Somewhere along the line, man had lost his capacity to say "this is not my kind of movie", and emulating those staples of WGN television, began to perform a Siskel and Ebert routine. Like those two critics, they merely expressed an opinion without the benefit of in-depth knowledge of the film-making process. Almost overnight across the entire internet, the entire online population became knowledgeable about writing, acting, directing, etc. More knowledgeable, it would seem, than Hollywood itself, though in the realm of amateur film-making, most of these individuals were strangely absent. More importantly, the ability to objectively critique a movie never existed in them, and instead was replaced by an urgent need to foist one's favorite movies on others. Which is where we find ourselves now. Drowning amidst a sea of pretentious, would-be experts, who, thanks to the internet, are free to broadcast their mindless blather to all points on the globe.

Except for Ebert, most of the critics on my reading list (A.O. Scott of the New York Times, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, and David Denby of the New Yorker, among others) don't use ratings, and I tend to prefer it that way. I like going through an entire review without the distraction of, and the temptation to rely solely on, a grade. Sure, I visit Rotten Tomatoes, too. But I use it mainly as a tool to find fresh perspectives and always with the understanding that the numbers are flawed. In any event, it's much more satisfying to take in a full deconstruction of a movie and understand all of the nuances.

Man, that's a lot of work - I just watch the trailers and see if there are mostly nekkid hot chicks in the flick before I plunk down my $.