Who needs critics to review films based on cartoons and comics books? To have critics you need an audience that's literate.

There is no such thing as a film critic. Now everyone everywhere is agendized. The gay films, the chickflicks, the postmoderns, the movies about abused children, the documentarians, the greens and so on. That, and the fact that films are dying out. How many deconstructions of Batman do you need?

"The numbers in Lauzen's study don't trouble me as much as the pervasiveness of the idea that critics -- the last line of defense between moviegoers and studio-generated hype -- no longer matter."

This may be a loss to you, the writer and film critic, but it is not a loss to us, the public. Thanks to the internet, film criticism is now much more democratic. No longer must we read or care about the opinions of paid film critics. We do not need your protection from "studio-generated hype." How pompous. Any number of websites offer the same critiquing service, and most of us are savvy enough to figure out which websites are the most reliable or the most in line with each of our personal tastes. So, in essence, instead of relying on newspaper film critics chosen by newspaper higher-ups, we can rely on opinions of whoever we want, because these voices are now abundant on the web. The monopoly is over. Sorry.

Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, etc. are quick and convenient. Most of my movie watching is done via NetFlix which has its own reviews. What's the compelling reason for me to read reviews in the local paper?

The local paper here spread the movie critic job across several reporters. They used to list the reporters' initials with the reviews so we knew which was from Tammy, which was from Joe, etc. Now, the reviews are not credited making it difficult to know which reporter wrote it.

There used to be a smattering of film critics, like Siskel and Ebert and some well-known newspaper columnists on the West and East coasts. Today, film criticism is a dime-a-dozen profession--just visit the Rottentomatoes Web site to see what I'm talking about.

In the meantime, most of the mainstream movies these multitude of critics give their opinions on have become increasingly stupid and really not worthy of review in the first place. But to maintain their access to studio-sponsored advance and private screenings and junkets to interview celebrity stars, these many, many critics have to "like" at least some of the mostly bad films they see.

The profession has basically become creative writing for pay.

I disagree with the idea, voiced in previous letters, that the democratisation of film criticism through Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix rankings, etc, is a perfectly good development.

On the one hand, it gives the professional critics a bit of competition, which is good for us moviegoers.

But, on the other hand, a really knowledgeable critic, like Roger Ebert, who has seen more films than I'd care to, and often brings that experience to his reviews, knocks the socks off the Tomatometer or some mere bloggig film buff who's only seen as many flicks as I have.

I *will* lament the waning of professional movie criticism. Ebert's commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD is like a miniature lesson in film history. Knowing about movies isn't just a hobby for this guy; it's a full-time job. And I'm going to miss reaping the benefits of media outlets being able to employ professional movie critics full-time.

Any half drunk untalented film school drop out hack with a blog is as least as qualified as any professional. For anything.

The role of the critic never recovered from Godard. Suddenly the critic was making films. Films like Breathless which mocked HOllywood standards of continuity, soon became the standard. Specifically, directors like Martin Scorcese, and Clint Eastwood, have had a chilling effect on the female gender, the roles they have in movies, and ergo, their role as critics, because film is a self reflexive medium.

Directors like Scorcese and Eastwood are able critics and students of their art. Criticism is baked into the cake, if you will. Films become self explanatory (you can reread a page in a novel, but the image keeps moving).

As for what constitutes thought about film, outside of film, venues like TCM, where Osborne and Fisher trade insights, and critics choose their three favorite films, makes a bit more sense. Critics, like writers, must reveal themselves. The critic holds up their version of reality, to the reality on the screen, and woman's roles are generally poorer in that regard.

I remember hurrying to the school library every Tuesday afternoon so I could be the first to grab The New Yorker (though in truth my only competition was the journalism teacher). To me, The New Yorker meant one thing: Pauline Kael. I lived in the middle of nowhere and had limited opportunities to actually see movies, but I saw them vicariously through her, and earlier, through the PBS version of At the Movies. I still open my magazine and flip directly to the back, hoping for Anthony Lane.

But I can now flip to any number of film discussion sites and find wonderful writing about films any time of day. And what is more wonderful is that these places can discuss films that are actually interesting instead of the latest blockbuster atrocity. I have the same fondness for a blogger like Self-Styled Siren that I have for any professional film critic, who, like hand weavers, are simply becoming obsolete. Like the newsreel said, time marches on.

Stephanie, you are the only movie reviewer I read. I can't stand to read movie reviews by most male critics because the movie they see is not the same movie I see. I will not forget the cold and hostile reviews of "Boys On the Side". I felt as though most male movie reviewers inhabited a parallel universe, one that lacked sensitivity, feeling or attempt at understanding.

I fell in love with the Pauline Kael canon while still in high school...or was it junior high, whenever her first book ("I Lost it at the Movies") was published. She opened my eyes and mind to what movies can and should be, as more than mere entertainment (although she often praised "ordinary" flicks as well as the artier stuff). Moreover, she demonstrated that film cricism ITSELF could be an art form! Her books, mostly now out of print, have a treasured place in my bookshelf. And being such good writing, they can be re-read just like a favorite novel.

And in her wake during the 60s and 70s came other women like her, including Judith Crist, Penelope Gilliat, Molly Haskell and numerous other national and local names.

So why are there no "Paulettes" among the current crop of film reviewers? My theory:

(a) Women got "mainstreamed" into the "serious" aspects of the news business and no longer had to isolate themselves among "soft news" and arts criticism.

(b) Into the vacuum went male writers eager to follow Siskel & Ebert's examples. Just as some professions have become "feminized" over the years, movie criticism has become "masculinized."

(c) Pauline and her colleagues, both male and female, were SO good at what they did that they "spooked" the younger generation of writers who felt that they could never measure up to such standards. Enter the Internet, hospitable to any opinion however well- or poorly-expressed. (Of course this phenomenon is hardly limited to the subject at hand!)

RIP, Pauline. We shall not, I fear, see your like again.