Film critic Armond White’s Wikipedia entry reads more like a Zagat entry.
Film critic and essayist Phillip Lopate wrote that White “has staked out a position as a renegade film critic, the Last Angry Man, unafraid to attack popular favorites or make enemies with colleagues.” His criticism has been described as “unique” and also as “thoughtful” since it “allows readers the opportunity to interpret films as more than just entertainment.” Also, he has been described as “not boring” and “capable of wicked insights,” “often contrarian (and always fun to read),” “extremely knowledgeable,” “immensely readable, fearless, provocative” as well as “passionate, idiosyncratic and a natural polemicist.” […] Critic Kyle Smith has argued that White “simply has a different æsthetic from that of the herd,” while critic David Chen suggested that he “(perhaps too) vehemently believes in the integrity of his art and longs for the golden era when the mainstream still cared what film critics thought.”
Detractors have criticized White for his “hyperbolic rhetoric” and “misanthropic mudslinging.” Critic Glenn Kenny called White “a bully and a hypocrite” and complained that “the sub-theme of every White review is that every other critic is a moral degenerate and an æsthetic cretin.” Essayist Dan Schneider dismissed White as a “critical clown” and “a contrarian with political and personal axes to grind,” Similarly, critic Vadim Rizov described White as “a jerk who combines rhetorical misdirection with bullying behaviour.”