>-- "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.

Right. But he admits it, so where's the problem?

>-- 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.

That's not what he said. Some actors and directors simply strike a chord with a human being. He doesn't say he likes them whether they're good or not-- he's admitting he's more likely to find those movies good because they relate to him.

>-- "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.

Orrrrr you admit you have these predilections and allow the viewer to choose for himself rather than attempting to hide it and write something that isn't truthful.

>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.

For me, that's exactly why I think he's the GOAT. He goes into a movie hoping to like it, and he reviews it from the POV of a man, not some uppity critic looking to drop some scathing one-liners. He still has loads of insight, even with his personal opinions, and he's never claimed to be "totally objective," because, regardless of how a critic tries, they never ever will be.

If you don't dig him, that's cool, because it's your own personal preference. That's exactly why Ebert wrote this column-- to let you know his mindset, and allow you to make your own choice. That, to me, is what film criticism should be about.