He wasn't "a failed screenwriter"--at least not in any significant way that would define his identity or his work. And it's not about relying on someone else's opinion to choose for me, it's about consulting an opinion I found reliable. I liked a fair number of movies he didn't like, so a negative review by Ebert was rarely enough to dissuade me from seeing a film. However, over the years, I found myself liking a film for which Ebert gave a positive review often enough to feel confident about seeing any film he liked. I amassed nearly 100 films in my collection as "blind buys" based on Ebert's positive reviews and have never been disappointed. Of course, not everyone will have the same experience with Ebert, nor should anyone expect to.
A reasonable use of the Tomatometer. I tend to ignore "the consensus" and look at a few critics I've grown to trust--in the same way as I did with Ebert. I never used to pay any attention to film reviews until I did my MA thesis on historically themed feature films. Part of my analysis was to gauge popular and critical opinion. I viewed nearly 200 films for the project and read 4 times as many reviews. That's how I came to view Ebert as a reliable indicator--if he liked it, I almost always liked it. If he didn't like it, my views were not as often in sync. But no review, good or bad, decides on whether I see a film--I reserve that choice for myself.
