Stephen Hart raises some old, but still vexing questions with regard to the confidence we place in 'critics' -- though I believe he is referring, in the main, to 'reviewers.' Trivial? A distinction without a difference? No. Siskel and Ebert are clearly 'reviewers,' providing a service to consumers, a sort of 'consumer report.' Stanley Kaufmann, by contrast, I consider a 'critic,' for even when he 'reviews' films, he is providing a context, making connections, and expanding the discussion of the film to include other issues and concerns. In any event, Prof. Hart, whether or not a critic can "make a film" is beside the point; we trust their wealth of experience, their supposedly more refined sensibilities, their ability to make subtle distinctions and judgments which not be readily apparent to the rest of us, etc.... In this sense, critics are like connoisseurs, or the judges at a figure-skating competition. They are thought to possess subtle powers of discernment and judgment -- COMPETENCE (in the Chomskian sense), rather than skill at PERFORMANCE. We have never demanded that the judges in skating or gymnastics competitions be the best 'performers' themselves, or that umpires also be great pitchers in order to tell a ball from a strike, or that wine connoisseurs also be master vintners, or that the ability to recognize a good ale depend on being able to brew one. Really, it's a moot point. Still, why do we 'trust' certain critic/reviewers? I'd have to say 'track record,' but then, there is the irresistible WIT of Tom Shales's reviews on NPR's Morning Edition -- something Siskel and Ebert will never have. -- Derek Bouse