some of his reviews are him truly just being a contrarian but if you read his reviews you will see that his reasons for liking or disliking a movie aren't any less legitimate than any other critic. This leads me to believe he just views the movies with a unique critical view.
He's a meme, and everyone who likes him is a meme too
Sure, sometimes his takedowns of popular movies line up with my opinions and are fun to read. But his tastes on contemporary movies are so ridiculous that he must be doing it on purpose. Half his shit reads like a metacommentary on criticism, that 5 cent words, politics and name dropping can make any movie look good or bad. Its a fun experiment, maybe, but completely insincere, and I don't want to read about insincere opinions. That's completely worthless to me
Just look at his year end comparisons. He draws really strenuous, often nonexistent lines between a movie people liked that he didn't, and one people didn't that he did. It's so obviously contrived and meant to get a reaction from people
>>68688344
God-fucking-dammit I love Armond White. Iron Man was such a piece of shit, and Nolan could never fool him for a second with his soulless junk.
>>68697027
But GI Joe: Cobra, that was a great movie in comparison
>>68688239
He's like if George Carlin was a film critic.
>>68697138
It might be good, I don't know a single person who saw it.
>>68688239
He's right. Star Wars is just flashy genre-fiction. Somebody who claims to truly appreciate film and at the same time enjoys Star Wars is kidding themselves. That would be like /lit/ posters enjoying Harry Potter.
Prequels are better, but still not high-tier.
>>68694901
>he looks instead at what kind of story the director was telling and how he wanted to tell it, and examines whether the director accomplished that.
Have you even read an Armond review? He is constantly injecting political subtext that may or may not exist and judging a film based on that. I can't think of a less objective critic.
>>68697403
Politics is everywhere and is usually intentional to at least some extent.
>>68697460
I wouldn't disagree, but he in no way judges movies "what kind of story the director was telling and how he wanted to tell it". That post is so absurdly wrong about how Armond writes.
>>68697637
Can you think of a specific example of where he pulls politics out of his ass? I'd say even the weirdest reviews have some grounding in reality, like with Jack and Jill where he talks about Jewish family life. He grew up in a jewish part of Detroit, so he'd probably know a bit about that.
![1404743668287[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6g5gXUP.jpg "1404743668287[1].jpg")
>>68688344
>Snyder’s thrillingly intelligent use of interior conflict and political antagonism vastly outclasses Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises — all noxious — which were bellwethers of our culture’s decline.
>It takes just such dreamlike moral clarity to reprove the Nolan trilogy’s chaos.
>Fanboys prefer the Nolan films for their “darkness,” which emphasized the sophomoric, pseudo-tragic elements of the Batman graphic novels. But Snyder’s more adult treatment finds the material’s emotional core. This displeases the fanboy/hipster whose adolescent embarrassment about feelings was exploited through Nolan’s emotionless violence and post–9/11 nihilism. Snyder counters that cultural crisis and (through the script by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) visualizes the millennial moral struggle as pop myth. His essential subject is mankind’s struggle to discover compassion as well as common obligation — or dare I use the non-political term: brotherhood?
>The pain of post–9/11 as reflected in Nolan’s Batman films was a paradigm shift. But fantasy cannot conscientiously be enjoyed Nolan’s way, without any sense of social, historical, or moral consequence. Snyder manipulates this new paradigm so that mankind’s sense of mortality is embodied by Batman, Superman, and their arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor. (All three characterization performances are, well, perfect.)
>>68697692
I didn't say out of his ass, I just think he often puts very strong emphasis on subtextual politics that are not really key to the movie. Regardless, he is not this straight shooter objectivist that post is defending him as.
I just hate this "Did director accomplish X? Then its a good movie" idea about criticism that completely removes subjectivity from the question. It's reductive and boring, but repeated as if its the answer to divisive criticism.
I keep thinking this is a reaction image from a stock photo website or a thinner Kevin Michael Richardson
>>68697904
>This displeases the fanboy/hipster whose adolescent embarrassment about feelings was exploited through Nolan’s emotionless violence
100% agree. Tho I think his post 9/11 obsession goes too far sometimes
>>68697904
>Nolan's Batman had no moral consequence
Did he see the same movie as me?
>>68698191
you could read his reviews and find out
>>68688061
He waits for the general consensus then pulls out the thesaurus to write a review that's the opposite of it. He does this every time, with the excuse that he's not invited to screenings.
This is why he's the hero of /tv/. He's also extremely homosexual like them.
>>68698034
I think that politics are the key to most movies made today. Really, I'd say that any movie that isn't aiming for a sublime aesthetic experience is mostly political in some way or another.
>>68698328
>implying that there's anything wrong with homosexuality
It's an indicator of superior aesthetic taste.
>>68698281
I did, and I don't understand how he comes to that conclusion. He just throws out grand sounding phrases like that and expects them to speak for themselves. He writes pull quotes instead of expanding on his ideas to inform the audience. He's an incredibly masturbatory writer.
>>68698588
>He writes pull quotes instead of expanding on his ideas to inform the audience
your quote on armond pull quotes is a pull quote on armond
Armind's favourite films of all time:
L'Avventura (1960)
Intolerance (1916)
Jules et Jim (1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lola (1961)
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
Nashville (1975)
Nouvelle Vague (1990)
Passion of Joan of Arc (1927)
Sansho Dayu (1954)
http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/sightandsoundpoll2012/voter/783
Tell me how he's a contrarian again?
>>68699172
>Tell me how he's a contrarian again?
because he doesnt like muh capeshit
bump for more Armond quotes
>>68698588
Partially agree. I can usually see where he's coming from when he does that.
>>68688504
Toy Story 3 sucked compared to 2.
Batman Begins is the only great Nolanbat movie.
I don't understand his dislike of Up. It was comfy AND good
>>68702753
I agree with him on up, the only well executed part was the opening and it was aesthetically bland. Pixar's monopolization of the world's attention does hold animation back in a big way. Japan has a whole fuckload of different directors and studios making lots of different stuff while America has maybe two big animated movies coming out each year made by the same people.
Sure, you've got your odd outliers like Ralph Bakshi and Don Bluth, but as long as Disney and Pixar keep swinging their monstrous dicks around that's all they'll ever be, outliers.
>>68702753
>2
>good
Stop this right now.
I take this smug, Denzel Washington-lookalike is /tv/ incarnated, right?
>>68702947
Fair enough.
>>68702996
Not gonna happen, the first was only good for THE CLAW, and the third was awful for a whole slough of other reasons.
You seem like the faggot that dislikes QoS.
>>68689032
I forgot to say I liked your post.
>>68703081
Please lurk at least a little.
Maybe even read the threads?
Anyways, not really, but he is a good writer and his insight is usually appreciated in the sea of brain-dead critics that populate the swarm.
I don't even agree with him that much.
>>68703100
I liked QoS. Isn't it hated by most anyways?
And the way out of date and tryhard Star Wars reference in 2 really brings it down, alongside Buzz and Zerg as well.
>>68703173
>I liked QoS. Isn't it hated by most anyways?
Alright, you're ok in my book.
And yeah, it is.
>>68688344
Is this image supposed to be a reprimand of Armond?
I don't see the issue. A lot of those excerpts are spot on.
>>68688061
King of /tv/ desu
>>68699133
>dat knee-jerk reaction
You should have stayed there.
>>68688344
>hated UP
>loved Coraline and Iron Giant
I love this man
>>68702947
Also Dreamworks....
>“Does the Wayans family realize that the concept behind Little Man, their latest collective project, makes it a near-classic comedy? Director Keenen Ivory Wayans and his performing brothers Marlon and Shawn are notorious for childish impudence and sarcasm in such hits as Scary Movie and White Chicks. But in Little Man, dealing with their habitual irrepressible immaturity unleashes something poignant. It makes this silly, lightweight film almost deep.”
I don't know about him sometimes
>>68705255
Fuck, that actually makes a lot of sense now that I'm thinking about it. Fuck, even if Armond's totally screwing with us all here he can make a point better than anybody else working his job.
He could probably write more convincing praise for Eddie Murphy than the average critic could for Orson Welles.
>>68688504
Toy Store and UP are forgettable apart from Up's opening and TS3's ending.
>>68699296
this basically
>>68688061
MY FAVORITE NIGGER
