Is he retarded? Is he a troll? Is he a contrarian? Is he an autist? What the fuck is wrong with Armond White?

Is he retarded? Is he a troll? Is he a contrarian? Is he an autist? What the fuck is wrong with Armond White?

Is he retarded? Is he a troll? Is he a contrarian? Is he an autist? What the fuck is wrong with OP
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/84746874/

>the garbage on top is so bad that it's even worse than the garbage on the bottom
He's right you know?

Is he related to you?

he's a psychopath with no life

He's a retard

Only Sup Forumsedditors like yourself hate him OP

Armond White Thread

>If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level.

Norbit is legit good though. Very underappreciated.

He's a contrarian. He only likes movies that are universally disliked

he's right about everything in that picture

He's the king.

He is right with UP. It fucking sucks.

prove him wrong

/our guy/

>ITT capeshit babies triggered that someone critizes their bullshit movies.

He doesn't write thumbs up / thumbs down reviews for plebs btw.

I don't care about the movies he dislikes. I'm perplexed by the movies he likes.

>Terrence Malick’s newest film, Knight of Cups, screened the day after the disastrous Academy Awards ceremony, and the timing made it seem a godsend.

>Inspired by John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (1678), Malick depicts Hollywood director Rick (Christian Bale) and his soul-searching reflections on his sybaritic life — as a womanizer, as a potentate in a venal industry, and as a son and brother in a suffering family. We desperately need a reminder that the film industry still comprises human beings with recognizable histories — and souls. In the horrendous display of ego politics at this week’s Oscarcast — more demoralizing than ever before, as emceed by hipster clown Chris Rock — self-righteous political correctness vaporized any trace of morality and professionalism. But Malick’s film provides welcome perception and penetration.

How does one man get it so right?

He is right about all the movies at the top

If you actually read his reviews you understand why he is praising a movie and is not for your pleb reasons like "is got good special effects".
For instance anybody who reads his reviews remember how he praises powerful but flawed films like "b movies".

Tl;dr He is concerned about the film's impact on the culture.

except for all the times he doesn't. but these don't count right?

You mean besides being black?

He is the average Sup Forums user:

>contrarian
>has shit taste
>Pretends to be concerned about a film's impact on culture as an excuse to hate universally loved films and love terrible ones

None of those movies on the 'bad' side are any Godfather or 2001.

Literally the only particularly dubious thing on either side of the list is Jack and Jill.

yeah you're above the average Sup Forums user though. I bet you're just triggered he hates mad max and other reddit crap

He thought Norm of The North was a good movie. How the fuck do you take this guy seriously?

He's an unpredictable fringe fucking weirdo just like Piero Scaruffi.

One second he gives Blackstar a 2 and makes fun of David Bowie for dying, the next he gives Black Eyed Peas a fucking 6 (his equivalent of an 8 or 9) for what is widely considered one of the worst albums of the decade.

Didn't he think that The Last Knight was crap, and that assassins creed was mediocre? Don't be a lying nigger OP.

contrarian, but he's right about quite a few things, social network is garbage, and while I personally like TS3 it's clearly just a cash grab with the rehased plot of 2

No real film buff takes him seriously, no worries.

I wonder why he doesn't like UP. I can understand some of the others like Pulp Fiction and Mad Max even though I liked them.

I didnt really care about up all that much, thought it was super overrated

>he cares about cultural impact

>praises Norbit, Michael Bay, Jack and Jill

Aside from the tearjerker opening scene, the actual movie is incredibly boring and short on both laughs and action.

>“Pixarism defines the backward taste for animation. Refuting Chuck Jones’ insistence that he didn’t create his great Warner Bros. cartoon for children, Pixarism domesticates and homogenizes animation—as if to preserve family values.” … “After ripping-off Albert Lamorisse’s classic The Red Balloon, dispersing it into Carl’s thousands of colorful orbs, Pixar then literalizes the meaning of flight as a commercial icon: Up. Here, it’s simply the means to “adventures” and not an ecstatic elevation of individual identity. Last year, elitist film nerds forgot how Hou Hsiao Hsien’s Flight of the Red Balloon also dishonored Lamorisse’s beautiful tale—as they cynically overrated the entropic Wall-E. All this deflated cinema and Pixarism mischaracterizes what good animation can be, as in Coraline, Monster House, Chicken Little, Teacher’s Pet, The Iron Giant. Up’s aesthetic failure stems from its emotional letdown.”

His criticism doesn't even make sense it's just a jargon of pseudo intellectual vomit. And as far as 3d animation goes regardless of how you feel about Pixar, they are one of the very few studios that actually stick to the principles of animation.

reposted reply for reposted thread:

>person does stuff for attention
>DUDE LOOK AT THIS PERSON! WHY DOES HE DO THESE THINGS? WE SHOULD ALL LOOK AT HIM A LOT TO DETERMINE WHY HE DOES THESE THINGS!!

The only good Armond hater is a dead Armond hater.

If you read a lot of his reviews, he favors certain things. He seems to really enjoy Adam Sandler movies and fucking worships Spielberg.

You can be a bit perplexed by the movies he likes, but the fact that he consistently criticizes mediocre Oscar trash and capegarbage makes him 500% better than most critics and lends him a great deal more credibility.

>everyone else likes it that means you have to like it too

reminder that dunkey was talking shit about based armond in his newest video

I disagree. The average Sup Forums user only cares about blockbusters and movies that fall into "nerd culture". Capeshit, disney movies, shit like john wick 2. He's clearly above the average poster.

I might not like Armond but he's still 100 times better than some video game playing manchild.

>film buff

hahaha

This. Sup Forums's knowledge of movies prior to the 70s is practically non-existent.

>he doesn't like Norm of the North
hello pleb

Do more memes equate a better post?

>His criticism doesn't even make sense

yikes. How old are you?

>Chicken Little

hahaha how can anyone take this guy seriously?

Spielberg is an honorable man--he has only filmed one sex scene in his entire filmography.

Armond doesn't hate all Pixar movies. He's a big fan of Brad Bird's work. Kind of ironic since Ratatouille takes a lot of pot shots at professional critics.

It's bizarre that he can complain that Toy Story 3 is full of product placement and a celebration of consumerism, whilst Jack and Jill was 'romantic' and 'professional'.

>What good animation can be
>Lists Chicken little
L
M
A
O

>chicken little

I dunno about everyone else but its shit like that makes me love this guy.

His reviews talk more about American culture than the films themselves.

>Pixarism domesticates and homogenizes animation—as if to preserve family values.
what does he mean by this?
>Pixarism mischaracterizes what good animation can be
He brings up Chuck for no reason and praises Chicken Little, and Teacher's Pet which have terrible animation, and Monster House used cap motion.
He compares it The Red Balloon which has nothing similar to UP other than that is has a freaking balloon.

jesus fucking christ.
>the Sup Forumseddit invasion is real

And stay there

Armond's reviews are fairly predictable. You can generally count on him to name drop one or two older European films in his reviews. Calling Up a "ripoff" of The Red Balloon is certainly a stretch.

...