That's three solidly written reviews from Stephanie Zacharek. I might not agree with some of her opinions, and I'm not always that interested in the mainstream fare that seem to be her primary beat, but there's no denying she pens highly readable reviews.

and it's also exactly the sort of movie that all her detractors claim she can't understand and never likes.

Let's see if I have this straight:

Stephanie Zacharek has nothing but high praise for this, Hollywood's two-hundredth release this year of a fart-joke, 7th grade-level slacker movie done in the same vein as the insufferable 'Knocked Up'.

We have reached the point in which our critics now argue WHICH masturbation jokes work well and which ones do not.

The same Stephanie Zacharek will snarlingly tear into a film like 'Doubt', with nothing but contempt for its writing and for Meryl Streep's performance.

I just have little trust left for this critic's judgement. Maybe my own cynicism is the result of classroom burnout, i.e. too much futile time and effort spent trying to get vocational high school students to recognize quality in books and film.

But if Ms. Zacharek's bar for criticism has been set so low, who is the more cynical one here? Is it any wonder the U.S. has become so culturally impoverished?

So I assume you went out and saw The Hangover during a sneak preview? I ask because I hope you wouldn't be teaching your students to judge the quality of a work before they've even viewed it.

As for the movie itself, I had my doubts when I saw the media saturation the advertisers are going with - that's rarely a good sign. But the reviews are solid. Interesting.

'Zach Galifianakis pronounces the word "retard" with the accent on "tard," as if it were a French seafood dish.'

OR a musical term for slowing down of tempo over one or a few bars more precisely.

But, never mind that, get your sister some help.

Point well taken. But our critics are the ones who should be watching the sneak previews so I don't have to. What I WOULD want students to know is that critics exist to be our eyes and ears and to give us a heads up as to what will be worth our time and what won't.

And when I see a critic here telling us that the 'Doubt's' being released are not worth our time but that the latest 40-year-old virgin/slacker/clerk/something about mary/knocked up is a hilarious must-see, I can't really trust this person's judgement anymore. Just my opinion, that's all.

Salon has posted O'Hehir's review of 'Road Trip' just below - I would point out the contrast to today's review of 'The Hangover'.

... but what is this drivel about Steph Zacharek being "good" or "bad" or the like?

I figure, if the review is thoughtful and well-written, it will tell me what the reviewer thought of the film. That's all I want; I don't care as much if the reviewers opinion matches mine.

When I lived in Chicago, in the mid-80's, my movie-critic-strategy was this:

I had Siskel and Ebert in the local newspapers: the Trib and the Sun-Times. If they agreed on a movie (and liked it), I saw that movie, even if I would not normally see it, because something in the film would be interesting to me. (If they disagreed, well, I usually agreed more with Gene than Roger.)

I saw "Once Upon a Time in America" (twice, for once for the re-edit) and "Risky Business", in 1984 and 1983, respectively, with this strategy. Both are first-rate films, neither would've been on my list without the join four-star reviews from "the boys from Chicago".

Steph's review is enough to convince me that this film is a fine version of this sorta movie. Anything that compares to Preston Sturges work is worth my viewing.

Do you think it's physically impossible for a movie like this to be good, and thus any reviewer who says one of these movies is good must be discounted?

You say we trust reviewers to be our eyes and ears, but then you say this reviewer can't be trusted because she reviewed a movie (that she HAS seen) in a way that you don't like, even though you HAVEN'T seen it. In this case, reviewers don't actually have any value, because you won't trust them unless they agree with your preconceived notions of a film. And even then, why does it matter? You've already reviewed this film and said it's not worth seeing. Why even read a review?

We may not like a certain genre - and I don't generally like this genre myself - but that doesn't mean none of the films in that genre have any merit, and it especially doesn't mean there can't be "good" and "bad" movies within it. I don't like country music, but I can certainly appreciate the difference between Johnny Cash and Billy Ray Cyrus.

I just think you're being unfair, casting aspersions on either the reviewer or this film in particular because you don't care for the genre.

Just because "Doubt" is a serious movie about controversial topics with Big actors doesn't make it intrinsically better than a movie like "The Hangover." For Zacharek to like one and not the other does not make her unworthy of trust as a movie reviewer. Quite the opposite in fact. She realizes that each movie stands on its own merits within the style or genre to which it is suited. "Doubt" may be a more Important movie than "The Hangover," but that doesn't mean it isn't a failure within it's genre. I found it predictable and heavy-handed. Zacharek has proven to me time and again that she is capable of understanding the difference between being entertained and being lectured. "The Hangover" can be entertaining without having to compete in the Oscar derby. "Doubt" can be a thorough bore yet still garner attention because of the cast and subject.

Steph has shown many times that she can appreciate a "screwball" comedy for what it is.

It's the Sci-Fi/Superhero movies that she holds in utter contempt – judging and fudging along the way.

Try to keep up, buddy.