"Suddenly The Social Network is looking not so fresh -- like ya mama's panties, BIATCH! Truthbomb'd. A-Dubs, out."

"Suddenly The Social Network is looking not so fresh. Like ya mama's panties, BIATCH! Truthbomb'd. A-Dubs, out."

Yesterday I wrote about how everyone expected the NY Press’s Armond White to give The Social Network its first negative review, because he’s gangsta like that (I hear he has “Thesaurus Life” tattooed on his eyelids).  Although most of what he wrote in the review seemed pretty negative, I wrote that he hadn’t ruined it, which was based on a few things:

  1. The person who sent his review to me said Armond had given it 3.5 out of 5 stars
  2. At the time, Rotten Tomatoes still showed The Social Network at 100%
  3. There were 3.5 stars at the bottom of his review. I thought this was Armond’s rating, next a to link that went to the user reviews.

Long story short, I was wrong.  The 3.5 stars were from NY Press users.  Armond White doesn’t give star ratings, son.  He leaves them punk-ass trivialities to bustaz like Ebert, SKEET SKEET!  Armond White’s review was officially counted as a negative, and now Social Network is at 97% (it picked up another negative review besides Armond’s since then).  TRUTHBOMB’D. My favorite part of all this is knowing that there’s some poor bastard over at RottenTomatoes who has to try to figure out whether every Armond White review is positive or not. “Hmmm, well he said that its ‘ersatz verisimilitude was a pox on the tyranny of the au-courant relativism,’ but he also notes that ‘the superciliousness of Fincher’s burnished atavism is anathema to the complutocracy’s appetite for effeminate subterfuge.’  I’m at a loss here, really, it could go either way.”