Over at the Wall Street Journal’s excellent Speakeasy blog, the tone seems mildly pleased that New York Press film critic Armond “the Hammer” White’s lonesome pan of “Toy Story 3” is enraging fanboys and groupthinkers. I was just in a bar last night when someone randomly brought up Armond in the same tone he is usually mentioned, i.e., “Why must Armond torment me and hurt my feelings?” The conventional wisdom is that Armond is intentionally trying to stir up the hornets. I don’t think so. Armond raises valid points in his “Toy Story 3” review and he simply has a different aesthetic from that of the herd. I often disagree with him too but — why all the flapdoodle? (“I hate you,” etc.) If you don’t think he raises valid points, why would his review bother you? Are you bothered if the guy next to you in the theater doesn’t enjoy the picture? I think the reason Armond gets under people’s skin is that they read his reviews and find that he makes some sense, and this in turn reduces people’s enjoyment of the film and maybe even makes them feel as though they’re not as perceptive as he is. Being made to feel stupid tends to put people in an angry frame of mind. Anyway, how many of these fanboys think of themselves as rebels, outside-the-box thinkers, envelope-pushers? Pretty much all of them, I would guess. Yet when someone who actually does have a different take comes along, the herd snorts and rages. Viva Armond.