How many 100% RT scores this man defile?

How many 100% RT scores this man defile?

his reviews don't hold any weight so none

never enough

Explain this.

Toy Story 3 and Get Out

I thought RT dropped him as a critic because they thought he was being a contrarian?

He came back in late 2015

>Filmmaker: You went to Columbia graduate school for film theory. How did that inform your perspective as a critic?
>White: It absolutely changed my perspective on film. There was an instructor there, Stefan Sharff, who apparently had worked with Eisenstein, and he taught a class where he would show films and literally analyze them frame by frame with a stop-projection projector. Sharff always said that a good director can compose images and edit images in a way that makes meaning, whether or not there was dialogue. One of his favorites was Hitchcock. If you ever watch a Hitchcock film on television, or DVD, just turn off the sound and follow it. It wrecks nothing if the sound is taken away. It even becomes better. That class was a revelation. I guess it informed my beliefs, my certainty that film is above all a visual medium: the images need to be interesting, the images need to say something, or else it’s not a film. It’s television or something else, a play. But it’s not cinema.

>Filmmaker: Wong Kar-wai.
>White: Stunning, brilliant work. I feel sometimes it’s intentionally obscure, but I don’t care. That just means you have to work with him, which is a good thing. But he’s got one of the best pair of eyes since Godard. And I find all the work of his that I’ve seen fascinating. He keeps cinema alive because he’s not making his movies in a conventional way, which is good.

>Filmmaker: Wes Anderson?
>White: I think I like his sensibility. I love that he works in wide-screen. I love him for that. That’s the format I prefer. I’m always excited to see wide-screen films. It just seems to make it a little more special. The image is big and embracing. And he’s got good craft and sense of humor. He seems to care about people and the image too.

He is such a genuine patrician.

>Now that the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) and his pals (Rupert Grint, Emma Watson) from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series' only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects—all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

>Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody—just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. (Sadly, Stephenie Meyer and Twilight's producers seem to be following this model.) The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it's certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

His best review tbqh.

Is that Tech N9ne?

Far too many.
And for far too long.

He's the most annoying pseud critic around and a nigger too. He's everything Sup Forums should hate.

yes, goys. do as this poster says

Damn, he really is a true human patrician.

His recent reviews haven't been as contrarian to the tomato score as before he got dropped from rt.

He changed the outlet he wrote for, from one that RT aggregates, to one that it doesn't. Then he changed to yet another one that does. There is no conspiracy

Critics like this forget what the hell the point of movie critiques are for. Their view has become completely skewered.

Probably because he writes for Out and the National Review now instead of some little paper. They're not gonna let him go full contrarian although I was surprised they published his negative review of Moonlight.

>Filmmaker: What do you feel makes a good film critic?
>White: First of all, knowledge of the subject, and that’s become increasingly rare, I am sorry to say. And you have to care about the subject. And then you have to care about writing well. And writing well is always a struggle. You struggle to say it right; you struggle to say exactly what you mean. Also, you ought to be honest about the things you write. Say what you really mean. So mainly, I guess those are the four things: know the subject, care about the subject, write well about the subject, and be honest.

>Filmmaker: When you were studying, was there any critic who specifically inspired you?
>White: Oh sure. My very first inspiration was Pauline Kael.
>Filmmaker: Are you a “Paul-ette”?
>White: I’ve never called myself a Paul-ette, though she was my first inspiration. But I’m not a Paul-ette because we agree on a lot but we disagree on a lot too. So I’m not a follower, but I’m a big admirer of hers. And at Columbia, one of my professors was Andrew Sarris, and I’m also a big admirer of Sarris. I think they’re both important. I dismiss their differences with each other, because I see where they blend. And I got a lot from both of them.
>Filmmaker: What was it about them?
>White: With Pauline, it was her willingness to go against hype, even back in the ’60s. Hype always existed, now it’s just more pernicious than ever. But she was willing not to swallow it or follow it. And that impressed me. With Sarris, I loved his love of movies, which was a sophisticated love of cinema. He has a huge knowledge of film seemingly at his fingertips, and it’s not a buff’s knowledge, a geek’s knowledge, it’s a sophisticated artistic appreciation.

>Filmmaker: What would you say to critics of yours that think maybe you are contrary for the sake of being a contrarian?
>White: I’m not a contrarian at all. I don’t accept that term, and don’t like when it’s applied to me either. Probably that means that more people will apply it now than ever. I believe what I believe, and I respond to movies the way I do, which is typically not the way most people respond. And it’s not the way most people respond because I think I care, and most people don’t. Most critics, and probably a lot of viewers, could take movies or leave them. I care about cinema. I think it’s important. I take great pleasure from it. And I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about a movie out of meanness or indifference. A good movie can help you to understand your humanity better, and others’ as well. And it’s not a matter of being contrary. There’s a lot of garbage out there! And it irks me when garbage is praised as something else, so I feel like I have to say so.
HE IS NOT A CONTRARIAN

sounds like Our Guy

D E B A S E D

I think you never understood what movie critiques are for

I have no idea who this guy is but he seems like the average (You) seeker.

>He has a huge knowledge of film seemingly at his fingertips, and it’s not a buff’s knowledge, a geek’s knowledge, it’s a sophisticated artistic appreciation.
>it’s not a buff’s knowledge, a geek’s knowledge, it’s a sophisticated artistic appreciation.

How do I ascend to Armond levels anons? How do you do it?

(You)

Go back to Sup Forums

>does no research whatsoever
>forms an opinion based on a few anonymous opinions
>not an argument
Hey Sup Forumseddit!

fuck off Sup Forumsirgin

How can one critic be so based?
It's like he was sent down from On High.