I think especially with amateur online film writers or bloggers, there's a lot of posturing and groupthink going on.

Whenever I read someone write some shit like "I'm not quite sure what the fuck I just saw, but I know I liked it" (which happens quite a bit, actually) a huge red flag goes up. Sure, it's possible to like something without knowing exactly why, but if you're an aspiring film writer, you should be able to articulate your reaction to a film a little more clearly than that.

One minor disagreement though is that I still think there was a certain amount of groupthink even back in the pre-internet days too. Back then, critics attended screenings with other critics and discussed stuff amongst themselves before writing their reviews, plus the festivals still created buzz and could lead to critical consensus well before movies were actually released. Plus, I think directors reputations have always been a big factor in the way people receive movies. (Which is what you feel is the case with someone like QT nowadays.)

That was the beauty of Ebert for me though, too - he never seemed scared to go against popular opinion (such as panning some of the early David Lynch stuff that had a lot of buzz, or even this year giving a lukewarm reviews to The Master and Zero Dark Thirty when a lot of critics, especially online ones, were drinking them up). He doesn't necessarily do it often, but you at least know that when you read Ebert he's giving you his honest opinion.