Why is armond white always so right?

Yeah ,but he does slice of life scenes real well. That also requires less edits.

>I liked it anyway
You have terrible taste.

>"Children of Men never explains how the world got this way"
>a world where no child has been born, for 18 years
>a world where people are beginning to lose hope
>a world where hopelessness turns into violent anarchy

>faggot nigger needs everything served up on a plate for him

FUCK Activated Almond White.

>>a world where no child has been born, for 18 years
but how does that happen?

>I don't like thing because [insert buzzword]
>contrarian opinion
>contrarian opinion
>*looks at the thesaurus*
>contrarian opinion
>contrarian opinion
>I don't like thing because [insert buzzword]
There you go, just summarized every Armond White review.

Zika

Can you explain in detail like he has why hes wrong?

he isnt searching for a WHY, he's searching for a how; if you cannot locate the distinction I suggest you don't bother replying

critics can't be contrarian

His only right when he agree with your opinion OP.

>the conflict in the movie is about sand niggers and refugees ruining the UK and complaining how they run the country after they all fled their shithole countries
Why did they mean by this?

Lol

critics give an opinion, contrarian describes a counter to common position. opinions can't be contrarian.

...

>an opinion isn't a position

can't understand basic nuance of language? An opinion on art can't be contrarian because there is no objective right opinion.

bumpu

>he isnt searching for a WHY, he's searching for a how

*RETARD ALERT RETARD ALERT*

Yes, the movie needs a thorough explanation as to everything even though the novel provides none, whatsoever.

Can we just ban Reddit already

>action flick
this nigga never even watched the movie lmao

being contrarian doesn't mean arguing against what is right retard, it means arguing against what is popular

it's irrelevent

He is racist.

god I hate movie critics. is there any less respectable profession?

Objectivity has nothing to do with it, if it's an opinion that's opposed to the majority it's by definition contrarian.

being contrarian has nothing to do with arguing

Ok so how the fuck is the birth of one baby supposed to kick start the human population again? Is everyone just going to use her as a birthing slave? You need ALOT more than 1 or 2 people giving birth to prevent a population from going extinct

contrarian
adjective
1.
opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

but it is pointless to call a critic contrarian because an opinion about subjective subjects is subjective and going against the common opinion doesn't matter

symbolic for hope m8

>practice
as in practical, real. the word is useless to describe a subjective opinion

He's searching for a eschatological conceit and is left wanting you atheist redditcuck. All he finds is memery about baby boomers who grow dude weed lmao. It's literally that simple.

Take a double-barrelled retirement plan immediately.

presumably the human project would vivisect her to find out how she produced zygotes

you ignored the initial definition, "
opposing or rejecting popular opinion". popular opinion is the movie is good, if you say it's not you are rejecting popular opinion. I know you're being purposefully obtuse because you were wrong, but I thought I'd say it anyway. you can fuck off now

>le art is entirely subjective meme

art may or not be subjective, but art can't be contrarian. you're using words wrong.

anytime you want to actually analyze a movie you also have to look at the period of time it was made. attacking a movie for any values in has related to the political and social climate surrounding it is completely retarded.

I didn't say art was contrarian, I said Armond White was. Are you being retarded on purpose?

literature isn't art tho

bump!

a critic doesn't have a "position" they write an analysis of art. a critic doesn't say if a movie is good or bad, they analyze the movie, therefor they can't be described as contrarian.

So why do they make lists and assign scores?

honestly the only thing worse than white's contrarian trashing of great movies is his contrarian love for total schlock

like he couldn't even help plugging that awful war of the worlds movie in there while shitting on one of the best movies of the last 20 years

kek, scorers are not real critics

>Children of Men never explains how the world got this way and so its dread is convincingly sophomoric—as is Theo’s reluctant heroism.
normally I can either agree or agree to disagree with Armond but it doesn't sound like he watched the movie here

he always goes after the thematic content of the movie and then judges the form through the thematic lens; seems like he's critical of it's form because he misunderstood it's thematic premise

>portentous
>sophomoric
>pretentious
>a true hack

Sounds like he thought it was bad to me.

perfect image

too bad it is full of logical fallacies.

sounds like he thought it was as he said it was to me

Eh he's right, Children Of Men is mediocre.

if you ever agree with armond, please end your life

>Why is armond white always so right?
He's not

Children of Men is fucking BASED and yet this black gay faggot shits on it to make himself feel good.

Its legit a 10/10 movie

>Children of Men is fucking BASED
The mind of a videogame player everyone

Children of Men had great cinematography and a fucking 10/10 score/soundtrack. If it had nothing else, if the script was written by retards fingerpainting with their own shit, it would still be a good movie.

Armond is a niggerfaggot.

>Children of Men had great cinematography and a fucking 10/10 score/soundtrack
Can you explain why in detail?? Try to use your own words and not copy paste someone else on the subject

Yeah sure I'll just write an essay for you bro, pls give me a good grade

thanks, friend

I'll be waiting to see if you actually know what you're talking about and are not some IMDB cinephile with a sophomoric understanding of cinematography

>muh contrarian critic
White followers are the scaruffifags of Cred Forums

> All of these semantic arguments from people who can't argue their way out of a paper bag

>hurr im so smart i agree with a meme critic
Cred Forums is fucking insufferable sometimes

Sorry, I was referring to those two people who were discussing (poorly) what a critic is, and whether they can be contrarian.

Sarcasm, bruh. I'm not writing you an essay.

I will say this one thing though, the thing I like most about what Cuaron (and Lubezki I'm sure had a lot to do with this as well) does with the camera in this film. It has its own agency, it meanders away from Theo in curiosity and focuses briefly on little details and microstories in the world around him. It makes you feel both that it's a living world the characters are inhabiting, and that you are an observer in that world not just an extension of Theo's own perspective.

>being this autistic

Dude we're pretty much just as close to the year 2027 as we are far away from 2007. Fucked.

He's not right.
He says so much but absolutely nothing at the same time.

>it's a two semesters of film classes and thinks he's an expert episode

this

Video game critic

Your autismal brain is having trouble distinguishing arguments based on technical merit and artistic merit.

>its a not only do i like being cucked physically but i need armond whites big cock to mentally and culturally cuck me through and through episode

>It panders to a decadent yearning for apocalypse as if to confirm recent fear and resentment about loss of political power.

What did he mean by this? Is this because this film was made during the Bush Administration?

>uninterrupted viewpoint of a videogame.
>The political antipathy of Iraq war protestors and War on Terror skeptics
>never explains how the world got this way and so its dread

People take this guys seriously?

He's right but I still enjoyed Children of Men. Cuaron used that movie to point fingers at things he didn't like about society but ultimately didn't offer any meaningful insight other than the fact he didn't like it. He is a shallow filmmaker.

The Revenant was a better film because he made it a personal story that was actually relatable. But it still wasn't as important or socially relevant as he thinks it is. It's ultimately just a period piece survival/revenge film shot in a really pretentious style.

Also, the one-shot/long shot technique is fucking stupid. Sometimes, it is the best way to shoot a sequence but I think that it rarely actually is the best way. He uses sneaky cuts or very deliberate pauses which are practically de facto cuts in those one shots anyways. Like in the indian ambush scene at the start, the camera pointed down to show a leaf on the ground for no reason which is the laziest fucking cover up of a cut I've ever seen.

Long shots are the staple of the unclever, pretentious director. And how do you decide when to do a long shot or when to use cuts? It's totally arbitrary and depends totally on how badly the director wants to show off.

You have quite an inferiority complex.

Not him, but

>Children of Men is a derivative work which uses cheap cinematographic tricks to woo the audience, rather than carefully constructing scenes with genuine emotional depth. Cuaron tries to connect with the audience only by pandering to their lizard brains and the political prejudices of the moment. Contextless scenes of misery and destruction are lingered upon, allowing the audience to wallow in its sense of political malaise and hopelessness.

...

kek is this real?

Sorry, that's all I see.

I assume you must be a fan of Chirs Stuckman or Jeremy Jahns. Not every opinion has to be the same you fucking retard, just because someone doesn't like what you like doesn't make his critique null.

>Cuaron used that movie to point fingers at things he didn't like about society

No he fucking didn't. It's an hypothetical society taken to the limit, result of the fear of not knowing if the human race can survive. People who think that this movie tries to reach into deep society issues, beyond using them as simple references and context, are the type that believe someone is always judging them for shit they aren't even related to.

We can agree Cuaron did much better with The Revenant though

Not him but I suppose you tried to quote another post?

The Revenant is much more focused on his main character an his struggle, yeah (we know Cuaron's biggest strength isn't character writing, though). As which movie is better it totally depends on the viewer, I believe.

>pretentious action flick
>ACTION FLICK

yeah i watched it for the good ol car chasing and women fucking

Cuaron didn't make the Revenant you idiot.

Am i being baited

Cred Forums takes Armond seriously because he's a contrarian.
Cred Forums also takes idiot liberal reviewers seriously because they don't agree with them.
Funny that.

Are you trying to imply Armond hasn't been Cred Forums long before you even found the site or Internet?

Wait do you even fucking know who Debbie is??

The idea is to find out why she isn't infertile and attempt to cure other women's infertility. It's worth a shot.

Damn. I've never been able to put into words why I was underwhelmed by Children of Men, but Armond sums it up nicely.

I like the concept and story, but it is missing something that gives it a sense of urgency and dread (to steal Armond's words). For me it never really felt tense and certainly not important that he get that pregnant chick somewhere alive. I know she might be the last fertile person on earth, but the movie never made me care.

Maybe the movie was too bleak. There was nothing in the movie that made me want to root for humanity.

Is this b8 or what

>There was nothing in the movie that made me want to root for humanity.

Armondfan no doubt.

Not usually, but in this instance I do agree with him and he was far more articulate than I would have been at expressing my opinion.