All I know is that because of this thread I’ve read three reviews by this person (the first three I’ve read in my entire life AFAIK). And no fewer than two (and perhaps all three) mentioned Transformers 2. That can’t be the sign of a critic that I will be seeking out for movie-going advice.
Huh. I was rummaging around TVTropes and I found a discussion about how Armond White was probably a troll. I had never heard of this guy until this morning. Somebody call cricetus!
I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry?!?
Having just read his review for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I think it’s safe to say he’s the trolliest troll that ever trolled.
I just read about a dozen of his reviews and I honestly can’t tell what he thinks of any of these movies. Did he like Transformers 2? I can’t tell. Rotten Tomatoes says he did, but what makes them think that?
I don’t think he’s a troll, but considering the way people are freaking out over Rotten Tomatoes ratings, I’d say some good trolling is necessary.
He had praise for Hurt Locker, so he’s not deliberately contrarian, just stupid.
As opposed to Chris Hewitt from the Star Tribune, guy reviews movies like he’s a 12 year old boy. Ain’t got time for plot; boobs, bombs and badasses and that dude is happy.
To me, it sounds like he’s just in tune with what most Americans like. The Wrestler may have won some awards, but in terms of cash:
Transformers 2: $836,297,228
The Wrestler: $44,703,995
Apparently, Transformers 2 was 20X better than the Wrestler.
Well, according to that logic, McDonalds hamburgers are better than the ones I can get at my local bar, by several orders of magnitude, while both cost about the same.
Personally, I think the fact that McDonalds burgers are available in more places and have a slightly higher advertising budget could account for some of the discrepancy.
Some, but not all. In the case of movies, some people really just want to be able to turn their brain off, sit back, and let explosions and boobies flow over them. If they have to think, if there’s no explosions or boobies, if the good guy doesn’t win and get everything he ever wanted, etc. it’s not the experience they want. In the case of hamburgers, some people are more concerned with volume per dollar or the speed of preparation. They just don’t care how good it is.
And if that’s the majority of everyone, to some extent calling high craftsmanship a meaningful metric is rather false. If you’re a reviewer, paid to tell people what they should be spending their money on, and you’re telling them to spend money on stuff they wouldn’t like well…you’re really sort of not doing your job. You should be telling them which movie requires the least brain, has the bestest booms, and the bulgiest busts.
That’s not a very good analogy (not that the original point is rock-solid either…). McDonald’s is successful because of reasons that go beyond marketing: It’s cheap, fast, and conveniently located.
Transformers 2 didn’t have any of those up on Wrestler, considering admission price was the same, the movies roughly the same length, and were both shown in mostly the same theaters.
Well, not exactly. At its widest release, The Wrestler was showing at 776 theaters, less than 1/5 of the number of screens that Transformers 2 was on.
Obviously this is up for debate, but I don’t think that’s the reviewer’s job. I think the reviewer’s job is to tell people what he or she likes – which is going to be informed by years of watching and studying film. And to give the reader enough information about the movie to let the reader decide if it’s worth seeing or not.
To bring it around to White, if he likes Norbit and I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry but not There Will be Blood or any single Pixar movie, I have to believe he’s either being dishonest and intentionally shocking, or he’s insane. Because he’s clearly not dumb.
Yeah, I was going to include a parenthetical, but didn’t think it’d be necessary. It’s true Wrestler was shown in fewer theaters, but I also doubt this was much of an issue–there’s usually enough theaters near people, at least in urban areas, that where it’s playing is mostly a non-factor. Plus had it been a hit at the fewer locations it was playing, it would have been expanded to additional theaters.
That aside, I thought the Wrestler was brilliant and Transformers 2 a steaming pile of poo.
I don’t see why it’s so shocking someone wouldn’t like a Pixar movie. Some people are instantly turned off by the visual style, and the sappy stories Pixar often tells.
/Huge Pixar fan, and consider many of their movies among my favorite ever.
A fucking troll, loathed by a majority of his peers.
May he not be much longer for this world.
…He’s a frickin’ film critic. That seems just a tad harsh.
nm
Well, he obviously knows film. He loves stuff like La Chinoise, Breathless, Made in USA, 35 Shots of Rum, The Lives of Others, Of Time and the City, Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach, Alexandra, Rachel Getting Married, Z, Lorna’s Silence, Before I Forget, Derek - these are all fairly-to-extremely obscure from the standpoint of contempory audiences, and all fantastic (and near-universally acclaimed by critics who’ve seen them).
If he were really being contrarian, wouldn’t he dismiss critics’ darlings like the Coens and Godard, or any of the above films? Actually looking at his reviews is important - people may scoff at his dismissal of Milk, for instance, but he makes a good case against the film. The objections to White seem related to the films he actually praises when held up against the ones he drubs, and I certainly don’t have the energy to seek out his reviews of things like Norbit right now, but when he goes to work criticizing a film - even an acclaimed one - his arguments are often profound and show an intelligence that justifies whatever superficial contrarianism might be at work in his opinions. I guess that could be read as “he’s trying to argue himself into holding unpopular opinions,” but I think there’s more to it than that.