Pretty tough on the old boy, eh? Ebert is a sorry lot, but his work requirement undoubtedly required him to provide short, clear, intelligent and timely comments that are relevant to 300 million divergent persons weekly. His purpose was not to provide America with an on-air ‘Film Critique 101′ class. His purpose was to let a huge public audience know which of perhaps a dozen wide release films was worth watching, and more generally provide at lease some description of the film, etc. Expecting Ebert to taste like beef filet is crazy, when you know his packaging says Spam. It seems to me that the issue is not Ebert; it is the fact that such ‘low brow’ film review/critique TV shows and columns even exist. Ebert just did his job as instructed. I think your problem is he did it too well, and that the job should not have even been created in the first place. By analogy, you think that, if all beef products cannot taste like filet, they should be banned. Frankly, it is a big world out there and there are 10′s of millions that have found significant value in Ebert’s comments. It may taste like Spam, but not every has the facilities and desire to have filet all the time. Lighten up. If all reviewers set the bar so low, then I would be concerned. You comment however is almost a personal attack, when the issue is whether ‘low brow’ reviews (whether from Ebert or any one else) are useful. I think they are; you do not. Finally, I think Ebert is liberal and subject to ‘fads’ in politics and fashion. As a result, I rarely enjoy his comments and like you do not find them useful. That said, I am happy for the Spam eaters to dine, as they have to eat something!
