I am going to attempt something that many have tried and failed to communicate to people for the purpose of arriving at a reasonable understanding for years. It’s mainly been attempted by persons defending their own personal profession and therefore really only speaks to those who have already been listening all along. In that sense this will be no different. However, I haven’t quite yet seen (though, I haven’t quite yet looked either) an explanation from the one side being attacked that says, in more words, “this is really who we are.”

Why? For the same reason we get dismissive of the lump assumption that all are one. This may not be what is always done in every case, but I don’t really think I’m going to over-generalize anything I will soon say. I will admittedly assume, though, that generally speaking I think this analysis of one side brought upon because of a somewhat popular perception from the other side typically holds true.

These are those perceptions:

Critics don’t like what the general public likes

Critics are irrelevant

Critics are self-absorbed

Critics are biased

Critics. Hate. Movies….and life…because they’re bitter they’re not talented enough to make movies themselves so their only pleasure is to tear down the works of those who successfully accomplished what they never could.

At The Movies is dead. Kevin Smith wants film criticism to be done via Twitter. Where do you stand?

Don’t call it a comeback, Mr. Ebert has been doing this ole’ thing for years. After taking almost two full years off from being a full time movie critic, the legendary Roger Ebert has said that he will get back to writing reviews at the end of April.

Notoriety is a funny thing. Peter Hammond’s claim to fame is that he liked, or pretended to like, a lot of bad films.