As I talked about on Monday, "District 9" has been getting great buzz and some really good reviews. On Monday it had 15 good reviews and zero negative reviews.
Today on Rotten Tomatoes I noticed it was now at 96 percent, with 25 good reviews and only one negative review.
I clicked on the link to take me to the collection of reviews. As the page loaded I thought to myself "he wouldn't" and "there is no way he's going to do this again."
I scrolled down to see who the negative review came from and like getting socks on Christmas the realization came true.
Armond White was the negative reviewer.
Of-bloody-course. White, throughout the past year (that I have been following) seems to be the first person out of the gate to give a bad review to a movie that everyone likes ("Star Trek") or give a good review to a film that everyone dislikes ("Dance Flick"). He has become predictable in a very evil way.
On Rotten Tomatoes it posts a one sentence segment from the review to give you a sense of what the critic was thinking. Here is White's:
"District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema -- the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture."
Now let's just look at a sample of what another, notable, critic said. This time let's look at the Associated Press' Christy Lemire (who's rumored to be working on the new Ebert/Roeper show):
"This is one intense, intelligent, well-crafted action movie — one that dazzles the eye with seamless special effects but also makes you think without preaching."
I posted this because it seems to be the common thought among the other critics, the film is smart and looks awesome.
My journalistic curiosity got the best of me and I clicked on the link to read his full review.
Oh, boy.
One thing you'll notice when you read a White review is that he likes to compare films to things... a lot. Check out how he ends his review and yes, this is how he ended it.
"Fools will accept District 9 for fantasy, yet its use of parable and symbolism also evoke the almost total misunderstanding that surrounds the circumstance of racial confusion and frustration recently seen when Harvard University tycoon Henry Louis Gates Jr. played the race card against a white Cambridge cop. Opening so soon after that event—and adding to its unending media distortion—District 9 confirms that few media makers know how to perceive history, race and class relations."
I think we might have to take a crack at this on Friday during "Viewpoints On..." The material is just too good to pass up.
To close I want to post a few of the responses that White's review got on Rotten Tomatoes, funny stuff:
DPK99 writes: HaHa! Of course. I only wish that I could gamble in Vegas with the same success I have at predicting when Armond is going to give a bad review. I would be a very rich man.
Ryan D. writes: the ol' devil's advocate!! what a d-bag.
omilio writes: I don't see a single movie unless Armond gives it a bad review. I pray he never has a fresh fruit next to his pic otherwise I'll never go to the movies again.
Wait... there's more.
I was getting ready to log off when I noticed he posted a review of "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra."
If you had a million dollars, you would know where to bet it... he liked it.
" G.I. Joe must be understood as an authentic measurement of our cultural values. Its appeal to the pop-commercial synapses also demonstrates livelier filmmaking than such utter banality as Iron Man and Star Trek and Harry Potter’s Half-Blooded Chintz."
Yes, he said "G.I. Joe" was better than "Iron Man, "Harry Potter" and "Star Trek."
My head hurts.
No comments:
Post a Comment