i go to AICN a lot. it is a good source for news. But as far as reviews, i avoid Harry Knowles' critiques like the plague. the other contributors i will read and still take with a grain of salt, but Harry's reviews are so extremist. it is okay for a person to like a movie or even be blown away by it, but since his review of Sin City, i just had to ignore him. I don't care to know what he does with his hands while Jessica Alba is on screen. i don't want to know details in a sexual nature to describe how he reacts to a movie. he has done that with several movies and it takes away from his credibility. and since i got the impression he liked Speed Racer, I have to say, he is no more a critic than I am am a pilot for the Army. he's an opinionated fanboy. the other contributors on the site at least give valid, even reasonable points for their like/dislike of a movie's elements. and my other peeve is the ads for movies we see all the time. "spellbinding..." "a welcome change..." "Movie of the year..." what the ads don't tell you is the stuff that comes before and after those quotes. for example, a review could say, having my eyes cut out with a melon baller would be a "welcome change" to this abuse to the senses. The only way this will be "movie of the year" is if the world ends and cockroaches vote. i will say, that most critics are a step above my sister- her reviews make the thumbs up/down system look complicated- and her reasons for liking something are "just because" or "dunno." wouldn't ya love to see a tv ad for Get Smart like that? "Just because..." your thoughts on critics or reviews you see?