Glowing review of 'Suicide Squad'. What about you, Sup Forums?

glowing review of 'Suicide Squad'. What about you, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalreview.com/article/438185/star-trek-beyond-cinema-comfort-food?target=author&tid=1152026
mpcdot.com/forums/topic/6883-roger-ebert-finally-dead/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Armond White Says ‘Macbeth’ Is Better Than ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ In Annual List
Holy shit how based is this guy?

Can't Pass on the Fass

His reviews come out on friday. Meanwhile, read his Star Trek Beyond review:
nationalreview.com/article/438185/star-trek-beyond-cinema-comfort-food?target=author&tid=1152026

>The Star Trek television and film franchise was always multicultural; then it became a pop cult; and now it boasts all of that as a social manifesto. This franchise enterprise’s entire one-world allegorical pretense — as seen in the new Star Trek Beyond – caters to millennials and fanboys who take their moral and political cues from pop trivia. Filling in for our educational system’s failure and the spiritual void offered by secularism, Star Trek Beyond trivializes social issues like militarism and race by downplaying moral seriousness, and replacing it with “action” and genre familiarity. It’s cinema as comfort food. Director Justin Lin’s hyperactive set-pieces don’t have the same effect here as in his Fast & Furious brotherhood franchise. Star Trek Beyond’s cartoonish voyage toward intergalactic Utopia (fighting off weird villains along the way) depreciates the essence of political and universal unity. Millennials who have never read the Aeneid or seen La Grande Illusion don’t recognize the bait-and-switch.

>The way the Star Trek franchise has always dealt with ethnic and species oddity, as if to normalize what academics call “difference,” might have contributed to the contemporary confusion about race, gender, and class relations. But things never get sorted out, given the ongoing fantasy franchise’s exploitation of the multi-racial Enterprise crew, and such new characters as Idris Elba’s cartoonish bad guy Krall, along with the enlistment of Sofia Boutella’s alien warrior Jaylah — a ghost-white creature with a face strangely inked with lightning-bolt tattoos. Like current frivolous political rhetoric, Star Trek Beyond is just distracting.

It was though. Macbeth was one of the hidden kinos of 2015.

Sicario and Macbeth, 2015's top contenders.

>Macbeth
>Just mumble that poetry up senpai.

Macbeth sucked. Maybe if they used a modern dialect I could understand, it would be a lot better. How does it feel for you and Armond White to pretend you understand what they're saying in that movie?

>I'm a stupid american with no education so I can't understand the english language

ftfy

I can easily understand Early Modern English because I am not a subhuman popcorn guzzler.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

>tfw Shakespeare predicted Sup Forums.

who is this guy?

Wait this is not up to debate r-right?

Ebert once wrote that Armond is a troll, pure and simple. And I believe it.

The only critic left who actually knows his craft

Ebert is a middlebrow asshat who never had an original opinion in his life.

armond white

literally a gay nigger, but also a very based movie critic because hes an actual critic. Sometimes his opinions are odd and completely out of left field, but you can always come away from his critiques with a new understanding or a good chuckle at the very least.

Hes popular here because hes very vocally opposed to the roger ebert hack style of "critique"

Thats pretty spot-on though.

That´s the same remark Jimmy said about Picasso in Art School Confindential. Of course, Jimmy was a loser, failed artist, deeply embittered drunk and a serial killer.

>I'm a stupid britbong who can't understand a joke

Ftfy

>the roger ebert hack style of "critique"
please expand upon this point?

Pretending to be retarded? A fine meme my friend.

>I-I was pretending to be retarded.

>Did I enjoy it?
>Did it entertain me?
>Was it inoffensive?

Sicario was complete shit though apart from that one shot

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/6883-roger-ebert-finally-dead/

the big cheese over at mpc explains my feelings about ebert and the effect he had on the profession pretty well

He's always right

Whats wrong with that?

Is it even possible anymore for another board to become worse than Sup Forums? Or even as bad as Sup Forums? I mean this place has gone straight to hell, it's incredible.

Nothing.

>hated Blue Velvet because his waifu suffered

>Ghostbusters 2016
>A feminist Gunga Din, Jones's Patty makes it possible for the SNL white pukka sahibs to feel good about repeating Ghostbusters' Eighties line-up...It disguises Hollywood's entrenched biased hegemony as happily inclusive fun for all.

How can one man be so based?

It's limiting. You can't approach an artwork on purely utilitarian terms, some films intend to offend and make the viewer uncomfortable. Roger Ebert is the kind of guy to praise sentimental fluff like The Shawshank Redemption.

He has an amazing way of putting why I hate what I hate into clarity.

Harambe

does he have to politicize every one of his reviews?

>Mpc

Movies don't exist in a vacum, they exist in a social, political, and cultural context as well, and this have an effect on both how they are created and how they are interpreted

Everything created by man is ideologically and politically loaded whether intentionally or not
Therefore it's completely valid examining the politics and ideology of every movie

>it's limiting

It's entirely in tune with big budget hollywood movies and there's nothing wrong with that. If anything Armond's style is inappropriate for the types of movies he's critiques.

you're reading professional critique for the first time in your life, shocking I know, but you will get used to it and then get sick at the sight of how many people get paid money to be professional opinionaters in film

Did you quote this from a kotaku comment action or something?

I just want to know if the movie is entertaining or not ffs. Questioning the political intentions of every artistic piece is exhausting and unnecessary. These are movies that are here to entertain you. You shouldn't be getting your opinions or values from them.

Big budget hollywood movies don't have to be that way.

>movie depicts what's right or wrong from the creator's perspective
>witnessed by tens of millions of people
>people's opinions have never been shaped by media

autism

Then Armond isn't for you. You do not have to read his criticism. There are many bargain bin critics (look on RT) who can inform you of what product you wish to consume next.

>movie depicts a moral code that's different from me
>that means I must hate it

no, stop.

LMAO JUST TURN OFF YOURE BRAIN

>Questioning the political intentions of every artistic piece is exhausting and unnecessary

It is exhausting but not unnecessary. It can be very useful. Obviously if you want to know wether you will be entertained by the you are better off with IMDB than Arnold.

>You shouldn't be getting your opinions or values from them.

I agree, but a lot of people get moral reinforcements from popcorn movies sadly.

>movie depicts a morality that is simplistic and commercial
>just turn your brain off dude

>>movie depicts a moral code that's different from me
>>that means I must hate it

No, but you can examine it, like Armond does

you're a moron

critique isnt based on whether you like the film or not, thats the whole fucking gap here between actual critics and professional opionaters

>Then Armond isn't for you.

Armond isn't for anyone, he's pointless. He intentionally politicizes inoffensive big budget popcorn movies and then gives them scores that are the opposite of what every other mainstream critic gives. I can't think of a more useless type of critic. Nobody is getting anything out of these except for you guys and that's because you're all contrarians and none of you are going to see these types of flicks anyway.

It,s borderline retarded to think a film reflects its director's morality or ethics in a literal way. Everything else you mentioned is entirely on the viewers and the filmmaker has no responsibility for it.

Jesus, for a bunch of intellectual neckbeards you sure love to forget these are fictional stories.

and ebert was a chinless freak married to a bigfoot, with a peculiar obsession with sexless lesbians

i think id rather be the serial killer

>fictional stories can never depict the ethics or opinions of the people who create them

Holy fuck he actually wrote this.

Because it's published in NR.

Idk, kinda seems like you're a bit retarded mate. The whole point of Armond's reviews is to start a dialogue and to provoke/ promote critical thinking. His reviews force the reader to clarify and justify their own position and opinions by responding to his criticisms. I think that's a pretty good reason for him to shitpost. He was right about Ebert. He didn't give reviews, he gave a weird hybrid between a kind of pedagogical sermon and a commercial endorsement.

The problem with that is reviewing movies like Problem Child 2 as if they were meant to be analyzed in a political and ethical context.

Which is what Armond does. Don't get me wrong, intellectual masturbation is nice but Armond is on the same level as Doug walker, dissecting children media and insisting there's deeper meaning to it.

This. Also, White is not a consumer guide, his job isn't to tell you wether you will like the movie the movie or not, nor even to tell you if it's good or not. That's why never gives rating to the movies and why he never explicitly tells you to go watch this or that movie.

Brody is the only one that matters now

But why shouldn't you examine Problem Child 2 in a social or moral context? You can examine how it handles single male parenting for example

Who says you shouldn't? Knock yourself out broheim.