Posted by judman25 at 7/21/08 2:42 p.m.

I gave up on movie critics after they shot down "Half Baked."

Posted by unregistered user at 7/21/08 2:43 p.m.

I don't think that Ebert and Roeper's departure from "At the Movies" says anything about the state of film criticism, just about the state of Disney and their contracts.

Posted by msnicki at 7/21/08 2:49 p.m.

Oh, too bad. I was a dedicated fan of Siskel and Ebert, then Ebert and Roeper, then Roeper and his various guest critics, and most recently, Roeper and Michael Phillips. Roger Ebert was, of course, always the best and when Roeper replaced Siskel, it was at first a big step down. But over the years, Roeper continued to improve and these days, I find him quite good. And of all the various guests, I thought Phillips was the best. So this is a show I will miss.

Posted by Euterpe35 at 7/21/08 2:52 p.m.

David Edelstein deserved to be ripped for his review of Batman... in my opinion this is because he gave "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" a POSITIVE review, then turned around and slammed The Dark Knight. What. the. H*ll.

I don't think so-called professional film critics deserve any more credence than amateurs. What did they do to deserve their pro status other than get an art degree and see lots of movies? Half of my personal friends have the same credentials.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/21/08 3:26 p.m.

he should be fired for not liking The Dark Knight

Posted by c0nversazi0ne at 7/21/08 3:32 p.m.

Film critics are a little too communist for me. I've known people who wouldn't even consider seeing a movie because s/he read a bad review. I support the notion that critics of all media definitely perk curiosity, but some people take their reviews too much to heart and engrave them onto golden commandments.

See the movie yourself, and decide for yourself. I can't say that I've ever decided to see a movie or read a book because I read a review damning or revering it, but if reviews will encourage people to get out there and form their own opinions, then I suppose critics are a good thing.

Posted by Cameron King at 7/21/08 3:34 p.m.

Yes, movie critics are quite useful. I generally find that if they think the movie is not very good, I will like it, and if they love it, I will hate it. The trend is consistent enough that critics definately play a role in what movies I want to see--just not the role they expect to play.

Posted by SouthPaw at 7/21/08 3:38 p.m.

MATTER????? have they ever????

Posted by Danube Logus at 7/21/08 4:06 p.m.

Movie critics matter as much as bloggers do.

Posted by Bellingman at 7/21/08 4:20 p.m.

Ebert has the rights to the phrase "Thumbs Up" and Disney couldn't come to terms with him to use it. (Notice the recent use of "See it/Skip it" instead.) Roeper chose to leave rather than renew his contract, out of loyalty to Ebert.

Look for a new movie review show coming soon, "Thumbs Up/Down" intact, to be produced by Roger Ebert, starring Richard Roeper, and featuring A.O. Scott and/or Michael Phillips.

Posted by JustRoss at 7/21/08 4:38 p.m.

Critics, amature or professional, have always served a vital role in a world where one is expected to pay BEFORE experiencing a work of art/media. In most cases, purchasing a movie ticket is a one-time thing--you buy a ticket to the movie, watch it, and except for fanboys, usually don't purchase a second ticket, even if you enjoyed the show. Unlike consumer goods where you can reward good products by repeat purchases, and punish bad products by avoiding repeat purchases, you have no consumer power to punish or reward good movies other than the review process. Once the advertising has made you go to the theater and you've paid for your ticket, the studio has made it's money, and the quality of the actual product becomes irrelevant.

The reviewer changes that, and is thus important to many consumers/movie watchers. Reviewers who's opinions closely match those of a particular viewer will be particularly important to them in deciding where to spend their movie-going dollars.

That said, the ability of the internet to aggregate opinions decreases the volume (and thus, monetary value) of any one reviewer's voice.

Posted by seattle4ever at 7/21/08 4:47 p.m.

the people can speak for themselves and i think the professional critics are done for!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/21/08 6:36 p.m.

Only a moron could possibly suggest that film criticism is "done for". In case y'all hadn't noticed, even though Hollywood releases some gems, most of the product of the mainstream film industry is full of garbage. "Hancock", anyone? Anything made by an Adam Sandler, a Ferrely brother, or Will Ferrell might attract both teens and people who never grew up out of their teens, but most people who'd forgo hearing what a respected critic has to say before sitting two hours of crapola deserves what they get for that. Film criticism isn't dying; it's just that people are getting dumber, which explains most Hollywood product.