Actually, very few critics have ANY experience with the movie industry. Their "expert" status is mostly bullshit. Which is unlike basketball players who have to practice, practice practice.
I'm not saying all critics are bad, I'm just saying that their views (i.e. OPINIONS) are neither of greater or lesser value than my own.
Now hold on there. Are we saying that those who study analysis (be it of film, art, music, theory, philosophy, ancient texts, architecture, etc, etc, etc,) do not have perhaps a greater grasp on the subject than the layman? I don't really understand that line of thinking. I mean, if a "critic" of any subject has made a study of it I would indeed believe their opinion to have FAR more weight than the average layman. Of course that doesn't make them automatically RIGHT, but do they know more about the subject than me and possibly have insight that I might not have since I didn't spend years and years studying the form? Of course. That in no way means that they are to be given god like status but I don't understand the line of thinking that says those who have made a study of a subject don't possibly have more valuable insight than the average person. Again, it doesn't mean that if Ebert hates "
Transformers: Shit Thrown At The Screen and BOOMBOOMBOOMSPLOSIANS!" on both a critical and personal opinion level that someone else won't enjoy it or find value in it, but if we wanted to discuss the merits of the film as a FILM I'd give his thoughts more weight than someone who has a degree in architecture, sure.
The exception is of course, "critics" who actually have never studied the form they criticize nor the actual art of criticism. Then I would agree that the "expert" label is, as you said, BS. I would also tend to refer to a critic with actual film experience as far more of an expert than one who just studied it, which is part of the reason why I do give Ebert a lot of weight, he did make a film, it was horrible, but he did it.
ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ 
you
