The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

You’re the Worst, Armond White!

Armond White is both deeply wrong about everything and a tiny bit fascinating.

He’s a movie critic who used to review films for New York Press and now runs his own publication called City Arts, but what you need to know is that he’s the most completely false person any of us have ever encountered.

Why is that? He’s sort of notorious for loving and praising movies that were almost universally and unanimously detested, such as “Jonah Hex,” “Transformers 2” and most recently, Adam Sandler’s new Klump-esque comedy, “Jack and Jill.”

The point is, White’s a contrarian; it’s as simple as that. Every critic (and person) seems to hate a single movie and White will go out and defend it by claiming things such as, “Adam Sandler’s comedies are not ‘dumb fun’; maybe that’s why they’re not in critics’ favor” and, “All Sandler’s best comedies (‘Grown Ups,’ ‘Bedtime Stories,’ ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry’ and the great ‘Spanglish’) are really love stories.”

Story continues below advertisement

ARGH! WHAT? Is this a joke, Armond White? I can’t believe that you just went in and named all of the worst movies ever made and said they were great! Spanglish was great? Isn’t that the worst one? Are you confusing the words great and abhorrent? I do that, too, I guess.

Armond White can’t actually mean these things. He was a member of many New York film critics associations like the New York Film Critic’s Circle and the National Society of Film Critics, for Pete’s sake! I firmly believe with all my heart that he’s only defending these terrible, disgusting movies in order to get publicity. Which is idiotic for SO MANY REASONS and it’s also why…

Armond White: YOU’RE THE WORST!

You know what would be fun? If we take White’s review of “Jack and Jill” line by line and count all the times he says the worst, most unflinchingly, obliviously moronic things! Obviously, we don’t have the time or space to do the whole thing, but let’s do a few!

1. “Sandler’s willingness to appear ‘dumb’ is what makes his films so cathartic.” Yikes, Armond. You’re really taking lying to the next level. I thought that Stephen Glass was a pretty good liar, but to suggest that Sandler is not only pretending to be dumb, but that his willingness to do it is what makes his movies good and makes him such a brave actor? That’s almost more idiotic than the movies themselves!

2. “Credit Sandler’s subtle feminine caricature — especially in dancing and athleticism — that avoids making Jill a clownish grotesque like Tyler Perry’s Madea.” I’m actually surprised I’m saying this, but Madea sounds like a dream house full of golden retriever puppies compared to Sandler’s Jill. I guess I appreciate White’s willingness to be choosy when it comes to broad comics in drag. Let me guess, Martin Lawrence in ‘Big Momma’s House’ needs a little work, but he’s getting there?

Okay, last one.

3. “His comic introspection has a moral core. Appreciation of roots and background is what gives the film’s overlong but uproarious Al Pacino subplot its basis — it’s both crazily romantic and a professional salute.” I think the only way the likes of Jack and Jill is a “professional salute” is if that profession is plunging toilets with your own head and face.

Armond White is seemingly the most singlehandedly oblivious person to ever put pen to paper (or forehead to computer keyboard), but I really don’t think he’s serious about liking this movie to the extent that he makes it seem. However, that doesn’t mean he’s not oblivious, nor a complete tool.

White’s purely being contrary to the near seamless, universal contempt for “Jack and Jill” just to get a little extra publicity, but is it worth it, pal? Are you doing this so people will read your dumb articles? Did you maybe not think that the world would unite in perfect unison to talk about what a damn idiot you are?

Maybe you thought you get some sort of “Twilight Zone” street cred for flying in the face of almost every reputable film critic in the U.S., but if it means you give up any sort of respectable credibility to dip so low as to saying you loved such a disaster, I’ve gotta ask: Is it worth it? Are you satisfied?

Maybe you should try head plunging next time.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
You’re the Worst, Armond White!