I signed up for it a while ago not know; a) It's for women and b) They don't actually give you a piece of candy on a daily basis.

Indeed, as I'm sure you can imagine, A.O. Scott does this too, as does any critic asked to deliver a lengthy film review often days (and in some cases hours) after seeing the print. When working with such fast turn-around, you often must rely on emotional response at least to some degree as you haven't had enough time to consider the film "coldly". I would almost dare you to find a critic working for a major publication who does not inject their own emotional response into reviews (I won't, dare you, that is, because I'm sure there is at least one). Point is, your own example, Scott, is not one of them. To wit:

About The Cat in the Hat: "Neutering, to prevent this beast from spawning sequels, is perhaps the most humane solution."

To which he later again referred, implying that it was the worst movie ever (hyperbole or hatred, you decide):

"What distinguishes "Horton Hears a Who!" from the other recent Dr. Seuss film adaptations - "The Cat in the Hat," in case you need reminding - is that it is not one of the worst movies ever made. "

Scott obviously does not review every film the same way as you say, not because he's not a good critic or not an academic one, but because it is impossible to impart with subjectivity when art is by nature, subjective. Critics therefore are there to give us their thoughts - and yes - feelings to us so we can make a decision about what we want to see.

Am I saying you have to like Ebert. Yes. ...No, just kidding. Of course not, just don't accuse him of doing what every other critic does and pass it off as a reason not to like him specifically.

As for Ebert merely having an emotional response, I get the feeling you haven't read his reviews. Granted, his initial reviews are usually only about 500 words long, and he gets into some slight observations, but as for pulling critical hefty work, how about his 2000+ word reviews of what he calls The Great Films? These show his real critical teeth, and are very well written with exceptional insights. Contrary to what you say, Ebert is seen by many as the gold standard of film criticism, giving him the distinction of the only film critic ever to win a pulitzer. IN that way, how can you not admire his ability to be academic and populist? It's quite an accomplishment.

Then, a few years later, while still writing over 5000 words a week in published work AND doing his TV show, he agreed to see a new cut of the Brown Bunny and actually reviewed it, giving it 3 stars.

But seriously, fuck Lyons. Ebert would crush him in a fight. I say let them fight it out for the gig. Post-op Ebert will totally fucking destroy pussy boy Lyons. Ebert lives!

I wrote a story in College for Creative writing about a man obsessed with ebert who bites off his trademarked right thumb and sells it on Ebay.

Anyway, should the show be cancelled. Absolutely not. It's just like my frat days.

I'd be worried about my Grandpa seeing this and getting his feeling hurt, but we all know they're lucky to check their email or use their cell phone without killing someone. "Surfing" the web is a dangerous sounding term to them, so they stay away from that. Don't want a broken hip.

[bp3.blogger.com]

on this post:

[www.ideasbychuck.com]

Will you go out on a date with me?
Why would you want to go out with a bitch like me? [Gets up] You coming? Let's get this over with already.