love these letters-to-the-Chon in re: Mick...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/19/MVJQ186AR1.DTL
not the last one. Ebert & LaSalle in the same breath!? Ebert would be a great writer in any medium, he just happened to be a film buff. Mick? Not so much.
His writing is pretty straightforward and plain, which I appreciate, but Ebert, for example, seems like a better writer.
I used to hate Mick's reviews. It seemed most of what he liked I hated and vise versa. Lately, though, I've found myself agreeing with his opinion more than before. Perhaps it's b/c I don't see that many first release movies and I just hit an extended streak that gibes with his opinions, maybe there's something in the building (we work in the same building -- although he also works in screening rooms more than I me, dangit.). Maybe my opinions have been colored by reading his opinions before I see he movie, which is why I generally avoid reviews before I see a movie. I usually seek them out afterwards. But if I see something like the Critical Consensus, I will usually scan it, and notice esp what's at top and bottom, and I do think those aggregated critics' ratings do affect my choices.
Mick's area of expertise is early cinema, specifically the pre-code era -- I believe he's written books on that subject. Not many pre-code movies being released these days though --