I too am a big fan of Mr Ebert – and i've been a bit taken back by his overt joy at just about every movie out these days. I noticed the change in tone months back when he resumed writing again. I figured that it had something to do with surviving cancer and how it would make a person less cynical and more happy to say – just enjoy a silly popcorn movie. I still think all his reviews are a joy to read and are always well though out. I admit though I miss the scathing bad reviews – since I enjoyed those most of all :)

This morning when I saw he gave "Tropic Thunder" & "Pineapple express" 3.5 stars I wondered if I was the only one who noticed. I put into google "Ebert likes everything" and came across your article. I've now added your reviews on my google homepage above eberts. I think it will be nice to have the contrast.

jleocoker said: Note: for the record, I highly enjoyed the first "Mummy" film, giving it 3/4 stars myself. Brad: just because a movie is filled with cheesy special effects or occasionally clumpy dialogue, doesn't mean the film isn't good (or worthy of more than a C-). Movies can be masterpieces (like "Million Dollar Baby" or "Citizen Kane"); but they can also be good ol' fashioned, Hollywood, entertainment (like "Indy IV," "Wedding Crashers," or "Clerks II").

That was my point of the article, or are you just reiterating what I said?

Like it or not, Mr. "Two Thumbs Up" Ebert guided me on my quest to become what is known as a "cinephile." Do I agree with all of Ebert's reviews? Not at all; however, I did discover a simple system for judging Ebert that worked. Every film that Ebert has given 4/4 stars – I agree with at least 90% of the time. Every film he gives 3.5/4 stars – I agree with at least 75% of the time.

However, on the films he gives 3/4 stars to – its always been hit or miss. So, what I'm saying is this. Ebert is a phenomenal movie critic; and will always remain a respectable member of the film community.

So, the next time you hate on the guy, try to look at his reviewing style as a whole and not based on his 3 star review for a movie that you hated. Everyone's a critic.

Note: for the record, I highly enjoyed the first "Mummy" film, giving it 3/4 stars myself. Brad: just because a movie is filled with cheesy special effects or occasionally clumpy dialogue, doesn't mean the film isn't good (or worthy of more than a C-). Movies can be masterpieces (like "Million Dollar Baby" or "Citizen Kane"); but they can also be good ol' fashioned, Hollywood, entertainment (like "Indy IV," "Wedding Crashers," or "Clerks II").

I still "respect" him, as a critic…I grew up watching him…and he helped me become a better critic and viewer. But, it seems like he's a different critic than he once was…so that leads to the same question that seems to plague Hollywood.

Is it better to go out in your prime, respected for what you've done, or is it better to burn out, and possibly ruin everything you've accomplished?

I'll still see the film and form my own opinion.
Critics can be a nice guide but in the end there's only one critic that really matters, you yourself.

And why can't you rate a popcorn film high? Just think of the emotion factor on your Personal Ranking site.