-- "1. I like movies too much."

OK, so he admits that he likes movies more than the average person which would shade his judgement to the positive.

-- 2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find myself vibrating with.
-- 3. I feel strongly about actors I admire, watching their ups and downs and struggles to work in a system that often sees them only as meat.

So basically, he rides for directors and actors he likes and just enjoys seeing them, regardless of whether the movie was good or not. The question is: if actors he admired were in Sex and the City, would he have liked it more? I think he would have and, to me, that's a problem.

-- "5. I have sympathy for genres, film noir in particular. I am almost capable of liking a movie simply for its b&w noir photography. I like science fiction. Ed Harris has a new Western coming out named "Appaloosa." I'll like it more than the Metacritic average. You wait and see."

I already saw and Appaloosa is a perfect example of a film that gets reviews for the pedigree more than the actual product. Liking certain genres more isn't something to brag about, it's something to guard against when printing your reviews so that the reader will know your prejudices.

I agree with #6 and #7 although I don't think Ebert always admits it in his reviews.

In the end, what he said is exactly why I don't read his reviews. They come from a very personal place and usually don't tell me whether or not the film is good or something I should spend my money on.