I think basically you're completely right. The thing I can't reconcile into the equation is how critics get blasted for *specific* reviews by those that aren't completely ignorant of critics even if they don't read reviews religiously every weekend. When Siskel and Ebert both gave thumbs down to Independence Day, there was a LOT of discussion amongst my friends and on the newsgroups about how critics are all elitist snobs that only like independent films, and they're completely out of touch with the public (which is not the point of a critic anyway, but that's a side issue). But then, once everybody caught up to them and realized, hey, this DOES suck*, somehow the prejudice against critics remains. And when they give thumbs up to a movie like "The Fugitive" that endures, nobody notices.

The other thing is, there's a big difference between someone such as yourself *hearing* about a critic's opinion and someone who actively seeks it out by calling in on Ebert's show, or however that conversation I quoted happened. If someone takes the initiative to seek out a specific critic and ask his opinion, I would think he'd have to put *some* kind of stock in his opinion, and understanding about his taste in movies, to care enough to ask.

Not that you aren't probably basically right anyway. I just get annoyed by the misperception that critics, while they care about the art of filmmaking, don't ONLY care about the art of filmmaking. The good ones certainly know how to evaluate a movie meant as entertainment *as entertainment*. One reason why I like Ebert as a critic is because he actually puts the entertainment *above* the art -- at least as a rule. But as we both know, truth and perception frequently diverge, and ultimately it's the perception that counts.