Look - I'm all for being contrarian; sometimes, reading too many glowing reviews of a movie I thought was only ok will often inspire me to come down more harshly on it. (See, for example, "The Tree of Life.") But Armond White has had DECADES of being like this (I first became aware of him in the Critical Mass section in EW in the early 90s), and I frankly think he's just cuckoo bananas. (Having said that, count me among the minority that thinks Toy Story 3 was good, but the weakest of the trilogy.)
I believe the term is "trolling."
Vince Mancini of FilmDrunk put it best (paraphrasing) when he said that he'd rather read Armond White's wackadoo contrarian pontificating than suck in the tripe spouted by industry schills and hacks like Pete Hammond. I find Armond White's desire (whether it be genuine or an affect) to read racial/societal/classist/etc. allegory into every possible film irritating, but at least he's trying to make people think about how they engage with art (of the high AND low varieties).