@Michael Murphy He said he doesn't respect what Nolan was trying to do in Inception because it wasn't a commentary on video games. What kind of logic is that? And admittedly, Inception wasn't Nolan's best film. It's probably The Prestige, Memento and Dunkirk. And are those films as good as Kubrick's 2001? Definitely not but just because it isn't that great doesn't mean it deserves no respect, considering the amount of technical and artistic mastery with minute detailing in characterization that was put into films like Prestige
It seems like these guys interviewing Armond White don’t watch movies made before 2008, and are putting Christopher Nolan on a pedestal. While I enjoy Nolan’s movies, I definitely think Armond White is makes a great case in his evaluation of Nolan’s work.
What these interviewers don't understand, is that for a movie's message to rate highly with Armand, it needs to promote values of humanism and reject nihilism, and no matter the cleverness or gimmick employed, they will all be criticized as empty, valueless, or even dangerous, unless they are in the service of these goals.
@boy_12 Well, it's like asking a health nut to review various kinds of candy. He's always going to say, it's sugary, it's sweet, and he hates it. Going deeper to describe the aromas and the textures is possible, but completely moot to him.
@@ctrlaltcreate4099 I find it kind of refreshing for a film critic to have a point of view and a strong sense of right and wrong, rather than all the critics who treat film criticism as a sort of "consumer report." It's not asking too much of art to have a positive impact on the world and to have strong moral values.
This is a good example of someone who is very good at turning a conversation into an intellectual competition. He baits people into attempting to talk above their diction or knowledge, calls them on it, then looks a lot more intelligent than he is. He also has the skill--useful in a college environment--of talking or writing about something with plenty of flowery diction and emotion without actually saying much of substance. His overwhelmingly black and white view of films is a defense against the need for complexity in his arguments. If the reader or listener comes away with an emotional understanding of what he is saying, they are less apt to notice a lack of specificity. That's why he either loves or hates films; either dismisses them wholesale or utterly embraces them. I don't think he mentioned a specific example to back up an "argument" at any point in this interview.
I dislike a lot of his writing but he’s absolutely right here. It’s also disgusting how what I assume was supposed to be a discussion on a film’s quality turned into a trial who’s centerpiece was whataboutisim. It’s honestly embarrassing how they worship at the feet of Nolan despite him being a modern day Spielberg without the humanity. Not to mention how they try say Inception was anyway original despite being extremely similar to Parprika. They also have seem to have a surface understanding of film theory. What’s complex is not necessary the best. In the mood for love towers over this faux “mind bending” tent pole spy film.
And? The reasons he thinks so are more important than whether or not he happens to like a movie that other people don't. Your statement is utterly vacuous, but you seem to think it proves something. Notice you haven't made your own argument, just kind of implied that we should dismiss White because of consensus opinions about Justice League and maybe Inception. Makes me wonder if you can even hold a conviction like White can, based on an independent analysis, without checking first what everyone else thinks.
It's my feeling Armond White has chosen to be the Lady Gaga of film criticism. He's decided to be controversial in order to gain public's attention and stand out, and he's intelligent enough to pull it off. And following his decision - he criticizes movies that were approved by major audience and fiercely protects movies that we all know didn't perform that well. Basically he's playing a role and he knows it - in order to support his career. I agree with the commentators - Transformers 2 *was* different in the camera work and in the feeling it gave in overall. I never knew Spielberg was involved in the first one, but I now realize it was his style and influence that I sensed there. The friendship between the boy and the robot, that feeling of wonder that is almost his trademark - that is what I sensed and liked the best. On the other hand White has insights that hold true for me. "Inception" was really as he said not a coherent movie, but a series of scenes, shot impressively and sewn one to the other for an overall shock effect. Technically - stunning, but from cinematic point of view its soul is missing. I half agree with his opinion on "Avatar". James Cameron has proven that he can be a terrific story teller when he wants to - Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss even Titanic are great examples of that. It's just that he's also keen on technology and when that captures his imagination he probably doesn't have enough time for the story line as well. "Avatar" was impressive visually, a new milestone in cinema making. And yes, as a story it was disappointing, which is a shame, cause given Cameron's potential and the hinted topic of the movie ('Avatar' from Hindu - the material appearance of a deity on earth) it could just turn to be the new "Matrix". There, I've said it.
I really didn't like Inception at all, but I will admit I didn't feel like I could follow it too well on the first viewing. On the other hand, I also disliked the soundtrack which was critically acclaimed. For Nolan's Batman Trilogy, I agree that they are pretty nihilistic. I also don't undertand why Dark Knight is considered the best, but I also felt like I didn't absorb it much. I thought Batman Begins was very entertaining but it felt meaningless at its core. As for James Cameron Avatar, I guess he did make a too safe depiction of what he did, but I feel that the movie has more of a appeal to what Armond says is good about Transformers 2 since it has a pretty realistic feel to the idea of discovering a paradise and also colonizing new planets which is a very human desire just like having your toys come to life or whatever he was getting at. They are both ambivalent about their themes as well. Overall, what he says is brilliant when he is allowed to talk about the side of movies that he is passionate about.
Nolan's stories are like an interactive puzzle piece so I can see where Armond is coming from with this argument. It's also kind of funny because Nolan did say he's interested in making a video game.
This guy is the classic Uncle Tom; trying to sound intelligent using adjective upon adjective and just look at his movie review history; it’s starts painting the picture of who he really is.
I don't always agree with White, but he's absolutely right on Nolan. Adolescent is the perfect way to describe his filmmaking.
Nolan is the midwit's favourite director
Lol Anyone else kind of convinced by Armond by the end of the video?
Crash Bandicoot no. He’s a joke!
emerson, emerson what
No hahahahahah maybe you got infected by his brainworms through the internet
Yes I'm convinced. Convinced that he doesn't know how to watch and appreciate films.
@Michael Murphy He said he doesn't respect what Nolan was trying to do in Inception because it wasn't a commentary on video games. What kind of logic is that? And admittedly, Inception wasn't Nolan's best film. It's probably The Prestige, Memento and Dunkirk. And are those films as good as Kubrick's 2001? Definitely not but just because it isn't that great doesn't mean it deserves no respect, considering the amount of technical and artistic mastery with minute detailing in characterization that was put into films like Prestige
Best critic alive. Inception was horrific
Interstellar was even worse.
Memento, etc. Actually everything he touches he ruins
It seems like these guys interviewing Armond White don’t watch movies made before 2008, and are putting Christopher Nolan on a pedestal. While I enjoy Nolan’s movies, I definitely think Armond White is makes a great case in his evaluation of Nolan’s work.
The day when /filmcast showed up with cap in hand. I will never forget when this episode came out... Damn i'm old,
What these interviewers don't understand, is that for a movie's message to rate highly with Armand, it needs to promote values of humanism and reject nihilism, and no matter the cleverness or gimmick employed, they will all be criticized as empty, valueless, or even dangerous, unless they are in the service of these goals.
What a crtical thinker...He sounds like a an old person that hates anything that is fun
Or the movie can be popcorn flick which everyone else hates.
@boy_12 Well, it's like asking a health nut to review various kinds of candy. He's always going to say, it's sugary, it's sweet, and he hates it. Going deeper to describe the aromas and the textures is possible, but completely moot to him.
@@ctrlaltcreate4099 I find it kind of refreshing for a film critic to have a point of view and a strong sense of right and wrong, rather than all the critics who treat film criticism as a sort of "consumer report." It's not asking too much of art to have a positive impact on the world and to have strong moral values.
Couldn’t put it better myself
I don't like how full of himself he is and I certainly disagree in many of his critics, but I agree about his view on "Twelve Years a Slave."
I don't agree with Armond White on his perspective of Inception, but I respect his opinion!
Based
I wonder what he would think of a video game along the lines of say "Death Stranding" based off what he has said. really interesting
Fabulous takes, solid comparative study stuff.
This is a good example of someone who is very good at turning a conversation into an intellectual competition. He baits people into attempting to talk above their diction or knowledge, calls them on it, then looks a lot more intelligent than he is. He also has the skill--useful in a college environment--of talking or writing about something with plenty of flowery diction and emotion without actually saying much of substance. His overwhelmingly black and white view of films is a defense against the need for complexity in his arguments. If the reader or listener comes away with an emotional understanding of what he is saying, they are less apt to notice a lack of specificity. That's why he either loves or hates films; either dismisses them wholesale or utterly embraces them. I don't think he mentioned a specific example to back up an "argument" at any point in this interview.
I dislike a lot of his writing but he’s absolutely right here. It’s also disgusting how what I assume was supposed to be a discussion on a film’s quality turned into a trial who’s centerpiece was whataboutisim. It’s honestly embarrassing how they worship at the feet of Nolan despite him being a modern day Spielberg without the humanity. Not to mention how they try say Inception was anyway original despite being extremely similar to Parprika. They also have seem to have a surface understanding of film theory. What’s complex is not necessary the best. In the mood for love towers over this faux “mind bending” tent pole spy film.
This guy just hailed Justice League as a 'masterpiece'.
And? The reasons he thinks so are more important than whether or not he happens to like a movie that other people don't. Your statement is utterly vacuous, but you seem to think it proves something.
Notice you haven't made your own argument, just kind of implied that we should dismiss White because of consensus opinions about Justice League and maybe Inception. Makes me wonder if you can even hold a conviction like White can, based on an independent analysis, without checking first what everyone else thinks.
Justice League had no goal or insight, its straight trash.
Are you for real??!?!
Based.
It's my feeling Armond White has chosen to be the Lady Gaga of film criticism.
He's decided to be controversial in order to gain public's attention and stand out, and he's intelligent enough to pull it off. And following his decision - he criticizes movies that were approved by major audience and fiercely protects movies that we all know didn't perform that well. Basically he's playing a role and he knows it - in order to support his career.
I agree with the commentators - Transformers 2 *was* different in the camera work and in the feeling it gave in overall. I never knew Spielberg was involved in the first one, but I now realize it was his style and influence that I sensed there. The friendship between the boy and the robot, that feeling of wonder that is almost his trademark - that is what I sensed and liked the best.
On the other hand White has insights that hold true for me. "Inception" was really as he said not a coherent movie, but a series of scenes, shot impressively and sewn one to the other for an overall shock effect. Technically - stunning, but from cinematic point of view its soul is missing.
I half agree with his opinion on "Avatar". James Cameron has proven that he can be a terrific story teller when he wants to - Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss even Titanic are great examples of that. It's just that he's also keen on technology and when that captures his imagination he probably doesn't have enough time for the story line as well. "Avatar" was impressive visually, a new milestone in cinema making. And yes, as a story it was disappointing, which is a shame, cause given Cameron's potential and the hinted topic of the movie ('Avatar' from Hindu - the material appearance of a deity on earth) it could just turn to be the new "Matrix".
There, I've said it.
I really didn't like Inception at all, but I will admit I didn't feel like I could follow it too well on the first viewing. On the other hand, I also disliked the soundtrack which was critically acclaimed.
For Nolan's Batman Trilogy, I agree that they are pretty nihilistic. I also don't undertand why Dark Knight is considered the best, but I also felt like I didn't absorb it much. I thought Batman Begins was very entertaining but it felt meaningless at its core.
As for James Cameron Avatar, I guess he did make a too safe depiction of what he did, but I feel that the movie has more of a appeal to what Armond says is good about Transformers 2 since it has a pretty realistic feel to the idea of discovering a paradise and also colonizing new planets which is a very human desire just like having your toys come to life or whatever he was getting at. They are both ambivalent about their themes as well.
Overall, what he says is brilliant when he is allowed to talk about the side of movies that he is passionate about.
In the words of dunkey "everything that is good is bad and everything that is bad is good"
Nolan is boooorrrring
sneed
Few minutes in and he's talking about Inception and video games? What? It has absolutely nothing to do with video games
It's like the ramblings of a dementia patient. Words just pour out of his mouth but he is saying nothing of any substance.
Nolan's stories are like an interactive puzzle piece so I can see where Armond is coming from with this argument. It's also kind of funny because Nolan did say he's interested in making a video game.
aesthetically it definitely looks like a video game.
This guy is the classic Uncle Tom; trying to sound intelligent using adjective upon adjective and just look at his movie review history; it’s starts painting the picture of who he really is.
You are the classical racist who pretends to be against racism.
except that he's absolutely right about Nolan.
Are you aware Uncle Tom is a racist term? Why would you use that, you twerp