Originally Posted by MrMike6by9
Sorry to hear that their craft rubs you the wrong way but I never rely on a single voice, other than my own, to help me decide whether a piece I'm ask to spend my time and/or money on is worth it. I like to hear from and to read competing sources and then to form my own opinion.
Mike, I was being philosophical for the most part, and logical as well. No need to be sorry because I don't consider critics have a legitimate "craft". Their sustenance is after all, what others create... there's no denying that (the logical part). As to parasitical references, that is my take on it. I was never an Ebert fan, ever. The craft you refer to is an opportunity for would-be writers to set themselves apart by demonstrating their writing skills... yet without the foundation of what it is they are writing about (the movie), they'd have nothing to say whatsoever.
I think that what irks me the most... now that I think about it... is that most critics try to set themselves as above the average viewer... as if they are smarter and more articulate than Joe Blow. And since I have a computer on my lap, I am voicing an opinion.
Ebert is way too over rated. He is pedantic, and really talking to himself and other critics. Not at all to the average Joe. He's communicating to his inner circle. Same as other critics do... and on that note, same as most in the movie-making industry.