I understand that some folks feel that Armond White is a troll - I, on the other hand, think he\'s providing a valuable service to the film-going critical community.The majority of paid-professional film critics in the US all have the same defect: they have no ideas. They can talk about the merits of a film within a limited spectrum; recommending you \'go see it\' or not - but they just don\'t have any genuine insight into the filmmaking process or the impact and context of cinema in our culture.Yes, White can seem inflammatory - but he has such an interesting mind that he can see pleasures in films where others can\'t seem them. Does that make sense?So with that in mind perhaps we should reconsider trying to \'ban\' Armond - and instead be brave enough and confident enough in our own feelings about movies to be able, at the very least, to tolerate somebody who has a radically different opinion.( full disclosure: I\'ve never met Armond White, but he\'s been a guest on my show, The Film Talk, a couple of times )

Wow. How much is he paying you?

Armond has been a paranoid nutter for the better part of this decade and shows no signs of his mental health improving; but in spite of (or perhaps because of) that, he's a far more interesting and valuable read than the numerous shills that populate the tomatometer. I'd support a 'ban Pete Travers' petition anyday before Armond.A cult of basement-dwelling zitbuckets want him banned for spoiling the percentage ratings of films they've formed their opinion on before seeing... heck, the fact that he's at least provoking discussion and countering hype, no matter how retarded the means... all this seems as good a reason as any to keep him on there.

I agree - and what's the point of having a 'meter' if you ban people who disagree with the majority?? Isn't the point of a meter to measure what people think?Bizarre.

Alas, nothing! ;)But if you really think White is a troll then I suggest, (and I'm sorry for the self-link), that you listen to him on this week's show: thefilmtalk.com - the feedback that i've gotten is that people are genuinely surprised at his sense of humour and his defense of his views.

Nobody is advocating banning someone for disagreeing. They're advocating banning someone who continuosly trolls for attention and invalidates the whole reason rotten tomatoes - nay the whole reason a movie critic exists as a proffession. That reaon is to provide insightful, coherent, and enlightening reasons why they like/dislike a film and if you've read Armonds reviews (and not browsed them) you're bound to find incoherent drivel.

Dance Flick was the best! Seriously, only someone that's deliberately being an idiot could come to the conclusions he reaches. Just because he hides behind a thesaurus doesn't make his reviews intelligent.

Here's the deal with Armond White: he isn't a film critic. So, don't ban him from the universe. Ban him from film critic aggregation sites. I will anticipate your first question: what? He IS a film critic - how dare you say he is not! Here is the issue: he is a critic, yes, of contemporary society, of certain ideas he disagrees with, of the overbearing, ill-informed white culture, of whatever ideas or concepts you choose. But to truly be a film critic, you need to critique the film in front of you, not bring in tangential ideas that have, for most of us, absolutely nothing to do with the idea of understanding how a film attempts to communicate a certain experience or set of emotions. Although I often disagree with other film critics because my interpretation of the film differs, at least we were open to having the film communicate a set of ideas to us. Armond simply takes other ideas and tacks them on, in his haphazard way. So, sure, Armond, keep on discussing your ideas. But let's not group them with the reviews on rotten tomatoes any more - they just don't match my conception of the intent of a film review.

On the show he refers to films as 'art objects' - so perhaps you have a point re: he's more on an art critic? and maybe that's one of the reasons i like his work - most critics view points seem so limited, in as much as they seem uninformed by anything other than movies; there's not enough of a perspective on movies vis a vis psychology, philosophy, architecture, art history, politics, etc.

I am going to have to side with Jett and his defense of Mr.White. First, a petition to ban Armond from Rotten Tomatoes because he screws with the \"tomato meter\", surely you jest? I do not always agree with his criticisms but at least he has something interesting and gasp different to say. I think the tomato meter is a completely ridiculous concept in and of itself. I even will go so far as to say that this grading of a film has actually been pretty destructive to cinema. I understand that some people want a quick way to gauge how good a film may be, but a percentage really does not help. If you were so interested in the \"score\" of a film then I would assume that you had at least a fleeting interest to see it in the first place. The problem is that this meaningless score may potentially deter you from seeing a film that, contrary to its grade, you may have actually enjoyed. This scoring system is unfortunately too prevalent in determining the quality of an experience, games and books included. It has gotten to a point where people are almost completely dependent on it. So we have Armond White, who actually challenges people to think and the result is resentful people who can not grasp the idea that someone may not actually share the same opinion. This is especially exacerbated by the hive mentality that the internet has intrinsically bred. Film criticism today is pretty much a joke. What most consider criticism now is nothing more than a review, a straightforward rehash of the plot and whether the \"critic\" liked it or not. Maybe some people enjoy this, I certainly do not. I miss interesting critics such as the brilliant Pauline Kael, besides Armond, I only follow J. Hoberman of the Village Voice and A.O. Scott of the NY Times (no not only because I am a New Yorker...maybe though) because I can usually expect to read an insightful criticism and maybe(GASP) a thoughtful analyses. Heck there was even a time when a couple of French critics decided that they disliked the state of film at the time so much that they decided to make their own damn movies, starting a new wave of cinema in the process. I would love to see how people would react to a Godard criticism if it happened to ruin their precious \"tomato meter\". Funny how nobody says a thing about a certain \"critic\" named Leonard Maltin who is basically paid to say something great about a film, so that it can be quoted in advertisements. No matter how you try to defend it, the only reason you really do not like Mr.White is because he just does not like what you like. You know it is true. Get over yourselves.