Why is he so much more interesting to read than any other film critic?

Why is he so much more interesting to read than any other film critic?

Because you aren't interested in film but in political quarrels.

Nailed it on the head. FPBP

It’s funny because he uses big words and frequently contradicts himself. He usually is in agreement with the majority for films that aren’t blockbusters, but it’s funny to read that Marvel is a capitalistic nightmare but Hasbro’s Transformers (TM) is “kinetic art”.

...

Because he's not paid by studios and he's not one of the thousands of liberal personalities that are forced down our throats everyday.

Willing to call out bullshit even when its unpopular to do that and will make people mad.

What? He's the only film critic that talks about the damn movie, and accurately places it within the Zeitgeist of cinema. For example, La La Land, his was the only review to state that all it was was a poor man's Les Parapluies de Cherbourg and carried none of that film's magic or grace.

That's the thing with Armond. He watches 500 films a year, his knowledge far outstrips every other critic out there and he is not impressed when he sees a new movie attempt something he's seen done better in 20 other films 50 years ago. His reviews are the only movie reviews worth reading.

Are you saying mainstream film review isn't political?

He's much more knowledgeable and articulate than most movie critiques.

>Everyone's estimation of A.I. will depend on their interest in childhood mythology. Will they accept that Spielberg - from The Sugarland Express to The Color Purple, from Hook to Amistad - is the one filmmaker to sustain the link between fantasy and moral reckoning? Start with the film's audacious ad copy ("His love is real. But he is not"). It sets A.I. apart from Hollywood's mostly antipathetic films. Rather than indulging religiosity, as Spielberg's antireligious detractors charge, the movie phases into and through religious parallels toward a spiritual essence. Every image (whether a deceptive heavenly orb or Gigolo Joe's facial planes resembling David Bowie's trompe l'oeil makeup in the Blue Jean video) forces us to question the authenticity of things and feelings. Each part of David's journey through carnal and sexual universes into the final eschatological devastation becomes as profoundly philosophical and contemplative as anything by cinema's most thoughtful, speculative artists: Borzage, Ozu, Demy, Tarkovsky. So what if the project came via Kubrick? That's both a red herring and good fortune. Moments that Kubrick would have made cold and ugly are surpassed by Spielberg's richer truth; and that's as it should be. (Besides, A.I.'s not a Kubrick-only concept; Robin Williams' Bicentennial Man and M. Night Shyamalan's odious Unbreakable fumbled strikingly similar ideas.) It's Spielberg's distinct sensibility that makes the difference. Rejecting the cynical trickery some people prefer in drama, his A.I. is equal to Kubrick's finest work.

what are his favourite films, did he ever put out a list

Micheal Bay and Zack Snyder. Now do you see why he's so loved here.

Pretty sure he thinks Intolerance is the best movie ever made.

Okay but why does he hold Michael Bay, of all people, in such a high esteem?

this + general contrarianism

>studies film, music, drawn art, with an encyclopedic knowledge of each subject
>shits on commercialism
>shits on trendy hot-topic "political" films just echoing the hollywood consensus instead of providing a fresh or interesting take
>still believes film is primarily a visual medium and shits on the current mainstream filmmaking non-style of tv directors
>refuses to buckle to the marketing herd mentality of general """"critics""""
>will support a film that gets unfairly shit on by the masses when they're above-average
>will shit on a film that gets lauded by "critics" when they're mediocre
>thinks Nolan, Aronofsky, Sorrentino, Fincher, Haneke, 21st Century Scorsese, 21st Century Cronenberg, Cameron, Cuaron, McQueen, Del Toro, Inarritu, Chazelle, Jenkins, Daniels and other current "important" filmmakers are complete trash
>is one of the only people talking about the old master filmmakers still in action like Boorman, Bertolluci, Techine and Godard
>even if he shits on a film, will be able to recommend you several better ones dealing with the same subjects or genre
>is a gay black christian republican
>is so potent that pseuds can't help but react to him with bile and confusion
>is so effective that shills can only dismiss him with "He's a contrarian!" because there's no arguing with his stances

Because Michael Bay's films are unique visions that only Bay knows how to breathe life into. For all the shit Bay gets from plebs there's not a damn director on the planet that could have made Transformers into what it became, as brilliantly as Bay did it.

Above all, he respects art and especially directors who can make art nobody else can. When you think of him as an art critic and not some retarded failed journalist or blogger his writing will make a lot of sense to you. He evaluates art. He doesn't merely go did I like this movie or not. With him it's does this piece of art add to the world something that was missing? Yes or no, every review he writes answers that question and he's the only person with the knowledge to answer it.

because Bay is an honest film maker

Because he's a contrarian

I'm saying OP isn't interested in film.

>his was the only review to state that all it was was a poor man's Les Parapluies de Cherbourg
Many reviewers made this connection, but they still liked the movie.

>hyper-stylized, dynamic visual style
>his style and sensibility is the essence of cinema, moving pictures
>doesn't buckle to the politics of hollywood and does whatever he wants
>even his worst films are still entertaining

>even his worst films are still entertaining
This is a bit subjective isn't it?