Bromancer
LOVE the paper. But I’m beginning to think that the guy who decides what story gets published for “Flavor Of The Week” heavily favors women. He’s like the total opposite of gay. He’s like the dude in Clerks who says: “I HATE guys—I LOVE women!” Week after week, it’s a female author (and I love women, too). Let’s give a break to the boys now and then.
—Rob Santana
Cancerous Critic
As a reader of the New York Press, I’ve noticed that Armond White seems to disagree often with the majority of critics, myself and many other moviegoers I know. I understand that everyone has his own taste, but as a newspaper to whom people look for advice on what movies to see, you have a duty to provide reviews that are relevant to the average moviegoer.
If four doctors say “cancer” and one doctor says “not cancer” over and over again, that fifth one shouldn’t be allowed to practice, since his consistently dissident advice could lead people who don’t bother checking other sources to false conclusions.
—Adlai, Gainesville, FL
Don’t Hate Us Hairless Apes
This [Incredible Hulk review, “Impenetrable Hulk,” June 11-17] is one of the most pompous and insulting reviews of anything (film, theater, books) I have read in a long time. It’s OK that he doesn’t like the film or the genre of comic book films in general, but there is a tone and several insinuations (“peanut-gallery consensus,” for example) that seem to indicate that those who may enjoy the genre are little more than hairless apes who could never appreciate a movie as sophisticated as Transporter 2. There are many different genres of movies (something your reviewer would like to see eliminated apparently), and we all have our biases. The trouble with your reviewer [Armond White] is that he seems to hate not only the genre but the people who enjoy it as well.
—Dirk Mysterio
Caliber of Crap
I’ve just read the review (or, should I say, the bludgeoning) of The Incredible Hulk, and I’m surprised to see how vitriolic it is. This is no surprise, having read the pseudo-intellectual review of Iron Man (“Greed Racer,” May 7-13) one Armond White provided for your pleasure (or displeasure?), but this one in particular struck a sour chord with me. A question: Is there a definitive distinction your critic has made between timeless pop culture references and references to the war in Iraq (or some other controversial subject of the decade, needlessly applied to all levels of entertainment nowadays)? While the artistic merit of the film, which I have seen, is up for dispute, Mr. White has shown a lack of respect for any genre that does not aspire to recreate the likes of Citizen Kane ad nauseum.
Which brings me to my second question: Why does Mr. White continue to offer his services—or, alternatively, why does the Press continue requesting his services—if he consistently offers noting but contempt for these diversions? While White is definitely an accomplished critic, the bias held toward comic-book films that, in particular, do not dilute the source material is astonishing.
I find his critique to be lacking in a basic grasp of characterization during this entire tirade. This segment stands out as one such example (quoted sans academic citation): “There’s an ugly sequence where a trifling scientist (Tim Blake Nelson) declares ‘I hate the government as much as anyone,’ then exposes Banner and gives in to Roth’s antagonist (‘It’s beautiful! It’s god-like!’). It’s an unscrupulous plot turn. That this quasi-gay scientist admires the Nietzschean villain and dies with a freakish, orgasmic grimace is meaningless—offering none of Spielberg’s action-movie ethics, just shallow liberal, adolescent excitation. In the end, these allegorical characters fail comic-book myth. Indefinably good-vs.-evil, they stand for nothing.” My bewilderment is first with how the character’s orientation (never stated in the film) has anything to do with the greater characterization. Moving on, the traits of Dr. Sterns (the character isn’t even named for the discretion of the reader in this review) clearly do not fall into the bland “good or bad” definition Mr. White endeavors to put this particular summer release into. Mr. White seems to consider the whole affair to be quite base, which may have blinded him to this character’s nature—the “anarchist-turned-power-hungry scientist.” That caliber of gray material has been in films since the days of film noir, and recently in—what a surprise!—Batman Begins. Remember that “crappy” comic book film? All in all, I must call into question how the slightly profane and entirely belligerent attitude White has expressed toward this genre makes him qualified to look past this inherent bias and deliver an admirable review. If White cannot deliver, then why not find someone who can apply proper film critique without the undeserved venom toward the potential audience and be done with it?
—David, NY
LOVE the paper. But I’m beginning to think that the guy who decides what story gets published for “Flavor Of The Week” heavily favors women. He’s like the total opposite of gay. He’s like the dude in Clerks who says: “I HATE guys—I LOVE women!” Week after week, it’s a female author (and I love women, too). Let’s give a break to the boys now and then.
—Rob Santana
Cancerous Critic
As a reader of the New York Press, I’ve noticed that Armond White seems to disagree often with the majority of critics, myself and many other moviegoers I know. I understand that everyone has his own taste, but as a newspaper to whom people look for advice on what movies to see, you have a duty to provide reviews that are relevant to the average moviegoer.
If four doctors say “cancer” and one doctor says “not cancer” over and over again, that fifth one shouldn’t be allowed to practice, since his consistently dissident advice could lead people who don’t bother checking other sources to false conclusions.
—Adlai, Gainesville, FL
Don’t Hate Us Hairless Apes
This [Incredible Hulk review, “Impenetrable Hulk,” June 11-17] is one of the most pompous and insulting reviews of anything (film, theater, books) I have read in a long time. It’s OK that he doesn’t like the film or the genre of comic book films in general, but there is a tone and several insinuations (“peanut-gallery consensus,” for example) that seem to indicate that those who may enjoy the genre are little more than hairless apes who could never appreciate a movie as sophisticated as Transporter 2. There are many different genres of movies (something your reviewer would like to see eliminated apparently), and we all have our biases. The trouble with your reviewer [Armond White] is that he seems to hate not only the genre but the people who enjoy it as well.
—Dirk Mysterio
Caliber of Crap
I’ve just read the review (or, should I say, the bludgeoning) of The Incredible Hulk, and I’m surprised to see how vitriolic it is. This is no surprise, having read the pseudo-intellectual review of Iron Man (“Greed Racer,” May 7-13) one Armond White provided for your pleasure (or displeasure?), but this one in particular struck a sour chord with me. A question: Is there a definitive distinction your critic has made between timeless pop culture references and references to the war in Iraq (or some other controversial subject of the decade, needlessly applied to all levels of entertainment nowadays)? While the artistic merit of the film, which I have seen, is up for dispute, Mr. White has shown a lack of respect for any genre that does not aspire to recreate the likes of Citizen Kane ad nauseum.
Which brings me to my second question: Why does Mr. White continue to offer his services—or, alternatively, why does the Press continue requesting his services—if he consistently offers noting but contempt for these diversions? While White is definitely an accomplished critic, the bias held toward comic-book films that, in particular, do not dilute the source material is astonishing.
I find his critique to be lacking in a basic grasp of characterization during this entire tirade. This segment stands out as one such example (quoted sans academic citation): “There’s an ugly sequence where a trifling scientist (Tim Blake Nelson) declares ‘I hate the government as much as anyone,’ then exposes Banner and gives in to Roth’s antagonist (‘It’s beautiful! It’s god-like!’). It’s an unscrupulous plot turn. That this quasi-gay scientist admires the Nietzschean villain and dies with a freakish, orgasmic grimace is meaningless—offering none of Spielberg’s action-movie ethics, just shallow liberal, adolescent excitation. In the end, these allegorical characters fail comic-book myth. Indefinably good-vs.-evil, they stand for nothing.” My bewilderment is first with how the character’s orientation (never stated in the film) has anything to do with the greater characterization. Moving on, the traits of Dr. Sterns (the character isn’t even named for the discretion of the reader in this review) clearly do not fall into the bland “good or bad” definition Mr. White endeavors to put this particular summer release into. Mr. White seems to consider the whole affair to be quite base, which may have blinded him to this character’s nature—the “anarchist-turned-power-hungry scientist.” That caliber of gray material has been in films since the days of film noir, and recently in—what a surprise!—Batman Begins. Remember that “crappy” comic book film? All in all, I must call into question how the slightly profane and entirely belligerent attitude White has expressed toward this genre makes him qualified to look past this inherent bias and deliver an admirable review. If White cannot deliver, then why not find someone who can apply proper film critique without the undeserved venom toward the potential audience and be done with it?
—David, NY
