>It’s no accident that the very best movies of 2016 challenged the mainstream and were not from Hollywood. Too many American filmmakers have lost the ability to look at human experience without cheapening our responses to it. Our most urgent issues as human beings, and our most sensitive needs as people who think and feel, are betrayed by a culture committed to childish escapism produced to shore up fatuous, fashionable tenets — which then get endorsed by media shills.
>The year’s Better-Than List has expanded because film culture has exploded beyond homogenous tastes and interests; multimedia competition has only exacerbated our fragmentation. But the point of the Better-Than List is always to inspire critical thinking and encourage personal response against the conformist hive-mind that aims to tame our diverse tastes. The best movies reward cultural courage, making it easier to reject the garbage.
>Mohsen Mahkmalbaf’s epic parable about modern-day revolution in a country resembling Iran offers unexpected insight into the effects of despotism on a ruler and his subjects. Makhmalbaf’s insistence on shared humanity — a leader’s obligation to forgive his public and vice versa — furnishes the humanist critique that American media have avoided for the past eight years. Richard Tanne, instead, dished up another fatuous Obama-origin myth for political sycophants.
Being 17 > Moonlight
>André Téchiné’s exhilarating observation of French and Algerian teens in love anticipates New Europe’s complicated future; Barry Jenkins reduced the black gay American protagonist in his movie to an identity-politics martyr. A humane, visionary work vs. condescending, politically correct propaganda.
Sunset Song > Manchester by the Sea
>Terence Davies’s deeply empathetic Scottish drama (from Lewis Grassic Gibbon’s novel) finds national and ethnic awareness in a woman’s life struggle, while Kenneth Lonergan’s male weepie forgoes empathy for melodramatic clichés that never rise above self-pity.
Ryder Wilson
Wiener-Dog > The Lobster
>Todd Solondz’s symbolic dachshund traverses three tales of human will, observing fragmentation nationwide with breathtaking boldness and humor; Yorgos Lanthimos’s self-congratulatory Kubrick-derivative nihilism mocks civilization.
Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk > La La Land
>Ang Lee’s moving 3-D vision of post-9/11 stress shows Americans loving one another as citizens and as soul mates — unlike Damien Chazelle’s childish ode to showbiz vanity. Lee transcends genre to remind Americans of what connects them; Chazelle distorts genre into idiotic escapism then deadens it.
Beautiful Something > Moonlight
>Joseph Graham’s intimate, multi-character cityscape follows the spiritual journey of several Philadelphia gay men, while Moonlight (yes, that con job again) exploits “minority” status to sentimentalize victimization. The personal vs. the pseudo-political.
Joseph Brooks
Batman v Superman > Deadpool
>Zack Snyder continues to find depth in pop myths, making comic-book archetypes reveal our souls. But Tim Miller’s Edgar Wright–lite comic-book sarcasm defies and denies serious fun.
Hacksaw Ridge, Knight of Cups, Voyage of Time > Silence
>Mel Gibson professes faith the difficult way, by defending a conscientious objector’s war experience. Terrence Malick searches for faith in Hollywood (fiction) and throughout history (nonfiction). But Martin Scorsese’s latest protracted remake replaces their conviction and originality with a lapse of cinematic faith.
Eisenstein in Guanajuato > Cameraperson
>Peter Greenaway’s outrageous bio-pic about Sergei Eisenstein, whose impact on cinema is still felt, pairs compassion for the Russian exile’s private life with respect for his art. Kirsten Johnson confuses her résumé as a photographer on PC docs with artistic expression. Genius vs. narcissism.
Nicholas Rogers
Miles Ahead > The Birth of a Nation
>Don Cheadle finds inspiration and invention in Miles Davis’s genius, while Nate Parker misunderstands Nat Turner’s insurrection as instruction. History is to teach not repeat.
Valley of Love, Don’t Call Me Son > Toni Erdmann
>France’s Guillaume Nicloux and Brazil’s Anna Muylaert both treat family dysfunction as serious business in two innovative films about the difficulty of parenting gay children, while Germany’s Maren Ade sees parental foibles and inherited perversity as a berserk sitcom. Nicloux and Muylaert go deep; Ade goes too far.
Will You Dance with Me? > The 13th
>Derek Jarman’s previously unreleased record of one night at a London disco in the 1980s survives as a document of assorted human desires unified by popular culture. Ava DuVernay uses the documentary form to showcase today’s race-hustling elites who promote social division through black victimization. Jarman’s joyous, personal interpretation of dance culture makes history; DuVernay’s dubious misinterpretation of the Constitution’s 13th Amendment violates it.
Sully > Rogue One
>Clint Eastwood celebrates true American heroism while reevaluating the cynical disbelief that has infected post-9/11 culture; Garth Edwards depicts the miasma of war as a dull Star Wars episode. An edifying entertainment for adults vs. ends-justifies-the-means propaganda for children of all ages.
The Mermaid > The BFG
>Stephen Chow’s action-fantasy just happens to make ecological points while defending the ethics of the forgotten working class. Spielberg’s political parable is a transparent valedictory salute to Obama’s ruling-class elitism, normalized as childhood fantasy. The most popular film in China’s history vs. an American election-year flop.
Kayden Gomez
Kubo and the Two Strings > Finding Dory, Sausage
>Party Travis Knight responds to the crisis of our rotted pop culture with this fable about the sustenance a boy receives from family memory and hand-fashioned art. It’s far superior to another fishy piece of Pixar sentimentality and Seth Rogen’s millennial update of Animal House raunchiness.
Standing Tall > Fences
>Emmanuelle Bercot’s story of a lost urban white kid in Paris gives an updated view of how society fails then rescues its own. It bests the theatrical and political clichés of August Wilson’s black Pittsburgh family drama. Contemporary humanism vs. cornball politics.
Patriots Day, The Finest Hours > Manchester by the Sea Peter
>Berg’s and Craig Gillespie’s true-life New England adventures feature ethnic sensitivity that redefines American character and the action-history genre. But Manchester by the Sea (yes, that con job again) peddles ethnic smugness. Two classic B-movies vs. indie pseudo-art.
Hidden Figures > Elle
>Theodore Melfi’s pre-feminist heroic trio outperform Paul Verhoeven’s Euro-trash post-feminist heroine. In the former, the personal humanizes politics, while the personal is shallowly politicized in the latter.
Love & Friendship > 20th Century Women
>Whit Stillman satirizes modern morality in Jane Austen drag, while Mike Mills drags viewers through a Sundance reeducation course in “feminism.”
Jordan Garcia
Rules Don’t Apply > La La Land
>Warren Beatty’s misconceived whatzit briefly confesses the sex-and-business wonderland of his early days in L.A. It’s far more credible and fascinating than Chazelle’s clumsy, priggish, neo-yuppie “musical” (yes, that con job again).
Aferim! > Captain America: Civil War
>Radu Jude’s profane Romanian folktale is also an epic satire (in majestic black-and-white) of how a debased culture rationalizes terrorism, pain, and inhumanity. Marvel attempts the same with its superhero franchise, trivializing the concept of “civil war” the same way Bernie Sanders trivializes the concept of “revolution.”
Nolan Cruz
>Wiener-Dog > The Lobster
Based.
Loved Weiner-Dog
Daniel Stewart
>Aferim! > Captain America: Civil War what kind of fucking comparison is this
Jeremiah Lopez
Damn shane diesel looks old
Josiah Myers
Civil War was sold as a political movie so now he's comparing it to a satire
Joshua Baker
THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST
Asher Russell
Oh shit, I didn't even realize Solondz had a new movie. Kinda doubt it's better than The Lobster, but definitely looking forward to seeing it.
Also, Kubo and the Two Strings is pretty incredible, and everyone should see it.
Lucas Rivera
>Hidden Figures > Elle
>Theodore Melfi’s pre-feminist heroic trio outperform Paul Verhoeven’s Euro-trash post-feminist heroine. In the former, the personal humanizes politics, while the personal is shallowly politicized in the latter. Will Sup Forums now love this film?
Hunter Wilson
...
Parker Sullivan
Baumbach has never made a good film
Jose Powell
wtf I love Hidden Figures now
Justin Cox
Will he ever stop being right? I can't take it anymore
Isaiah Taylor
/ourguy/
Josiah Morales
No but now they can't even post an Armond review to shit on it
Jonathan Sanchez
The idea that anyone on this board has seen any of these films, besides Batman V Superman and Deadpool, is hilarious to me. I haven't seen half these films and I get screeners sent to me
Samuel Anderson
I've seen most of the ones he's said are "better than" the others Many of the ones he says are worst didn't interest me
Miles Ahead is my favorite movie of the year and it won't get an iota of recognition from anyone.
Benjamin Davis
BASED
Parker Lopez
reminder
Mason Robinson
Nigger
Mason Wright
?
Colton Gonzalez
>Implying anybody here has watched it.
I think ppl are just mad at the prospect of another oscar bait black film winning.
Ethan Foster
his typical fanbase
Nathaniel Scott
>reduced the black gay American protagonist in his movie to an identity-politics martyr. Kek has he even seen the movie?
Caleb Lewis
Armond is one of the greatest buzzword artists the world has ever seen.
Liam Powell
>contrarian supporter is contrarian Unsurprising
Grayson Sanders
>a black man so based that he is the unchallenged king of a racist board
Really makes you think
Leo Young
>Miles Davis’s genius Haha, how cute.
Evan Nelson
On Thursday night I posted in entry in defense of Armond White's review of "District 9." Overnight I received reader comments causing me to rethink that entry, in particular this eye-popping link supplied by Wes Lawson. I realized I had to withdraw my overall defense of White. I was not familiar enough with his work. It is baffling to me that a critic could praise "Transformers 2" but not "Synecdoche, New York." Or "Death Race" but not "There Will be Blood." I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll. A smart and knowing one, but a troll. My defense of his specific review of "District 9" still stands. Here is my original entry:
An online friend sent me an e-mail: "I wonder if you've caught the firestorm of reader reactions to Armond White's (negative) review of the film, which has sadly inspired a sort of virtual lynch mob among readers on Rotten Tomatoes. A few readers have tried to interject in defense of free speech and free criticism, but as you know, this is how it goes on the internet." I went to the comment thread and found, at that time, 14 pages of comments excoriating White for his negative review of "District 9." Bear in mind this was before most of those readers could have seen the film.
Kevin Johnson
Some of them seemed pissed primarily because White had "spoiled" the movie's perfect TomatoMeter reading (at that point it was his negative review versus 49 positives). Others focused on his customary contrarian position; Armond White can be counted on to vote against the majority on film after film. I'm not going to pretend I read all 14 pages, but I did a lot of jumping around and didn't find a single comment defending the film itself.
It was White's sheer bloody-mindedness that got to them. Unlike the apparent majority of those readers, I have seen the film. It enraged some readers when White wrote, "That cartoonish Mothership image suggests the high-concept inanity featured in 'Children of Men' and 'Cloverfield:' It's apocalyptic silliness. Not ominously beautiful like the civilization-in-peril tableau that caps Roy Andersson's 'You, the Living'."
WTF? You, the Living? The Swedish-Danish-Norwegian-German co-production playing in a few art theaters? Yes, "You, the Living," which does have a hell of an ending. White's comparison is completely reasonable. Roy Andersson's "You, the Living" is certainly a better film.
Christian Cox
I fear those readers heads may explode if they learn that "We, the Living" is one of only three films so far this year with a perfect 100% reading on the Meter. No, you haven't hard of the other two, either.
White is correct that "District 9" ends in "apocalyptic silliness." Let's face it. It does. It is also completely relevant for him to devote much of his review to the political subjects not buried very far beneath the movie's surface. The film is clearly a parable inspired by the South African system of apartheid. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't looked. Or, more likely, didn't know what they were seeing, since it may be optimistic to expect the posters to have heard of apartheid.
1_Armond.jpg I won't take your time here to list the parallels between this sci-fi popcorn movie and South African history. I briefly mentioned some of them in my own review, and will limit myself to pointing out the white hero's name, van der Merwe. Among white Afrikaners, that is a name as common as Smith or Jones. More to the point, it is the name used in a whole genre of ethnic jokes told by South African non-Afrikaners of all races. Van der Merwe is clueless and a very slow study, and that is possibly the point of the name's use here.
Jonathan James
Time out for a van der Merve joke. The Cape Province asks for bids on a tunnel through Table Mountain. Germany bids $50 million, the U.S. bids $75 million, and van der Merwe bids $100.
"But, van der Mere, how can you dig that tunnel for $100?"
"Ach, man, I'll start on one side, my son will start on the other, and we'll dig toward each other."
"What if you don't meet in the middle?"
"Then you'll get two tunnels for the price of one."
Joke over. The question is, what exactly is "District 9," filmed on location in outside Johannesburg, saying about apartheid? The holding area for the aliens looks exactly like the "locations" outside major South African cities which were built so that non-whites could be evicted from their homes and moved there. The alien shacks look so much like the housing I saw in a visit to Soweto that I wouldn't be surprised to learn they shot on actual locations. The barbed wire, the armored vehicles, the white military presence, all familiar from 30 years ago.
My purpose is not to discuss South African history, but to point out that White is justified in bringing it up in his review. The fact that you don't know what someone is writing about is not a real good reason for disagreeing with him.
Isaac Young
O u r g u y u r g u y
Eli Phillips
Looks like Hidden Figures is pure kino
William Ward
More to the point is White's reputation as a critic who "doesn't like anything." This is not true. It would be more accurate to say he dislikes a great many films approved of by fanboys. The last Tomatoes lynch mob raised against him was for his dislike of "Star Trek." Man, did they hate him for that! You may be surprised to learn that White agrees (or, for that matter, disagrees) with the TomatoMeter exactly 50% of the time. Although I agree that the Meter is no gauge of a critic's quality, it looks to me like White is the epitome of the ideal critic, positioned smack dab in the middle of the scale.
What makes him seem so contrarian is that the movies he loves and hates are frequently not the movies most people love and hate. "Nobody has ever heard" of some of the movies he loves. Is it a flaw of a critic if he loves a film you've never heard of? Maybe he's on to something. Nor is White a snob. He wrote that Spielberg's "A.I.," was "as profoundly philosophical and contemplative as anything by cinema's most thoughtful, speculative artists--Borzage, Ozu, Demy, Tarkovsky." Of course even that quote is a mine field--for other critics, who might not place Borzage and Demy on the same list with Ozu and Tarkovsky--but less offensive to readers, who may have heard of none of them.
Xavier Nguyen
>annual better than list >implying this isn't just poor clickbait
Juan Mitchell
Yes, White disagrees with most people most of the time, and some people all of the time. Why is this a fault? He's an intelligent critic and a passionate writer, and he knows a very great deal about movies, dance, and many other things. His opinion is often valuable because it is outside the mainstream. He works for the New York Press, an alternative paper, and why should such a paper offer a conventional critic?
2_ 800px-Soweto_township.jpg Soweto, outside Joburg: Does this resemble a set for "District 9?"
Let's move on to the reasons those countless readers (and also those who posted at the New York Press under his review) hate him for what he wrote about "District 9." I write this on the night of August 13. The movie opens tomorrow. Some of them may have seen it at a preview, although it did not have extensive promotional screenings. Why do they already like it? Because it is this weekend's movie that everybody is going to see.
The movie was a the big hit at ComicCon this year. They've seen the trailer online. On YouTube alone, one trailer has 350,0000 views. It shows creepy insectoid aliens who get blown up real good. It also has the subtext of us against them--outsiders, unwanted visitors. "Why won't they go home?" Am I hypersensitive in sensing a tinge of anti-immigrant feeling here? Who would ever dream this might be a political parable? Who among the trailer fans will see it that way? The pre-fans of "District 9" hate Armond White for spoiling the 100% rating and thereby invalidating 100% support for their weekend movie choice.
Jonathan Ramirez
Here's an obvious question: Why have most of the other critics, me included, approved of the film? Well, it is undeniably original in its depiction of an alien culture, and challenges the usual movie assumption that aliens will be either superior beings, or very hostile ones. These aliens are simply other intelligent creatures, weak and far from home, and angry at their mistreatment. And in certain shots they look almost like Transformers. It's up to us to do battle with them.
The movie is deeper than that, but doesn't make a point of it. The writer-director, Neill Blomkamp, was born and raised until 18 in South Africa. He knew exactly what his film was about, and exactly what he did not want it to seem to be about. Remove the CGI spaceship over Johannesburg, make the aliens into black South Africans, and you would have a hard-hitting depiction of apartheid and unmistakable echoes of the Sharpeville massacre.
Is that what he intended? Why not? I like to repeat, "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't." With "District 9," you don't have to ask. Armond White was pretty much on the money.
Roger Ebert
Justin Rodriguez
That's true, I only saw Kubo and BvS. But thanks to this list, I'm going to have a kino-fest after downloading the ones he likes.
Jack Morales
>The film is clearly a parable inspired by the South African system of apartheid. Except it's more about immigration than apartheid.
Brandon Kelly
>There are people on this board than unironically take Armond as a serious film critic
Jesus how pathetic, It must be scary having your mindset, I feel sorry for you
Josiah Murphy
I'm not the one who said that mate. Just took the screenshots.
Colton Hill
>being a contraian just for the sake of it
No wonder you idiots like him
Dominic Peterson
My grandparents had a whole book of Van der Merwe jokes:
Van der Merwe gets a job on the overnight railway. On his first day, the steward is showing him the ropes. They open the door into a sleeper carriage and are confronted by a naked woman. Unfazed, the steward asks "Can I get you tea or coffee, sir?" The woman is quite flustered but manages to say "No thanks" and shuts the door. The steward turns to Van der Merwe and says "You see, I pretended to have not noticed that passenger was a woman, to preserve her modesty."
The next day, Van der Merwe is flying solo. He opens a door into a sleeper carriage and is confronted by a naked couple embracing on a bed. Unfazed, he asks "Can I get you tea or coffee, sir?" The man replies "Tea please, two sugars." Van der Merwe then asks
"And for your brother?"
Kevin Williams
>paying $12 for WE WUZ SCIENCE N SHIET: THE MOVIE Hard pass, I'll wait for the screener.
Robert Campbell
>falling for obvious b8
Fucking newfag lurk moar and learn how to into irony, that shitposter made you look like a complete retard
Adam Cruz
>not paying for something that's confirmed by Armond to be kino >living in an area where a movie ticket costs $12 kys y s
Julian Cox
>post-9/11 stress
Classic Armond "the-literal-nigger-faggot" White.
Ryan Richardson
>implying
Mason Evans
Classic marlelshill getting triggered, please go on this is fun to watch
Ryder Hughes
Why do you take such weird screenshots? Do you have cerebral palsy?
Ethan Flores
They're not screenshots. They're snippets from the capture tool. It's very had to make a straight line with a mouse.
John Watson
Kek I was in that thread. I was the one who told someone to screenshot the shit he was saying
Camden Ward
>Marvel attempts the same with its superhero franchise, trivializing the concept of “civil war” the same way Bernie Sanders trivializes the concept of “revolution.”
Marvelcucks absolutely obliterated
Christopher Cooper
>Sully > Rogue One >Batman v Superman > Deadpool >Hacksaw Ridge > Silence Absolutley based!
Josiah Murphy
Wow its generic Sup Forums shitposter #4838394842749
I am so shocked and appalled someone call the Internet defence force
Bentley Adams
I was screenshoting from the start. I should probably edit these images into and removes the (You)s but I'm lazy.
I'm a bit surprised I got him to admit he supported Armond White after I egged him on to say all that shit.
t. Armond White supporter
Jayden Baker
can anyone dig up some reviews that armond wrote while bush was in office? i wonder if he was as pessimistic towards the bush dynasty as he is towards 'obama's ruling elite'
Deadpool fucking sucked. Literally half of it took place on a fucking highway. The other half in this grimey basement lab. It was one of the most unasthetic films I've ever seen.
