How you wish to write and/or develop as a writer is up to you, and I have already acknowledged that my feedback might be overkill for a first-time reviewer. However, I'd like to challenge your assumptions, which I feel are flawed.
HdE said:
I won't write slick, dynamic reviews - not to the extent that you might see in the press, at any rate. I don't want to. That's because it would be running contrary to what I'm aiming to do, which is to give folks as honest and comprehensive an idea of whether they'll enjoy the material up for review or not.
This is my main point of contention. Slick, dynamic reviews in the press (the good ones) ARE honest and comprehensive. I do not understand where you got the idea that these traits are mutually exclusive. I would also like to point out that many amateur reviews such as Antagony & Ecstasy linked previously rival professional reviews in being slick, dynamic, honest, and comprehensive. Thus, writing for the press or not has nothing to do with what you wish to achieve.
PS: On the Ebert front, generally, his writing is approachable and witty, but it's mainly his knowledge that awes me. The guy has been around seemingly since the dawn of time and functions like a universal catalogue of movies. Whether or not you agree with him, which is a minor point when you're talking of the arts, it's his insights and continuing relevance that make him a master. Of course, that doesn't make him the best writer amongst reviewers. Even he admits in an inspiring blog entry (
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04 ... ritic.html), that there are amateur reviewers that make the professionals look like pawns. It's through a link in the comments section that I discovered my current favourite reviewer.
