I dunno. A lot of the stuff he gives in his reviews is stuff that's pretty predictable from the first 15 minutes of the movie. In most cases.

But you were pimping AV Club, not starting a trash-Ebert pile-on, right?

As I've said elsewhere and in the past, movie critics are between a rock and a hard spot in that editors and readers expect a review to be a "Consumer Reports" evaluation to help make their purchasing decisions while, in contrast, a critic may want to actually be a critic in the same way that someone is a literary critic, for example. A NYT Book Review doesn't worry overmuch about providing too much plot detail, they're providing thoughtful criticism. You cannot be a critic while intentionally avoiding talking about what you're critiquing.

"Well-written" is not what you're looking for, what you want is maximal utility. Ebert is a good writer and a good critic. He is forced to be in the business of being a buying guide and he makes some concessions to that as a result, but he has not capitulated.

I'm sure, from a readership standpoint, Ebert is willing to fuck over a few ticket sales by catering to those readers who tune in just for the spoiler value.

I usually don't read reviews until after I've seen the movie. Then I read Salon, Slate, the New York Times, and sometimes Ebert. It's hard enough to not get spoiled by the trailers.

Ebert spends so much time on the bare plot details that it's usually tedious to read his reviews after I've seen the movie. That's where the Onion reviews shine. They're brief and to the point, and give exactly the amount of detail I want.

kmellis, I do expect a review to be both a buying guide and a thoughtful criticism. Ebert used to be one of my main sources, but I've drifted away in the last few years.

For anyone who missed it, here's the recent AskMe about film critics.

I no longer count Roger Ebert's opinions on movies, because he frequently gives 3 or more stars to movies that are excruciatingly bad. In my opinion, of course.

Last night we watched The Libertine. Excruciatingly bad. Ebert gave it 3 stars.