I'm dead serious, he's just not good at all.

Take for example his review of Pearl Harbor :

"This American interpretation of the Japanese invasion is very respectful to the Japanese and doesn't show them as tyrants. I liked that the Japanese were perceived as doing a strategic thing and that they knew that they were awakening a sleeping giant. I am not sure if this is actually the correct portrayal of Japan during this time period but it definitely won't harm anybody today."

First of all, I had trouble finding any interpretation whatsoever. We're exposed to absolutely no background on the war or the Japanese involvment in it. Secondly, when Mr. Kish states that "it definitely won't harm anybody today," he's completely wrong. Godard said that the people who make movies write history. Well, that's true, and I'm sure the majority of people today don't want future generations believing that Pearl Harbor is an accurate portrayl.

Or how about his most recent review of Die Another Day:

"...the film opens with a thrilling hovercraft chase that pits our hero against a corrupt branch of the Korean army...This is definitely not my dad's James Bond.

(I'm inclined to conclude that Kish is somewhere between 10 and 13 years of age.)

A) It's actual North Korea. B) It's silly to refer to it as a corrupt branch of the army, because the entire government is corrupt to begin with and the writers/producers of the new Bond film simply don't want to spark any controversy.

I'm not exactly sure why the moderators of this site continue to let the Kish monoply of reviews reign, but for those of you out there who rely on Kish weekly, let me save you from yourselves:

http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html

Dean Kish: (0 of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.