film v movie

[LBernier at tribune.com]

"gravity at nicom.com" <Henry at palancar.com> sez:
     
     I know its kind of late to continue this thread but heregoes: Ebert 
     reviews Movies
     Siskel is supposed to be the "Film" critic
     
     Check out the body types:
     Ebert = pudgy family man
     Siskel = skinny ...

Sir, I disagree heartily!  Yes, Siskel may look the intellectual, due to 
his somewhat neurasthenic look, the kind who goes on endlessly about that 
great undiscovered Resnais,  and Ebert is the prole - fat, chomping 
ju-ju-bees while watching the latest "they blowed up REAL good" flick du 
jour, but . . .

look closer . . .

and do NOT judge by appearance alone.

The truth is, Siskel wouldn't know a "FILUM" if one bit him in the ass, and 
Roger, despite having penned "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (or maybe 
because of it) is the real critic, publishing his not-for-newspaper bona 
fide criticism in the journals.

Jean