It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I think Armond White fails as a critic simply because he fails to appreciate or even acknowledge what works in a film and when a film fails, he does not offer suggestions as to why it fails. He just calls people names. His criticism is vitriol which is not criticism at all. It is bile.
A food critic may not like ice-cream or chocolate, but do critics not have, by very definition of their occupation, an obligation to respect what is good… even they don’t like it?
I find A Clockwork Orange one of the most nauseating films I have ever seen. But that does not mean I hate it. I admire it because of the craft and intelligence.
Is there any indication he’s even seen the movie? Referring to Hamm the piggy bank as one of the villains?
White just does not even try and when he does try, all he’s trying to do is be Mr. Contrarian and that’s just a crappy way to be as a person. If he really did not see this film and just decided to put up his review out of his weird views of the world, then the Rotten Tomatoes folks should remove any links to the man from his site, because he’s nothing more than a fraud, and one fraud brings down the entire thing.
Their site, but anyone else who does not even put the time into freaking seeing the film before reviewing, should not be on a freaking film criticism site.
SPOILER ALERT
That third act for Toy Story 3 is very strong stuff, I can see how it will piss some people off – I took my whole family to see it yesterday and my three year old got very scared watching Big Baby and wanted to “go home.” However, my five year old was along for the ride the whole time and loved it, as did I.
One small criticism I might level is just why this thing was rated G? A few of those landfill/incinerator shots alone should have guaranteed it at least a PG. All I’m saying is for very young children, the film might not be appropriate.
I happen to think the film had a near-perfect mix of light and dark and would it up as high as the previous three, no doubt. Lotso is just a great villian, probably the best of the series – this is coming from some one who really liked Sid from the first one. Ken was done perfectly and every joke with him just hit the mark, as easy as some of them were. And the way Andy was played in the end, just extremely touching.
Armond is being quite dick-ish with his review, no doubt – he’s entitled to do so as long as he did actually see the movie, but honestly, no way to prove it so why bother. Him blathering on about commercialism is just absurd considering the subject matter – what, should they have used no-name toys for the story???? And this is freaking Disney – they have been selling every character from every movie for 70 years. Is this news, all of a sudden, in 2010?
If you guys want to consider a review from the other extreme, did you read Harry Knowles? SHOCKER – he personalizes the film to the point where he doesn’t even process the plot in any reasonable way. I know, this is Harry’s part and he’s going to play it to a tee; but wow, you would figure after over ten years of writing, he would sharpen things up a bit.
If critics who got things wrong about the plot were banned from Rotten Tomatoes, it would be a pretty empty web site. (Always drives me a little nuts when even –or especially –Ebert gets basic things wrong.) I don’t read film critics for a blow-by-blow transcription of the film plot, anyway. (Plus now we have Wikipedia for that.) I do read them for some sort of intelligent discussion of the film, which either enhances my appreciation of the film or warns me off of it. The problem with White is that in his unerring predictability he ultimately fails at both.
One of his main criticisms was the movie was full of product placements. That would bother me too, if it was true. If you know anything about Pixar, you know they aren’t sponsored by Barbie.
Yes, they will sell many Woody and Buzz Lightyear toys, but that isn’t product placement.
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with White raining on the 100%-perfect parade, because it’s a pretty meaningless stat (not least because 100% would only mean everyone gave the movie a mild thumbs-up or better, not that it’s the most acclaimed movie of the year, although it probably is one of those, too). It’s just that his writing is so predictable, with his multiple references to underappreciated (and often completely unrelated!) other movies, the name-calling, the exteme vagueness (“suckers fans to think they can accept this drivel without paying for it politically, aesthetically or spiritually” — and end paragraph. So that means what, exactly?). He even inexplicably flips tenses once, and repeats phrases multiple times. It’s just sloppy writing.
I’d love to read a reasonable negative review of Toy Story 3; I’d disagree, as I mostly loved the movie, but it could be instructive. It’s just a shame that writers are poor as White and Cole Smithey (I was clicking around his site; good lord, why is he on even RT? I know they count a lot of web people, but he can barely write).
Yeah, also, aren’t Ken and Barbie two of the *only* real toys in the whole movie? Maybe he assumed some of the very convincing made-up toys were actual products before the movies? Most of the toys in the movie do resemble familiar toys, but aren’t, actually. So the problem is that they created toys that look like toys people have seen before and that might be interpreted as an ad for buying any toys at all?! (Or maybe he thinks the line between selling Woody/Buzz toys and making a movie about them is blurred; I guess I could see that, although that’s true of so many movies it doesn’t really seem worth getting worked up about.)
http://www.popeater.com/2010/06/20/armond-white-toy-story-3-reviews/?icid=main|main|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeater.com%2F2010%2F06%2F20%2Farmond-white-toy-story-3-reviews%2F
Again, White is old and does not get that people really do not suffer nonsense anymore. Folks are either too entitled or take this stuff a bit too seriously, but there is stuff you goof on, there is stuff you do not goof on, and White goofed on the wrong thing and I hope he pays for it in the most ridiculous ways. Sort of like he’s walking down the street and someone screams at him, “Hey White, Buzz Lightyear says SCREW YOU!” If that would happen at least once and put it on you tube as they did it, that would be totally awesome.
White’s writing is fine enough, but it is all a fucking act, and reason enough for his expulsion from RottenTomatoes.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1897/armondwhiteisntinsane.jpg
Fuck off, dude.
I’m less annoyed with White’s review than with the other two negative reviews. They basically complain primarily that the film wasn’t PG (a fair point, but not the filmmakers’ fault), had the gall to be in 3D, and was ‘too dark and scary for kids’ (IE – ‘they’ can’t handle it even if I could). These have nothing to do with the actual content of the film itself, mainly how one can choose to see it and what it was rated by the MPAA. Plus, both reviews base their criticisms on complete misunderstandings of basic plot points or character development (specifically Andy, as both critics seem to think that Andy exists only as we see him in fleeting glimpses in the films).
I agree with Pope though, if you don’t like a genre, you should let that be known upfront. If you don’t like horror films, you probably won’t like the Saw series on principal. But if you like and/or can appreciate a good horror picture, you’ll have to admit that Saw VI is a rock-solid example of its genre.
Scot,
I know the G rating isn’t the filmmakers fault, but how is the film not rated PG?
SPOILER ALERT
That climax is some apocalyptic stuff – reaching here, but I truly wonder if Disney gets a pass on this stuff sometimes, because it’s Disney. It’s a great movie, I’m not disputing that.
And same with Finding Nemo – lovely movie, but wow, that opening scene basically implies a shark wiping out thousands of fish, including Nemo’s mom and all of his siblings. I know I’m not the only one who has observed this, but it’s pretty brutal stuff when you think about it. Also rated G.
Once again, I like the Pixar stuff. But Dreamworks seems to get the higher ratings mainly based on innuendo and some riske pop culture references – I’m not saying some of the stuff in the Shrek movies is suitable for little children, but slaughtering a family is?? I guess it’s the only Hollywood double standard stuff about sex vs. violence – we can tolerate the implication of one much more than the other.
DP I actually dont have a problem with White’s view of TS3 and Pixarism in general believe it or not….I DO have a problem with his absurdist “Jonah Hex” review….and the fact he constantly namechecks the films he appreciates or dislikes that go against the mainstream grain in his reviews…such as the “greatness of Michael Bay” and the “avant-garde” sensibilities of neveldine and taylor (Crank, Gamer).
His closing quote about the depth of Megan Fox’s emotional awareness alone disqualifies him as serious.
So a big question would be: if Armond White qualifies for Rotten Tomatoes, then why not David Poland, Harry Knowles, or Drew McWeeny – the net is pretty wide at this point, why not just admit it?
DP is occassionally featured on RT.
It’s all so subjective, though. For instance, I’d prefer not to, but I completely agree with White on the avant-garde sensibilities of Neveldine and Taylor (who, I bet, would have made a great “Jonah Hex” if they’d been allowed to). Those guys are out there, and the only reason it hasn’t yet been recognized is because they’ve toiled on what has been perceived as dumb Jason Statham movies.
With so many real film critics out of work — writers who actually care about movies and genuinely conveying their opinions on them, not just pissing in the proverbial sandbox — why not decry White and his hackery?
For God’s sake, he says “Toy Story 3” is for “non-thinking children and adults” and it “strictly celebrates consumerism,” and he praises “Transformer 2” in the same piece. That absurd level of cognitive dissonance can’t be anything less than intentional.
MattMcD – I guess what separates a lot of those out-of-work critics from Armand White is that they are not as effective at self-promotion as he is.
Wow, this is basically hot Fox News blew up – continuously piss on every one else to the point where they’re always paying attention to you.
The plot structure of TS3 is a loose adaptation of Dante: first Purgatory (Sunnyside), then Hell (the landfill), and lastly Paradise (Bonnie’s home). There’s even a deus ex machina thrown in for good measure (The Claw!) though that’s not Dante. That’s just the structure. Thematically, and I’m surprised not to have seen this discussed yet, the movie is basically an exegesis on St. Paul’s admonition (1 Corinthians 13:11) about childish things, and whether that is a proper way of living one’s life.
Consequently, there are a lot of parallels with Up, mainly in how both stories are about growing up without growing old.
I’ve been on RT since the roughcut years. But if you aren’t “cream of the crop,” you need to post your reviews. I should… but I don’t do it often. When I finally decide I need to post one, I usually try to catch up on the last half-dozen or so. And I believe that both Harry and Drew are RT sanctioned.
The net is a LOT wider than us at RT, A decade ago,not so much.
As for Armond… I think it’s too easy to dismiss him as simply contrarian. It’s like some of the quote whores, who have said to me, quite literally, “You know… I just like movies.” I’m not sure that makes them critics who are in any way valuable to me, as a consumer or as someone interested in intellegent discourse on film. But someone out there does like the movies most critics hate… and vice versa.
The thing with Armond, for me, is that he is – usually – pretty specific. It’s not just random pissing. And he generates more conversation that a thossand reviews that are smoking the same pipe.
I don’t trust his judgment, but he adds something real… in my opinion… which is clearly in the minority in this case… so do I lose the right to hold that opinion and be taken seriously?
From beginning to end, TS3 is a celebration of imagination. Whenever toys are treated as simple objects, its tragic. I never ever got the impression that Pixar made a character choice based on what would make a good toy. I do get the feeling that the baggage Armond carried into the movie affected his reaction to it.
I agree completely with that, mystery.
Of course he carried in baggage but — as a critic should — he acknowledged it in the body of the review.
Toy Story 3 was easily the worst of the three Toy Story movies, losing much of the whimsy from the first two movies and replacing it with unnecessary Sturm und Drang. Instead of sharpening the previous films’ themes, it regurgitates them, hammering them in with an inelegance completely out of step with the studio’s other recent films. Toy Story 3’s idea of humor is pop song refrains, fart gags and gay jokes. It’s as if DreakWorks secretly snuck up to Emeryville and sabotaged the whole damn project. Such a shame, too. I was really looking forward to this film and damn it if it didn’t completely let me down. Oh well, there’s always Chris Nolan to save the summer.
If Armond is, in anybody’s opinion, precisely wrong about EVERYTHING, all the time, then he is a great critic to follow — do the opposite of what he recommends and you’ll never go to a bad movie.
Writers are rarely quite that simple, though.
What the what, Wrec? What the what.
Wrecktum, there’s maybe one to two examples of each of the bad jokes you mention in a 100-minute movie (not to mention in the other Toy Story movies). I could’ve done without the song cue jokes, sure, but they weren’t exactly Smash Mouth (if anything, that “Dream Weaver” bit is knocked off from Wayne’s World; not fresh, but not the worst thing to nick, either).
I dunno, I thought any extremely tiny comedic imperfections (only compared to Toy Story 2, one of the funniest Pixar movies) was more than compensated via the emotional stuff, which was just as rich as either of the other two.
I think this gets to the heart of the “Armond problem”, particularly this:
See how easily and frequently he reacts to a middling movie as tho’ he had discovered Joyce or D.H. Lawrence for the first time, and see if you can find a reason for it other than to claim the prestige of being the first to discover greatness.
“Middling” might be too generous for Hex (which I haven’t seen), but the way he uses the review as a pretext for lavishing praise on Neveldine/Taylor is a perfect example of this. I actually like Neveldine and Taylor, but if White loves them so much, he might’ve done five seconds of googling to find out they were basically kicked off the film and their script completely rewritten. Is there any reason to treat this as an auteur project other than a) laziness and b) reinforcing Armond’s ever-discerning eye for N/T’s greatness (which other critics are too dumb to see)? It certainly doesn’t have much to do with Neveldine/Taylor themselves.