Easy enough to criticize someone's taste then when called on it say -- "oops, it's not my job."

It's not her job either to write based on your or anybody's taste (or lack of it).

This is a big world, Andy, takes all of us to contribute to it. I have no dispute with your taste - just your lamentable lack of respect for anyone else's. I wasn't even specifically talking to you; original post was a general missive asking people to give definite reasons - instead of hurling slurs.

Ironic then, how sensitive you appear to be when even your critcism of someone is criticized. I'd say it's quite telling - isn't it?

I simply stated that without fail she seems to dislike the movies I like. I didn't say she was a bad writer, I just said she has bad taste. Yes, it makes me think when she disagrees with 75% of other professional critics 90% of the time. It makes me think that she is going against the grain on purpose. You can't flip a coin and get tails 90% of the time on dozens of tries.

If you need a consensus to form your opinion, I don't envy you. Zacharek is a critic who makes it clear how ludicrously stupid a site like Rotten Tomatoes is. Her reviews are never "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down;" I've often seen a quote of hers on that site labeled with a "splat," when I felt the review was relatively positive.

Consider this quote about Friends with Money from Bruce Newman of the San Jose Mercury News: "I think I liked Aniston's old friends better." Now, does that actually tell me anything? I could go read Newman's full review, but what would that mean, if I've never read any of his others?

The best thing to do is find critics whose writing you find consistently engaging and worthwhile, so that you know from what angles they approach their reviews. Then you can make your own decisions from there. For me, those are Zacharek and O'Hehir. That's why I come to Salon. If you don't like their reviews, why read them? I even keep up with Roger Ebert, even though I rarely agree with him, because I've read him long enough to understand his approach. In today's blog culture, it seems, no one is willing to consider opinions that don't mirror their own.

Besides, I can't take any rating seriously if it factors in Peter Travers, the most tone-deaf reviewer I've ever seen.

I had planned on seeing this film (I dislike Bush and American idol and would love a parody), but halfway through, I changed my mind. Sorry, folks. It was a great idea to have an Arab as a contestant on the show, but I guess Hollywood can't handle one without mentioning the word "terrorist" in there somewhere. Can't they ever show a normal Arab or Muslim in a movie, one where he or she doesn't have a gun or has a terrorist buddy? Come on, Hollywood, it's 2006!

...which I hope it will, I predict that Dennis Quaid's perfomance will be regarded as the definitive "George Bush Jr." (even though the name is different) in the way that Dana Carvey's performances on SNL are now regarded as the definitive "George Bush Sr." In other words, the satirist is more like the real person than the real person is!

I just came from seeing American Dreamz, and for the most part, I understand where Stephanie is coming from. I say, what's wrong with a little pop philosophy? Why are we afraid to enjoy a movie that aspires to reach a wide audience and have some interesting insights along the way. The relationship between Hugh Grant's character and Mandy Moore's is worth the admission on it's own. That's something I can say I'm not sure I've seen before. Of course, the movie wasn't perfect, it probably wasn't funny enough in the first half for my liking, and the satire was a bit clumsy at times, but when it worked, it really worked.

As for Stephanie being outside the majority of reviewers in her tastes, well so what? Someone should be. And besides, in the case of American Dreamz, almost half of the reviewers gave it a fresh review, which means that 1 out of every 2 reviewers liked it. In my books that makes her far from being an outsider. And even if she is an outsider, in a society that is so easily swayed by popular opinion, we need to embrace reviewers who aren't afraid to have a different opinion. Just because the Tomatoemeter is at 46% doesn't mean the movie is bad, that means 46% of the reviewers liked it, and that's a large proportion of reviewers.

And to the person who complained about "z" replacing "s" in so much stuff these days, well I hate to burst your bubble of indignation, but in this case the "z" is satirical. When not even Salon readers can recognize simple satire, I fear for us.

...I can say her review is spot-on, in my opinion. It's a funny movie but kind of ham-fisted--the satire is applied with a very broad brush.

This is the first Hugh Grant performance I would ever look at twice.

Stephanie is not here to write reviews based on whether they are going to be popular or not. She's here to give her opinion as a critic. Last time I checked, that's what a critic does. We can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree.

Personally, I like her work, and I enjoy her writing. The fact that she "goes against the grain" is what makes her reviews interesting and original. It gives one something to think about.

Show some originality yourselves. Give your own reasons for liking the movie other than "it's popular". I'd certainly like to read a well-written rebuttal. That's why Steph has a job; she makes people think. However, it takes some skill to WRITE, and write well, presenting your case, doesn't it. Which is where you come in, maybe? Let's see if you've got what it takes.

It's easy to criticize someone - not so easy to make the effort and present a coherent analysis. Unless you can do so, you have no right to rip into someone's work.