He claims that we've been lured in expecting a film about a black princess but...

She is an animal for the duration of the film. This is an indication of Disney's unwillingness to truly embrace the aesthetic value of a black woman. This is even more apparent when you consider that her animated counterparts of color weren't depicted in the same way (Mulan, Pocahontas).

The Prince isn't really black. He appears to have a "generic" foreign-tanned look. So, the object of the Princess' love, by his lack of color, is yet another celebration of a European aesthetic ideal and simultaneously a knock against the beauty of black people.

The film celebrates the Booker T. mantra of bootstrap pulling (this is done supposedly in the words of her father, encouraging her to dream but to work hard); this is a subtle dig at the primary focus of the Civil Rights movement for full social/political equality...not to mention the film "sanitizes" history by failing to address the Jim Crow south conditions that were prevalent during the time of the film?

I haven't seen this film, but did any of you who have get this from it? My first hunch is that Armond is truly a contrarian for the sake of buzz. However, I don't think his ideas seem out of the realm of possibility--he just strikes me as being disingenuous.

I have to wonder, dude ripped Precious, and yet he's praised The Blind Side for it's honesty(in contrast to Precious' deceptiveness)...in his review of the Princess he mentions films like High School Musical and Song of the South that have been more culturally informative/intelligent.