My affections for Xgau (besides him being one of the grumpiest dudes I've ever crossed paths with) largely stems from his music reviews in the 1970s; he is probably one of the most economic writers I've ever come across and while that kind of brevity can certain come off as mega-dickish at times (look up his reviews of some Isley Bros. albums from that era), I think he provides a useful model for learning how to do more with less.
With Ebert, I really don't like his prose style; it's choppy and when he tries to pull daggers on a film or performance, it never feels like it has real bite. I don't question his influence or importance and it's not even that I disagree with his assessments. But I don't enjoy reading his writing. I find Tony Scott more thoughtful and Anthony Lane more enjoyable (especially when he goes for the jugular) when it comes to movie critics.
With Ebert, I really don't like his prose style; it's choppy and when he tries to pull daggers on a film or performance, it never feels like it has real bite. I don't question his influence or importance and it's not even that I disagree with his assessments. But I don't enjoy reading his writing. I find Tony Scott more thoughtful and Anthony Lane more enjoyable (especially when he goes for the jugular) when it comes to movie critics.
