>Armond White reviewing Up.
>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.
What the fuck did he mean by this?
When is he going to get off his ass and review the Emoji movie
>Chicken Little
He's based for liking Monster House though, underrated as shit
it wasn't directed by Zackino Snyder.
Armond White is just a guy who realized that his cinema degree is worthless and he could live his own life writing any shit just to piss off people and still get paid for it
"4/4 THE GODFATHER OF ANIMATED MOVIES" -Armond White
There I saved you five minutes of reading
Was there a movie that was so awful that even HE says it's bad?
Someone likes Chicken Little?
Suicide Squad
Didn't this guy get needlessly triggered by 12 Years a Slave?
Soon, he will push the Emoji movie to double digit percentage.
SS isn't that bad, just painfully put together for the most part
Looking through now, seem's he has grips mostly with the recent Mummy film, Baywatch and 50 Shades Darker.
Honestly White's not a bad critic, certainly more intelligent then the leagues of drones that share his title, but his best critique is with non-mainstream, independent stuff.
I've read several Armond White reviews.
I've never had the feeling he's actually watched any of those movies he's "reviewed".
Armond White is literally the only trustworthy voice left in film criticism.
That sounds like a lot of pretentious bulshit used to validate a terrible opinion.
There was no aesthetic failure in up. a pixarism sounds like a bullshit term he's trying to coin to be something like a stereotypical pattern pixar movies would follow. The only thing like that is that th emovies have an emotional core really. Seems like he's mixing in a lot of multi-syllable words to sound smart and lose people intentionally so they give up trying to understand it and accept his opinion as an educated viewponit and completely factual. Also, how the fuck do you mis-characterize animation? I'm pretty sure that's not how you use that word.
This might actually be the answer.
Nobody knew who he was before he started making ShitPost reviews.
Once he started- EVERYONE knew who he was.
>Monster House
Nice.
At least he's writing about movies, you attacked his vocabulary.
He usually publishes one review a week, he reviewed Atomic Blonde on the 28th. Maybe next week.
Suicide Squad is awful, man. It's such an inept and wonky final product that it's not fair to rate it higher than that, it would be too generous. It is absolutely a movie that feels like a trailer, as if it was edited by people who have no idea what works in terms of film, to the point that I absolutely believe the rumor that Trailer Park worked on it at the request of a panicking Warner Bros.
Your vocabulary is important when you do reviews for a living, as I assume he does. It's also important to have valid criticisms in your reviews, that at least that can be attributed to something. None of what op posted does that, so when I attempted to answer his meme question of "what did he mean by this" I had to dissect the quote to answer him, and what I found was pretentious bullshit. Is it really that hard to understand?
I've never heard of this man, so I'm guessing he's trying to shill here or something?
I'm not sure if he likes it or hates it, really.
>It is apparent from the newly released “Ultimate Edition” Blu-Ray of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice that Snyder is constructing a large-scale morally serious epic that portrays modern man’s ethical struggle, giving comic-book characters the spiritual breadth of classical characters.
>Ayer acknowledges this when the Squad, facing supernatural evil, gets gung-ho and promises, “We’re gonna be a chapter in the Bible! Everybody will know what we do!”
>Snyder and Ayer pursue an interest in redemption and sacrifice using the comic-book and blockbuster genres that have replaced the universality of the Bible and classical texts. More is at stake in Suicide Squad than comic-book fun.
>Think metaphorically again, and see that Suicide Squad entangles post-Vietnam and post-9/11 notions about heroism and citizenship.
>Deadshot does the right, patriotic thing, yet compliments Waller, his treacherous superior, saying, “That’s gangsta!” This use of hip-hop cynicism speaks more directly to modern confused ethics than most lines from other movies and most politicians.
>Suicide Squad is The Dirty Dozen for millennial viewers (and voters), who think their patriotic moral conflict is new.
What did he actually mean by this?
That's not really an opinion, he's literally throwing out buzz words and topics to generate frustration and anger.
This reads like a fucking college paper for English 102, and he decided to do his on a movie he saw a week ago cause he forgot about the thesis project
But if you boil away the pretension, what he's saying is the film is actually about the concept and ethics of being a "hero" with the glitz and elegy stripped away. And in the literary world where "good" and "bad" are largely meaningless words, to suggest something has DEPTH to it, to be considered, is an endorsement - because that is why literary scholars read. To analyze.
PS: more specifically, he's suggesting that the post Vietnam and millennial generation are confused re: what is ethical and moral with regards to patriotism, as everything about their ethics suggests that devotion to the state above personal enfranchisement is abominable and that murder at the behest of the state is immoral. But at the same time we face an ethical dissonance because the more classical heroic tales, on which Superhero and Cape comics are built, laud this kind of stoicism and commitment to state. Case in point, Deadshot cannot help but admire Waller, for however morally repugnant she is, she does her job well and for a good reason.
It's true this kind of dichotomy isn't new, it's as old (most likely older, as old as humanity) as Christian Monks recording epics about pagan heroes they couldn't help but admire, in spite of the fact that as pagans they almost certainly were damned in the eyes of God. Early Catholicism did a lot of wrestling with this issue - people don't want to cast out the heroes of old, but their new ways demand they vilify the past. This is a generational struggle. New ways of thinking replace the old. We try to find ways to reconcile them. Sometimes we succeed, most times we bury it in double think.
>Teacher's Pet
This dude is a fucking legend
"Get Out is bad because it made Massa sad."
That's White's entire shtick - if it brings up social issues that aren't fake issues like "Christians being bullied", he thinks it's ham-fisted.
What will his Emoji review be like?
>Chicken Little
>Good
He's gonna pretend to like it.
Get Out was hamfisted as hell.
The thing with Armond is that I really think his opinions could be legitimate. Like, not just made up to incite controversy. However, he makes no fucking sense half the time and uses purposefully ambiguous language. What is the point of a movie reviewer is no one really understands what qualities of the movie he is attempting to critique?
>Up's aesthetic failure stems from its emotional letdown.
An aesthetic failure is inherently separate from any sort of character, story, or emotional evocation. It's literally just the look of the movie.
>mischaracterizes what good animation can be
That would be like describing a shitty car as "it got everything wrong about being a good car by being a bad car"
>aesthetic failure stems from its emotional letdown.
wat
Modern-day critics, like modern-day journalists, are simply entertainers using other people's work to create their own art.