Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
AOL is still around? Why?
“We’re focusing on those national voices that created a differentiation,” Price said.
I can't conceive of how retaining Terence Moore would not reduce, let alone broaden, their national profile. I mean that guy is terrible.
Seriously. If I were a rich bastard I'd be buying Fanhouse for the sole purpose of putting him out of a job.
[INTERVIEWER]: You learned from Margot at the Wedding, a great film. (laughs)
Armond White: Yeah, sure. Not from that #######. (laughs) Part of the problem, not part of the solution.
[INTERVIEWER]: I ran into two guys who recently interviewed you at the New York Film Festival and they said they were shocked that you liked Darjeeling Limited ‘cause they weren’t expecting you to. But when I listened to the interview, you threw me for a loop by saying that Wes Anderson was good friends with this guy [Margot and the Wedding director] Noah Baumbach, that he’s friends with an #######. How could you say that? Do you know him? Do you personally know these guys to say that Baumbach is an aasshole, Wes Anderson is a good guy, and it’s a mystery to you why they’re friends?
AW: Look at the movies. That’s how I know. You’re aware of what D.H. Lawrence said about writing…? Trust the tale, not the teller. So, Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach, they can tell you what they believe they’re about. They can get on a podium and say, “This is what I believe in, this is what I feel, this is what I love, this is what I dislike…” Can’t trust any of that. You’ve got to look at the movie. You look at Noah Baumbach’s work, and you see he’s an ####### I would say it to his face. And, of course, he gets praised by other ########, because they agree with his selfish, privileged, stuck-up shennanigans. I don’t need to meet him to know that. better than meeting him, I’ve seen his movies.
[The publicist] Dart demonstrates her disregard for the truth and her preference for gossip over bylined criticism. She defends her ban decision by referring to illegitimate, unauthorized blog items, that I allegedly impugned Baumbach as “an asshole”.
The Hurt Locker’s prologue, “War is a drug,” suggests it could be about any war. This is a breakthrough in the pop-war genre that, since Vietnam, has accustomed us to sentimental agit-prop.
So far, the best fiction films about the Iraq War are Nick Bloomfield’s Battle for Haditha, Irwin Winkler’s Home of the Brave and John Moore’s allegorical Flight of the Phoenix remake, which Bigelow evokes in a stand-off scene between Bravo company, a group of British contractors and distant insurgent snipers. It’s sufficient praise to say The Hurt Locker joins that short list.
When Lorna’s pimp tells her “You shouldn’t worry about it, a junkie prefers drugs to life,” it recalled the misconception in Kathryn Bigelow’s now overrated The Hurt Locker that “war is a drug.” The pimp’s alibi is another art-movie fallacy.
It is worst than inexact when critics call [The Hurt Locker] “One of the best war films ever made.” Any appreciation of Bigelow’s artistic ambitions and psychosexual, gender-bending sensibility forces one to understand that The Hurt Locker is not a war film but another of her explorations into the masculine thrill complex. It is disingenuous to use The Hurt Locker as an opportunity to comment upon the Iraq War—hijacking its dubious treatment on combat as a mental dysfunction (“War is a Drug”) beyond Bigelow’s deliberately noncommittal stance.
This misreading of The Hurt Locker has gotten twisted-up in the mainstream media’s Oscar hoopla. Bigelow’s unexceptional film has gotten her heroized as an exceptional American female filmmaker through way-late feminism.
I think Armond White is about as bad a critic as could be imagined. He is unprofessional, makes constant personal attacks, commits several errors of fact, is intellectually dishonest, and writes in an incoherent style.
It could be that White's project as a critic is to destroy criticism. It's not hard to talk pretty about anything, really.
I don't care if a critic agrees with me. Hell, White agrees with me on some movies, such as those of Whit Stillman. What concerns me is if the critique (or apologia) is insightful and thought-provoking, if it makes me think of the movie from a new perspective, or brings things to light that I may not have thought about.
I was wondering how an article about Sporting News could generate so many comments. Simple: Talk about something other than Sporting News.
First and foremost, I want a critic to tell me whether or not a movie is worth seeing, and I want to be able to rely on his opinion. I feel like that's the number one job of a critic. Armond White is 100% useless for this purpose.
Finally we told him that the paper's main income stream was ads for whores and he looked wounded, then tried to convince us to hire someone to write a weekly column on ATM fees, that being the sort of thing the kids wanted to read about.
I don't know thing one about the inner workings of the New York Press, but I do know this: I would never have heard of it if not for Armond White.
did you actually expect a good movie or are you a comics fan distressed over minutiae in the portrayal of Richard Reed?
So, did you actually expect a good movie or are you a comics fan distressed over minutiae in the portrayal of Richard Reed?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.6002 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed