Is this man correct in his reviews?
>>69713043
Yep.
>>69713043
Most of the time.
>>69713043
>correct?
like potpourri
>>69713043
nah
Sometimes
> Kidman tries making Margot pitiable, but she remains a cold actress. Brave Jennifer Jason Leigh, the finest film actress of the ’90s, gets disgraced. Baumbach not only turns Leigh’s fearlessness into Isabelle Huppert-style masochism, he offends her person with a scene where Pauline shits her panties. And we see it. Baumbach can’t guide us through troubled emotions like O’Neill, Williams and Anderson; he leads us into the shallow end of arrogance, conceit and ugliness. The rat at the bottom of the pool is Baumbach himself.
>>69713043
Contrarian in the Flesh
No but he's fun to read
>>69713213
There was an old review from the 90s where he said Baumbach's mother should have aborted him.
>>69713250
This
Proof:
>>69713213
>>69713314
Your mother should've used the coat hanger on you, Noah
He used to do solid reviews many many years ago, but, now he just fucks with people.
>>69713043
He recognizes that BvS is high quality kino and that JewJew star wars was trash. So yes, he is always right.
>>69713312
Sauce please, I'm sure it was expressed most eloquently.
>>69713043
>man
>>69713397
Honestly, that BvS review turned me away from him. Snyder's "deep mythological roots" can't save shit filmmaking.
>>69713213
>Brave Jennifer Jason Leigh, the finest film actress of the ’90s,
Sounds good to me.
>>69713408
Pretty funny. I don't agree with the guy, but his writing is fun to read.
>I won't comment on Baumbach's deliberate, onscreen references to his former film-reviewer mother [former Voice critic Georgia Brown] except to note how her colleagues now shamelessly bestow reviews as belated nursery presents. To others, Mr. Jealousy might suggest retroactive abortion.
>>69713632
>I don't agree with the guy, but his writing is fun to read
Depending on the movie, I have disagreed with him quite a bit, but I always like reading his reviews because he actually critics films, and it's not just glib criticism of superficial details. Thanks for the kek, he's hilarious sometimes.
>>69713043
Meh, hes ok in some reviews. IMO he tries waay too hard to be contrarian on his reviews. And he looks stupid sometimes when he tries to connect stuff that don't even remotely relate to the movie he reviews. Like when he talked about the Black Lives Matter thing in his CA:CW review.
>>69713443
I bet you think the SW prequels were bad too. It's sad that Armond can't see Lucas' genius but no one is perfect.
>>69713726
*critiques, oops
ITT: hipster nihilists
Go see your Obama films
>>69713742
They are shit. Except for the third which is decent. The only reason you people liked the prequels is because it had unique aesthetics. It's aged like shit and the dialogue really is that bad.
>>69713798
Agreed, I'm glad he applies his politics to his reviews.
>>69713397
Only Marvelets despise him.
>>69713043
Hes black and autistic.
you tell me?
>>69713632
That's even funnier, considering it's coming from a diehard Christian
>>69713213
>>69713312
>>69713408
>>69713632
>>69713726
>>69713314
>. But I'll try. After announcing his new comics interpretation with 2005's oppressively grim Batman Begins, Nolan continues the intellectual squalor popularized in his pseudo-existential hit Memento. Appealing to adolescent jadedness and boredom, Nolan revamps millionaire Bruce Wayne's transformation into the crime-fighter Batman (played by indie-zombie Christian Bale), by making him a twisted icon, what the kids call "sick."
>The Dark Knight has no black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic (hip) due to The Joker's rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees-exhausting the D.A. and nearly wearing-out Batman's arsenal of expensive gizmos. Nolan isn't interested in providing James Bond?style gadgetry for its own ingenious wonder; rather, these crime battle accoutrements evoke Zodiac-style "process" (part of the futility and dread exemplified by the constantly outwitted police).
Is he right?
>>69713043
God I love reading Armond White, it just affirms how below the average university graduate he is. Absolutely hilarious.
>As momentary adversaries, Captain America and Iron Man almost represent the schism that now divides American voters...
Not its intent. The title civil war is a misnomer, i'll grant that, but this is the means to a different end.
>superficial patriotism.
Over the course of their movies, and even with civil war itself, there is absolutely no allusion to their "patriotism". Cap is hardly the most patriotic even at the height of WW2, while Ironman is wary of leaking his technology to the government. To point this quality out as a shortcoming is to completely misinterpret this.
>Ironman represents authoritarianism
Again, an idiotic misreading of the movie. This civil war adaptation is not nearly as ideologically driven as the comic. The "civil war" in this movie is character driven. The difference between the "serkovia accords" and the registration act is a difference of several magnitudes. One is accepting limitations and responsibility, the other is submitting to a higher power.
>taking America's schism lightly
Not its goal. This is doubly retarded in light of the notoriously long production cycle and planning of these movies; civil war has likely been in the works long before such a "schism". Again, Armond's uncontrollable autistic political wankery is getting the best of him.
>Prevents its viewers from thinking?
There are good movies that are "turn your brain off movies" in ways. These are movies that have very little basis in reality, but have internal consistency that merits recognition. i.e. Total Recall, Die Hard, etc, etc. Lots of action movies are not "thinkers" and yet they are undeniable good FILMS and ENTERTAINMENT.
>politics as sentimentality:
This has a historical and psychological precedent actually, there's correlation (and perhaps causation if i checked long enough) in political views and youth.
>Cont
>>69714537
>image.jpg
>>69714537
>Superheroes represent teenage rebellion
>Proceeds to list heroes on both sides of the view, including those in favor and those against.
That's embarrassingly weak evidence.
>Each one’s predicament represents a denial of the moral complexities that come with maturity
Precisely. Both sides are wrong, and given that he has listed heroes on both side this statement is an implicit affirmation of how the viewer can see merit for either side. Armond is again letting his political wankery supercede a qualitative analysis. That is, an analysis as to its objective qualities rather than the subjective qualities it may have in whichever retarded ideological lens he chooses.
>Arguing against working for the capitalist government.
Apparently Armond is so close-sighted, or else so idiotic that he missed the part in the movie where they state that the accords would be based in the UN. In fact, there is a lengthy sequence of the movie dedicated to this fact. He is either setting this absolute fact aside in order to progress his objectively wrong interpretation, or else has such a bad memory that he's made a mistake.
>Civil War is politics as adolescents misperceive social/global crisis.
Another embarrassingly bad phrase, did he even proof read? The use of slashes in writing is ordinarily bad, but to have such a clumsy sentence is pretty funny for a writer.
>deepens comics lore into visionary, moral art
Art has no morality. To judge art's quality based on morality is idiotic. If this is his stance, then Armond is in the same strata of people that would condemn Wagner for being an anti-semite, and so on. Ironically, it would seem that he's as misinformed about art as the "cry bully" far-leftists that he deplores.
>Movies as violent as the Marvel flicks are not pacifist but are proof of anti-military sentiment
Movies that are so violent that no one dies? Seems a tad hypocritical to criticize their lack of consequences and then follow it by condemning its violence.
>>69714604
>Civil War references BLM: Tamir rice, etc, etc.
ROFL. Genuinely made me laugh. Holy shit that's hilarious. This literal nigger faggot thinks that a dead black person that is referenced is a stand in for those revered (falsely most often imo) by BLM? Based on what? That they're both black? Where's the evidence? If anything, the fact that he WAS a scholar and WAS an enterprising as well as affluent kid precludes such comparisons. Not that such a comparison would even matter if Armond's political idiocy wasn't being deferred to.
>Pointless fighting.
Except that the movie's pacing and plot has made all the motivations clear, has explained what is going on, what's at stake, and what the timeline is. Unlike BvS the action of the scene, while certainly has indulgent as Armond states, is completely cohesive. Its because of this cohesiveness that its arguably far less decedent than the battles between Superman and Batman as well as the trinity versus Doomsday. The catalyst for these events are muddled and flawed in a number of ways, and yet are executed for the sake of fan fare.
>undecipherable action.
Another embarrassing example of Armond's writing, undecipherable isn't even a word. Based on my experience 90% of the action, regardless of shakiness at times, is entirely understandable. Not only are all the character components present, but the actual camera movements and blocking makes all the movements and actions work. But again, Armond resorts to hyperbole to arrive at his politically informed pre-existent judgement.
>rebooting for rebooting
Considering the studio fuckery that has gone on no. Considering the new casting and its positive reaction no. Considering spiderman's role in the comics no. Again, Armond has baseless cyncism.
>Overall
Grade C+. Disregards evidence to substantiate a vague thesis, has instances of flawed writing, lacks specificity and examples. Maybe after a couple more drafts it could earn something worth while.
>>69714537
>>69714604
>>69714670
and there it is. when confronted with eloquent insight, the marvel reprobate falters under its own lack of intellectual capacity. It cannot converse with thought, logic or reason. It cannot constitute meaningful participation within discussion. Nothing astute nor of importance.
Only memes and diatribe. Unfit, and because of this; unwilling.
>>69714537
>>69714604
>>69714670
Why the fuck does capeshit have to invade every thread? Just get out.
>>69714537
>>69714604
>>69714670
This just proves Marvel is reddit
>>69714955
He's a black guy who called the board of critics who kicked him out "racist". He's anything but king of /tv/
>>69715003
>called the board of critics who kicked him out "racist".
[citation needed]
>>69714912
>>69714936
>>69714955
Armond White is dead.
Bury it.
Consider this mercy.
>>69715091
>image.gif
>>69715075
http://www.slashfilm.com/armond-white-accuses-york-film-critics-circle-racism-video/
>>69714955
>>69715075
He's also a moron
>>69715230
I think it's safe to say he's more qualified to review films than you
>>69715259
doubt it.
http://www.nyfcc.com/2011/11/jack-and-jill-reviewed-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/
>>69715259
that's not saying much. There are far better critics that don't drag political bull shit into every review.
>>69715259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wALGw4DQCUM
Do you even know who we're talking about? He's an idiot.
>>69715456
Mark Commode is a manchild
>>69715519
And White isn't?
>whaaaaaaa, everyone's racist!!!!
>>69715561
At least Armond doesn't think The Exorcist is the greatest film ever
>>69715632
There's a difference from "best" and "favorite"
I don't agree with all his reviews but he was right about Star Wars despite all the praise it got. It truly was shit
(well its an average film but a terrible Star Wars movie)
>>69716008
nah, it was miles better than first two prequels and anyone who says any differently has no knowledge of filmmaking.
>>69716008
He's dumber than I thought. The seventh one was fine and miles ahead of the crap prequels.
>>69716045
Wow, an average piece of shit was better than total pieces of shit.
Most simply ignore the depiction of complexities in Armond White's reviewing for blithe and petulant renderings of 9/11 trauma fantasies. The evaluation of the dilemma of modern cinema is patronization par excellence, and Armond White precipitates this basic ideological quarrel. The left wing media fail to recognize truly visionary and moral film criticism, and react out of ignorance with incrimination and acrimony, a quasi-political derivative.
![1463516285627[3].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eBFuGBi.jpg "1463516285627[3].jpg")
>>69713798
I was overjoyed when I heard on /tv/ that Ebert the charlatan had finally died, but I was also saddened by the fact that he hadn't suffered that much before deciding that he could insult film criticism no longer. The pain and suffering that he went through is only a fraction of the evil that he inflicted on the millions of cinematically illiterate teenagers. When I found out that the old fart had finally decided to not assault the public with his adolescent approach to art, I pulled off the framed picture of Armond White from my wall, kissed it reverently, and immediately embarked on a Korine marathon. Good riddance, you jawless hack.
>>69715415
Jack and Jill is kino you imbecile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S6eUFbOfIU
>>69717542
Kek
>>69713742
Armond called Episode III 'a savant's masterpiece.'
>>69717707
That's legit funny.
