Anyone notice no one ever actually tries to refute Armond White's reviews?
Just lay claims of "troll" "contrarian" and other terms at him without engaging his actual writing
Hmmm
He doesnt say anything about CW. All he did was cry about BLM and how deep MOS was
isn't he supposed to be /tv/ incarnate or something? what would thou expect
>>69174349
Many people have though. It's just that they're actual critics and not 4chan nerds who waste their time on this site.
>>69174349
Tbh he really only ever talks about the politics and social impact of films, it seems like. Not that there's anything wrong with that, he's a very good writer and can articulate himself expertly, but his film reviews are less criticism of the film and more criticism of the context surrounding it.
>>69174349
his actual writing is shit
fucking nigger
>>69175473
this is true
He's a good writer, but a lot of his reviews are bashing other movies or talking about who made it. He clearly liked Inherent Vice but had to have a go at PTA anyways
Memes aside, most of his negative reviews are actually really well written and hard to argue against, but most of his positive reviews are pure memery.
>>69174509
for instance?
his reviews have very little to do with the films he's reviewing. he usually trails off about some statement or observation on socio-political issues that have very little to do with the film in question. he rarely if ever comments on acting, cinematography or any technical side of the production. just the story.
>>69174349
He is impossible to refute because his essays have no actual logic or supporting evidence behind them.
Its all about his interpretation and how he feels.
![flat,800x800,075,f.u2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/L8HdupM.jpg "flat,800x800,075,f.u2[1].jpg")
>Hmm
Is this fucking Facebook now?
The jist of most of his reviews is a movie does or does not make an emotional connection with him, and he references past works, directors, etc, that he's loved. He also criticizes political messaging or perceived political messaging.
There's no real need to refute him. You can't argue he SHOULD be feeling something when he doesn't. As for politics, his opinions are as valid as anyone else's.
I rarely if ever agree with his conclusions, but don't necessarily think he's wrong or even a constant contrarian. I do think the people who jerk off over his reviews and hold them up as "evidence" are, though. They are the worst kind of contrarian, like anti-vaxxers that find one hit on Google and proclaim it the universal truth. I think this guy would be ashamed to know how many of you do this instead of thinking for yourselves.
>>69174349
Because its a subjective opinion and hes entitled to whatever he believes in. Refuting a review is just silly
>>69176115
>jist
Meant gist, but I'll just go ahead and fuck myself anyway.
>>69174349
It would be nice if he talked about the actual movies.
>>69174349
The only reviews anyone would even care to "refute" are little more than someone saying "The sky is green."
The only refutation is to say, "No it isn't. Look at reality."
>How many youngsters will see Chris Pratt in Jurassic World and deposit his image in their spank bank? One of pop culture’s dividends is the additional pleasures contained within innocuous merchandizing (ask Andy Warhol). Jurassic World is neither good or bad enough to be camp — its predictable action scenes are limp enough to call “damp” — but Pratt’s He-Man image as dinosaur roustabout Owen is the kind that firms-up any man’s resolve.
>OP challenges the board to actually criticize Armond because he thinks they can't
>they all provide solid counter arguments
>OP is scrambling for a way to respond
I love this board
>>69174349
If he actually had substance as a critic he wouldn't even acknowledge superhero movies
I don't even understand what he's saying 90% of the time
It's just weird babbling
>>69174349
How can a pleb refute what he does not understand?
