QUOTE: Larsen tries to transact using the same coin, but he's not fit for it by either his work or his rep for ragging on the work of his betters.

That's just your opinion, and you sir, do not have the coin to make that transaction.

He's certainly weighed in with suggestions as to what he might have done differently, especially when he and Siskel/Roeper were on-camera and having conversations about the films they were reviewing. They'd talk about characters who were unsympathetic or not fully developed, confusing or unnecessary scenes, casting decisions that didn't seem to work... Ebert wouldn't have the time nor inclination to re-edit films to his liking, I'm sure, but Erik's apparently got enough time in any given day to dick around on the Internet, and it's much faster to slap something together in photoshop than to re-cut a film without access to multiple camera angles and raw footage.

* * *

Andrew, I think you make some interesting points here.  I don't know Ebert's style particularly well, being UK-based, and I accept that perhaps his style is further reaching than reviewers that I am familiar with.  And clearly it is easier to rework artwork than it is a feature film.  But surely there is a fundamental difference: Ebert is talking about films that have presumably just been released that actively invite (hopefully favourable) reviews and critiques.  That's how it works.  That is very different to a artist taking material from the past and, instead of simply talking about it, actively changing it, providing a commentary rubbishing the original work.  There seems to be a clear intent here that is different from the film reviewer, Ebert included with his particular analysis.