I mentioned this in the Toy Story 3 thread but after reading more, wanted to give Mr. White his own thread.
Armond White is a film critic for the New York Press. He is a member and former chair of the New York Film Critics Circle and a member of the National Society of Film Critics and New York Film Critics Online. He is also well known for reviews that, to say the least, run counter to the opinions of the vast community of film critics and fans. Are these his honest opinions, or does he manufacture contrary opinions to enhance his bad-boy reputation and attract legions of comments from readers incensed by his nonsensical reviews?
In his Toy Story 3 review he writes, “Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination—the usefulness of toys—and strictly celebrates consumerism.” Uh, no it doesn’t. I’m not sure he saw the movie because he also says, “The toys wage battle with the daycare center’s cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa Hugs and Big Baby.” Uh, no, Hamm is one of the heroes. How could you watch the movie and not know that?
But it’s not just the TS3 review. He gave a glowing review to the critically panned Jonas Hex, just to pick a recent example. In fact here’s a list of his positive and negative reviews that was compiled last year. According to Mr. White, these movies were bad films: The Wrestler
Doubt
Gran Torino
The Reader
Milk
The Dark Knight
Gone Baby Gone
There Will Be Blood
Tropic Thunder
Every single Pixar film, and many other movies most film lovers would consider good films – check out the whole list.
By contrast, here are movies he liked: Transformers 2 (he didn’t like the original, btw) Land of the Lost
Transporter 3
Death Race
I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry
Norbit
What Happens in Vegas
Critics have their own mind, their own lenses through which they see the world. That’s why it’s valuable to read the analyses of many different viewers. I wouldn’t expect one critic to agree with the majority every time. But as Roger Eberts said about White, “He with most people most of the time, and some people all of the time.” His correlation percentage on Rotten Tomatoes is 52%, which is the lowest score I’ve seen for any reviewer. I think he does it to generate controversy and to get people worked up. In other words, he’s a troll.
Oh he’s a troll allright. Makes a name for himself by purposely going against the grain.
Problem is he’s a hack at doing it. While just about any film can be picked apart in some way or other no matter how good it is, he attacks them from some obscure angle. And he’s never hesitant to attack with the race card.
Just read some of his reviews and you’ll soon be saying “What the hell is this guy carrying on about?”
Thanks for the link, ArchiveGuy. According to the comments he’s panned (sometimes harshly) 15 of the 20 movies nominated for Best Picture in the last three years. But he loved Norbit!
Yeah, but only after he pulls a 180 after seeing a mere list of what movies said critic liked and disliked. Why that has any bearing on Ebert’s original argument–which I thought was quite well written–I have no idea.
ehhh… he can definitely hedge his bets. go against pixar, award-winning indies… go for actions, buddy comedies, and anything with megan fox, eddie murphy, or cameron diaz. i guess that’s why he’s 50%
Right. Or just purposefully write the opposite of what you think. Think Doubt was a superbly acted film, with top notch writing? Think it will rack up the Oscars? Submit a review saying it was garbage. Doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to know that review will probably be contrary to what any sane reviewer will submit.
I think he does it on purpose. Plus, he’s got the kind of face Gandhi would want to punch. Just a smug ass punchable face.
Yeah. Cause like pancakes said, he can’t know 100% of the time what will be liked or hated by the others.
For instance, one could guess that Zombieland would be roundly panned. You write a review praising it, thinking it will bomb with critics, and surprise! They love it. No way to always know for sure.
But I could be wrong. And some people seem to hate him for the wrong reason. I know a lot of folks hate him because he ‘ruins’ perfect RT ratings. Well, too bad. If he is the only critic that hates it, and you don’t trust his judgment, then ignore the 99 rating and call it 100. Doesn’t matter. Much saner to hate him for his punchable face.
I don’t hate him for ruining perfect Tomato ratings - those are pretty specious anyway, forcing all reviews into a Fresh/Rotten paradigm. But he’s so smug and condescending – and at the same time, coming out with these ludicrous statements with an attitude of authority.
I did read (in the article linked above) that his reviews of obscure, older, foreign, and/or “arty” films tend to be more in tune with other critics. He seems to be mostly contrarian with the wider releases – but not always as a negative reaction against Hollywood (see his adoration of Transformers 2).
Um, you do realize that the vast majority of movies are split somewhere down the middle, don’t you? If a movie is 50% Fresh and half the people are on one side and half on the other, he’s by definition forced to agree with half of them.
If you take out the movies where the Fresh rating is between say 30% and 70% and look at his reviews of the ones where they consensus is closer to All Fresh or All Rotten I bet his agreement rate would drop into the single digits.
I don’t think you understand how RottenTomatoes works–being split down the middle is a non-factor. Everything is either Rotten 59% and below, or fresh, 60% and above. It’s entirely possible to disagree with the concensus 100% of the time.
It’s just that list. Man, that list seems damning. He really seems to love a lot of movies that I can’t even glance at without wretching. I mean…Norbit is bad in every way. In every way.
But at the same time, I can dig just liking a movie and giving a good review based on that. Maybe he knows some of the films on his good list aren’t actually good films, but he just so happens to like them. If that is the case, and he is standing on that principle and going against all of the other critics to praise a film like Transformers 2 just because he really likes it…well, I can see how that would be downright admirable!
But Norbit, no. I can’t deal with a favorable Norbit review.
I’d say he was right in disliking The Wrestler, Doubt, Gran Torino, The Reader, Milk, The Dark Knight, and Tropic Thunder. I can’t say I much cared for any of these either. On the other hand, his boosting of obviously moronic films can be strange, especially in combination with the fact that he’ll do things like writing essays for Straub-Huillet DVDs. I think it’s unfair to view him as a troll - he’s just a critic of such essentially individualized tastes that he’s bound to run contrary to most of the mainstream.
He pretends to know the history of South Africa but he really doesn’t. He pretends to know what is going on in South Africa today, but he really doesn’t. Wellington is a very small city: if Peter Jackson were racist odds are on we would have heard of it.
Troll or not, there is one thing for certain, Armond White is a dick.
