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?

Look no further, my friend.

...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.