https://youtube.com/watch?v=WMbDPU1WJf8
>he
Every day you shill your video buddy.
>>69862936
Waaaaaaah he doesn't like the movies I like. He should just agree with everyone else.
You mean THE BEST?
>educated man has educated opinions
>often disagreeing with the uneducated opinions of the uneducated masses
>bad
K E K
E
K
>>69864632
I like Armond, but come on bro, he is a troll. And that's why I like him, he is an educated and intelligent troll.
He's the only honest critic left.
>>69862936
Only mainstream critic with any integrity left.
>>69862936
No he's not and this ginger fuck can go eat a dick
Nice sponsors you got there, buddy.
>>69864884
ok well try refuting my actual points then
White is clearly retarded a good portion of the time. Who seriously thinks Transformers is a good movie or that Bay is a good director? There are plenty of movie critics, like Richard Brody, who are plenty smart without being as obnoxious as White.
>>69865055
>bay
>bad director
Nice Meme my fellow redditor
White is a great critic and he fully explains his opinions and has extensive knowledge of cinema. I don't always agree with him but at least his opinions are honest
>>69865029
No need for that. You are ugly and your voice is obnoxious.
>>69862936
>image.jpg
>>69865055
>Bad Boys 1 and 2
>The Rock
>Pain & Gain
>The Island
>Armageddon
This Michael Bay is bad meme needs to end.
>>69865029
>refuting my points
what points freckle fuck? You go no evidence of him being a terrible critic. You offered no arguments as to why his reviews are "bad" or why he is incorrect to go against the popular opinion of his colleagues. You offer nothing to support your claim. Go fucking fuck yourself.
>>69865171
>>69865219
This
It's an actual normie bandwagon
I want off this ride
>>69865055
this
Brody is a critic that just as easily proclaimed a contrarian, but the reason he isn't is becasue he(unlike Armond) makes valid points about why he liked/disliked a film
Armond is only infamous because of Rotten Tomatoes.
There are film scholars like Ray Carney or Jonathan Rosenbaum who'd be considered just as contrarian if they wrote reviews about all the latest films but Internet manchildren don't know about them because then they'd have to actually read books and educated opinions rather than comic book movie blogs.
>>69865219
Are you serious? Bad Boys 1 & 2 are bad. The Rock is good-ish. Pearl Harbor is awful. Pain & Gain is good-ish to mediocre. The Island is the definition of mediocrity, as is Armageddon. Every single Transformers movie is awful.
While Bay isn't the worst director, there is no way anyone with a semblance of sense would characterize him as "good."
>>69865055
Fuck off Bay is the only director delivering Autokino
The transformers movies are bad because of the comedy
Bay usually does "comedy/action" really well but the jokes in transformers are just awful
Not that transformers need to be super serious. It's just that jokes were legit awful and unfunny.
>>69865431
>Bad Boys 1 & 2 are bad.
Stopped reading right there.
When will Michael Bay save Capeshit?
>>69865219
>>69865303
NO U
This Michael Bay is actually GOOD GUYS!!!! needs to end. He has skills, but ultimately has a trashy vision of things.
>>69865524
If you want to like generic buddy-cop movies from the mid-90s, go ahead. But there was plenty of good action back then so that you don't have to force yourself to do it.
>>69864632
>>69864682
This. Why do you think so many people badmouth him? Because he's the critic the Internet deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our critic. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. The Dark White.
i think 99% of rt users dont actually use the site to read reviews.
>Civil War was bad
>proceeds to give well written reasons for it being bad
>civil was good
>ITS FUN!!!!!!!!!!!
>ReviewMovieWorld
>>69865600
Michael Bay's movies are commentary on trashy society but his movies aren't trash.
BOOHOO THIS GUY HAS DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAN ME SO HE'S THE WORST
>>69862936
He's a gay black Republican. Of course he's not right. All of his opinions come from an angle that he's repressed and angry.
a critic having a different or controversial opinion does not make him a bad critic
Armond comes from the Keel-school of scholarly and academic criticism, where he examines film in a social-political context, which is at odds with the now mainstream consumer guides disguised as film criticism, whose sensibilities come from comics, tv shows and tabliod sensationalism. The fact that Armond comes off as bad critic or troll to people only shows how much damage this kind of reviewing, coupled the internet's power of democratizing critism, making basically everyone a "movie expert", has done the art of film criticism, or just criticism in general.
Note for example that Armond doesn't use a rating score, nor does he ever recommends or disrecommends people to watch or not watch a movie
I'm also miffed that Armond White's Columbia MFA is always cited as some sort of brilliant credential to justify all his shit, while nobody ever talks about his undergrad, which was probably fucking Drexel or St. John's or something.
>Most recent comments
>5th result
Theres still hope guys
The narrarator may be correct, but he doesn't put forth a convincing argument. In fact, he lets Armond make his own argument more convincingly.
The movies Armond enjoys display characters and situations that are ultimately hopeful. Conflicts occur, but these are depicted as obstacles for strong men/women/communities to overcome.
The movies he dislikes contain situations where characters feel they are punished by the experience of life itself. Cynicism and disdain for avarice pervade not only the downtrodden characters, but is central to the themes and tones of the film.
The attitudes of these films ultimately implicitly condemn the possibility of agency or self-actualization in any reasonable or meaningful way.
These films contain references to a culture that is destructive and fearsome. Projecting mistrustful and isolating behaviors. As an entertainment product, and usually as cultural document, such projections are biased and ultimately worthless.
Yes there are many stories to tell, but I'd like to ask you which story: an optimistic, inspirational one or a paranoid, Machiavellian one, would produce more confirmation bias and a personal sense of superiority?
It's easier to manipulate your fears to give you a twisted sense of satisfaction than it is to inspire you to work hard to overcome great odds.
>>69866491
literally
>>69862936
You'll never know if he's right since he always takes the contrarian side to every argument. His true feelings are irrelevant to his ambitions.
>>69864632
>educted man liked Jack and Jill and transformers 2
Yeah nah.
>>69867070
He has a degree from Columbia. You're free to disagree with him, but you cannot dispute the fact that he's educated.
>>69867004
He's like your average anonymous poster on 4chan, only brave enough to show his name and face.
>>69862936
No.
>>69862936
Based Negro making plebs majorly asspained once again.
He's a disingenuous troll through and through, but at least he's a very entertaining disingenuous troll.
>>69862936
>being this assblasted
even if i disagree with him, he makes good points
every critic is scum
>>69866229
>>69862936
it's toystory 3 all over again
>>69862936
With all the mongs who leveraged their youtube channels and tumblr blogs into being featured critics on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, shitting on Armond really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Without watching the video and not knowing what film is being discussed, I can already tell that the movie he's bashing is a popular movie that got generally high reviews from most other critics.
>>69866733
It be nice if Armond would ever actually devote a good chunk of his reviews on choreography and cinematography on a film. Most of the time it's just one line.
Meanwhile, he pulls out political shit out of his ass for 90% of the review.
>>69866733
This is actually spot on...is this really a YT comment?
>>69867663
it is,this too
>>69866733
Is this a pasta?
>>69862936
I'll use capeshit rankings for reference
>Liked Fantastic Four: Silver Surfer, a movie that is bad in pretty much every regard and which was lambasted by critics
>Year later he shits on both The Dark Knight and Iron Man, two tonally different movies with different messages. They are similar in the fact that they are both loved by public and critics
>Shits on the Captain America: The First Avenger which was exactly the kind of movie he usually preaches for (optimistic, kind etc.). Movie is loved by critics and public.
>BvS every bit as gritty and dark as TDK, BUT it is not favorable with critics. Surprise, surprise, he loved it.
>Civil War. Of course he hated it. Was it to fail with critics, he would sing serenades to it.
Also his reviews always come late, way after general consensus is gathered. Its pretty clear that he waits for a general picture to form and then writes a most unexpected review possible. Sometimes he is careful and judges that writing positive review of a really bad movie is overkill, so he pans it with everyone, but always for a different reason to stay UNIQUE, LOOK AT ME. Sometimes he makes really bad mistakes that expose his mindset, like writing a positive review for Jack and Jill. But then again, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
In short, he is just a clickbait contrarian and all objective evidence confirms this.
>>69866540
This.
The general public doesn't get how Armond approaches film. His writing isn't really for the casual movie consumer who's looking for a critic to give them a synopsis and whether it's good or bad because of "'plot holes"' and "'great characters"'.
>>69867945
Nostalgia Critic sucks. He doesn't review nostalgic shit anymore. most of the crap he talks about was made in the last 10 years.
Stick to doing Care Bears and He-Man reviews, Doug.
>>69866540
>Note for example that Armond doesn't use a rating score, nor does he ever recommends or disrecommends people to watch or not watch a movie
That's a very good point.
>>69867663
>>69867945
>>69866733
It's actually a terrible opinion. One that Armond himself would discard.
>>69868153
i think everyone knows that by now
>>69868224
Enlighten us senpai
>>69868224
you say that but dont actually give any counter argument.
>>69868099
Dubs of truth.
>>69866733
>The Dark Knight is not an adventure movie with a driven protagonist; it's a goddamn psychodrama in which Batman/Bruce Wayne's neuroses compete with two alter-egos.
>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".
He looks like a goddam marvelshill, yet somehow he despised TFA.
>Like one of those fake-smart, middlebrow TV shows, the speciousness of the Social Network is disguised by topicality
Holy fuck, this man has some great insights. He just shred this movie to what it basically was.
>>69866733
That is true about Ebert. He would give perfectly fine films a bad review because he disagreed with them politically.
also he gave bad films good reviews if they were black like his wife
>>69868592
>He would give perfectly fine films a bad review because he disagreed with them politically.
Are you implying Almond doesn't do that?
>>69868099
Civil War actually a poorly made film from a purely technical view point/
>>69868452
pretty sure he hates most MCU films as well, even the decent ones
>>69868452
he called man of steel the godfather of superhero movies
>>69868848
If Man of Steel was universally beloved, he would've called it "uninspired mediocrity"
Armond liked To the Wonder. He can't be a bad critic.
>>69862936
He's just an attention whore that is sometimes wrong and sometimes spot on
Eventually you will be able to deduce what kind of movies he will like and hate though
>>69868986
>liked To the Wonder
>panned Tree of Life
What a joke
It's important to note that Armond's reviews are always among the last to appear. You can figure out why that is by yourself.
>>69864713
>>69864762
>this is what edgy people on /tv/ believe
lol
>>69869093
He changed opinion about Tree of Life. He liked his new film too.
>Since then, Malick has embarked on a personal, semi-autobiographical project — a trilogy about a family’s cosmic and emotional history in the films The Tree of Life, To the Wonder, and now Knight of Cups. The characters and themes overlap and cohere as one of the most conscientious and extensive ventures ever attempted by an American director.
>>69869165
go away, ginger
>hehe i'll write that jack and jill was a good movie so people will give me attention and read my other reviews
He's like if /pol/ reviewed movies
ARMOND WHITE IS SO CONTRARIAN
>How contrarian is he?
HE'S A GAY BLACK MAN WITH THE LAST NAME "WHITE"
>>69869165
I bet you like "good" critics like RLM, right?
>>69869324
t. poor little white boy
>>69869402
RLM acknowledged themselves they are not critics.
>>69868755
Yes at certain points it was poorly done, I don't think anyone is really going to argue on that one too much.
I've never read his Transformers reviews, isn't he normally against "just turn your brain off" trite?
>>69869474
That won't stop people from shouting they are critics every time they make a video.
>>69869548
He liked Transformers.
Armond White is what a real life /tv/ reviewer would be.
The fact that he triggered this ginger so badly to make a youtube video is hilarious.
>>69869548
not really, guy watches a film in the way its intended to be seen, so if it is turn your brain offesque he would judge it on its merit as that.
>>69869548
Depends on whether the trite was well-received critically or not. If it wasn't, he probably gave it a good review. If it was, probably not.
>>69869649
But I did read his Civil War review. While dumbasses are trying to pass it off in some sort of vie for pseudo-intellectualism, isn't it the definition of "turn your brain off"?
He takes popular opinion and spins it directly around. He is a textbook contrarian and the only reason he's so renowned is because of how good he is at it.
>>69869474
Irrelevant, their fans consider them critics and give weight to their opinion
>>69869208
Glad to see Armond is appreciating Malick again
>>69862936
>Being a critic on critics
Jfc
