Nobody likes a critic. Critics, they say, are simply those unable to do the things they are paid to criticize. They trash bands in reviews but can’t play a note. They rip apart books but couldn’t pen a decent line if they tried. And they take potshots at movies but are unable to create a good film on their own. Critics, in short, are on everyone’s hit list.

On top of most critic hit lists is Roger Ebert, America’s best known film critic. For some reason, among all the scores of critics out there, people REALLY hate Robert Ebert. A cursory glance at opinion online will reveal some vitriol that is truly astonishing.

On the Internet Movie Database, user The Movie Defender calls Ebert “useless,” while RPW2404 refers to him as a “pompous ass.” Both are pretty typical (and rather tame) opinions. tomhudson insists that film reviews are “nothing more than shills nowadays. Tell people the movie is crap, you don't get any more ‘previews’, so you're out of a job. Big deal - you're not doing your job if you lie (oh, silly me, lying is part of being a movie shill).”

Meanwhile, Livejournal user Poobah103 writes, “Ebert sucks ... I think Ebert likes to ride around on his little high-horse 'cause he's likes ‘intellectual movies’”

User Slink on the appropriately named AllDumb.com wonders, “Who cares what some old guy thinks of about movies?” – because her status as a flighty teenage girl endows her with wisdom, I suppose – while equally intelligent alldumb user dolo54 had this insightful comment to make about Ebert: “i guess ebert didn't receive his payola for this one. now he's pissed! ebert sucks anyway. i always liked siskel better. siskel would say shit like: "maybe you were too busy stuffing popcorn into your fat face to notice how bad that movie sucked you fat fuck!" Fellow user Moxx3, offered this assessment of Ebert’s talents: “This Guy is an Idiot. He's Given So many Good Movies, Bad Reviews. He's on My list of People I'm Gonna Kill when I get Super Powers.”

(Yes, all grammar is left intact and as posted. And yes, drawing more examples from alldumb.com would be way too easy).

Heck, acclaimed and controversial filmmaker Vincent Gallo famously cursed Ebert’s prostate, wishing it would blow up “to the size of a cantaloupe” after Ebert trashed an early cut of his most recent film, The Brown Bunny. (Gallo later retracted his statements)

Really, I could go on like this forever. It’s easy, but it’s also pointless. Like most criticism of critics, the slams on Ebert are petty, shallow and don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Yes, he is, or at least was, fat, which is really just another way of saying “easy target” (“Ha ha, he’s fat!!” Yeah, whatever). Without question, he has often torn apart films that have been wildly popular with mainstream moviegoers (which no doubt infuriates people to no end). And indeed, Ebert’s own screen credits are, shall we say, less than stellar. Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls would be an embarrassment to even the worst screenwriter).

But does any of this really matter? After all, you don’t need the ability to do something to be able to recognize why that something was or was not done well. All but the most routine plays in Major League Baseball are beyond my ability, but that doesn’t mean I can’t tell a good play from a bad. I don’t need to be able to play like Jimmy Page to judge a good riff from a bad, or have the songwriting ability of Lennon and McCartney to know a well-crafted song when I hear one. Nor do I need to be able to write the Great American Novel to know a lousy book when I read one. No reasonable person would argue with any of this. So why does a film critic need to himself be able to create a great movie in order to judge good from bad? The entire line of argument, so frequently repeated by Ebert’s critics, is, to put it bluntly, bullshit.

People hate him anyway, though. They hate him for the reason many (though in fairness, not all) critics are hated. A reason no one likes to hear. Here is the nasty little truth about Roger Ebert and many other critics that your average filmgoer really doesn’t like to admit: He knows more about films than you do.

Well, maybe not YOU – if you’re reading , you’re probably as well-informed as most critics – but certainly the average moviegoer.

Roger Ebert knows more about films than you. He’s seen more films than you. He’s better educated about films than you. He has a broader range of film experience from which to draw than you. He’s better able to express his opinions than you. He knows what he’s talking about. And you don’t.

You may not like to hear any of this. But it’s true.

Yet in truth none of that really matters. Sure, it’s important that Ebert understands the language of film, but it’s not his breadth of knowledge that makes him unworthy of your hate. It’s because despite all that, despite the depth of film knowledge he possesses, he’s just like you and me: He loves movies. Far from being an elitist snob, staring down his nose at films as entertainment and appreciating only anti-mainstream “snob” movies, Roger Ebert is a genuine fan of cinema. Always has been.

There is no better example of Ebert’s unadulterated love for film than his Great Movies essays. These essays, which he has been writing for years, are love letters to the films he respects, insightful, enthusiastic pieces that spotlight films both popular and obscure, all of them films worth watching. Reading the essays, you can’t help but feel how much he loves cinema. It’s tangible, and that love rubs off on the reader. Even better, you can’t help but learn a little while hearing about films worth seeing. The first printed collection of these essays played a big part in my quest to become a film snob.

Of course, his Great Movies essays may reinforce another anti-critic stereotype that simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, namely that Ebert is an elitist, that he loves artsy fartsy films and hates mainstream fare, picking independent films and slagging mainstream films because it makes him cool among his critic peers. The thing is, it’s simply not true. Ebert enjoys mainstream movies as well as any other – if they’re well made. There’s the catch; most recent summer “event films” have been dire, empty crap. But when entertainment is done well, he’s been more than willing to jump on board with enthusiasm. Witness his reviews of Spider-Man or The Incredibles to see he is just as able to turn off his brain and enjoy pure escapist entertainment as you or me. He just expects the same care will be put into story and characters and direction in escapist fare as would be with more “artsy” dramas. You know what? There is nothing wrong with such an expectation. It’s too bad the average filmgoer doesn’t make the same demands of Hollywood.

Look, the fact is, Roger Ebert doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s a successful, wealthy Pulitzer Prize winner with a loyal following and a great job. One guy on the Internet doesn’t make much of a difference in the waves of criticism he and other critics must live with, but then, they have probably learned to live with getting taken to task for daring to make a living by expressing their opinion. I guess what I’m saying is, when Shoegaze99 is as well known a name as Roger Ebert, my one true desire is that you’ll leave me the hell alone. I don’t handle criticism well. I might even cry.

Take your potshots at Roger Ebert in our Holla thread, linked below. And if you happen to BE Roger Ebert, you can send me a thank you note on the forum.