What's that you say? You're looking to read a highly flawed critique of Roger Ebert's career focusing weirdly on his review of Hollow Man?
...Ebert represents most of what’s wrong with American film criticism, and I won’t pretend otherwise, no matter how much of his face they have to remove or how many adorable cookbooks he writes.
I love a good slam piece as much as the next guy, for sure, but this is an ill-advised assault. It focuses on Ebert's TV reviewing, for one thing, when Ebert has always been a newspaperman. (And besides: On the list of things that TV has destroyed—journalism, salesmanship—I'd put film reviewing way at the bottom.) I would of course never put Ebert above Pauline Kael, but again, she worked for The New Yorker and he works for a daily newspaper. There's a significant difference in what those two outlets are trying to accomplish. It's no surprise that the comments to the post almost unanimously rip the author a new one; this was a bad idea.
