...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 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!

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 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.

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?