What good is a critic who only likes things you do not?? Sure, it's great for the few people who do agree, going in for the indie lot, but for the rest of the world, Ebert and others like him make themselves pretty irrelevant since they dislike what everyone else likes.

Case in point, Roger Ebert's Top Ten of 2001:
10. Gosford Park
9. A Beautiful Mind
8. Wit
7. Innocence
6. Waking Life
5. Mullholland Drive
4. Ghost World
3. In the Bedroom
2. Black Hawk Down
1. Monsters Ball

Stop 10 people on the street and ask them what their favorite movie of 2001 was... I guarantee that most of them will not list any of the films on Ebert's list... and quite likely they won't have even heard of most of them.

Now, I'm not saying critics should pander to any particular audience, they should give good marks to whatever they actually think is good. The problem is, that most of them are totally out of touch with the rest of the world and like things that nobody else likes. The question is, why are people like this in those positions??? It's not a question of them tailoring their views to fit the masses; the question is why are critics who are so out of touch hired to review movies to begin with? It only seems to be getting worse.

I'm not saying Ebert and his ilk are TRYING to be elitist pricks, I'm saying that is just what they are. That being the case, why should anyone listen to anything they have to say? I mean, there is nothing wrong with liking that sort of stuff, but why would anyone listen to you when your tastes are so clearly different from most of the rest of the people in the world?

Everyone is never going to agree about everything, but you'd think that at least one or two films that are more universally loved (or at least known) would make Roger Ebert's list if he were at all in touch with the people he is SUPPOSED to be reviewing movies for. People would be MORE likely to take him seriously when he recommended some little indie flick, if they didn't already know that's all he really cared about anyway.

However, I should point out that I DO suspect that some critics pick their lists based on what will make them seem smart rather than on what they actually like. Not all, but you KNOW there has to be some. What do you think would happen if Ebert picked say, The Mummy Returns as his favorite film of 2001? The rest of his elitist group would jump on him like a rabid pack of dogs. Now imagine some smaller newspaper critic with absolutely no clout. Can he afford to pick something like that? Can he afford the backlash from his colleagues? Probably not. So regardless of what he actually likes, guess what will make his list?

The problem isn't with Ebert, (well maybe a little with Ebert) the problem is with the people cutting his paycheck. I think very few people pay all that much attention to critics anymore. Most people watch shows like his merely to see clips of movies they are interested in. Most people dismiss critics as elitist snobs and generally ignore what they say, because they like films exactly like what Ebert picked in his list. His list is indicative of what is wrong with most modern film critics.

I don't have a problem with Ebert having "elitist" tastes. Everyone is entitled to like whatever they like. But why should anyone who doesn't have those types of tastes listen to him? Most people LIKE the "crap" that Hollywood puts out. If they didn't, those movies wouldn't make so much money, and Ebert's picks would instead. So since Ebert clearly likes something totally different from the rest of the world, why should anyone care what he thinks?

I am not disputing whether or not Ebert's opinion is honest. I believe it is. I also am aware that there are many people out there that share his tastes. I'm sure you are aware that these people are a very small minority... this is proved by the fact that the movie's Ebert loves most make very little money and are seen by a comparatively few people.

Ebert is the #1 critic in the country because people are used to seeing him. Ebert is famous because he and Siskel came up with something new. A show where two people sit down and ARGUE about movies. At the time, it was well, different and exciting so people watched. They got used to him, and just kept watching, mostly because his was pretty much the only critic who's name everyone really knew. Siskel died. Ebert continues on and he is still the #1 critic because he has name recognition. People watch his show to see the clips he shows of upcoming movies. His opinions are irrelevant... because as the box-office clearly shows, the majority of people do not necessarily agree with him.

Yes, I know advertising dollars can get people to watch bad films, but that can only carry you so far, if the film is bad enough (Pearl Harbor) you'll make a lot of cash at first and quickly fall away, whereas if it is good, in most cases, word of mouth will raise your box-office slowly with or without advertising (Memento).

The point is that whether or not Ebert or most critics like a film has become totally meaningless because they are so totally out of step with most of the people they are reviewing films for.

Oh, they still have impact, because if Ebert gives a film a HORRIBLE review, then chances are he may be right. But if he says something is good, nobody really rushes out to see it, because frankly, most of the films he REALLY likes aren't what the general public is interested in.

The point is, I'd like to see critics who's opinions actually mean something. Critics whose HONEST opinions are at least a little closer to that of the people they are supposed to be reviewing films for. For example, if Ebert was that kind of critic, in his list that he has now, he'd have a few non-indie flicks mixed in there as well. That doesn't mean that I want critics and the general public to always agree, nor is everyone always going to agree on everything, but things could be a LITTLE closer to make critics a little more relevant.

The best part is, that everyone benefits, even the indie lovers. As it is now, it means NOTHING if Ebert likes an indie flick, because that is all he really likes. However, if Ebert is more in step with "average" people, and he recommends an indie flick, people will be more inclined to sit up and pay attention.