When it comes to movie reviews, who will critique the critics?

While watching a trailer for… When it comes to movie reviews, who will critique the critics?

While watching a trailer for upcoming Facebook flick “The Social Network,” in which quotes of praise flare up every three seconds, I was struck by a notion both revelatory and obvious: Not all critical endorsements should carry the same weight. A stamp of approval from Fox News is not the same as a thumbs-up from Roger Ebert.

In short, all critics are not equal.

With this resolution in mind, I set out to give movie reviewers a taste of their own medicine: I reviewed them. Below, you’ll find my judgments on five film pundits — conveyed, I hope, with the acumen of Leonard Maltin.

Roger Ebert/The Chicago Sun-Times: B+

Ebert possesses that most essential quality of critics: passion. Whether or not you agree with his endorsements — I know I don’t always — you have to acknowledge that Ebert’s in the right profession. And while you may furrow your brow at some of his judgments, you’d be hard-pressed to keep from giggling at his zingers.

Unfortunately, I can’t appreciate some of his play calling. Unlike most critics, Ebert seems to judge films by what they strive for, rather than whether they actually succeed. This leads him to bestow his stamp of approval upon some ambitious but truly wretched movies — see “Knowing” and “W.” Thankfully, roughly four times out of five, Ebert’s keen intellect does him, and his fans, justice.

Armond White/New York Press: D

Do you enjoy having your favorite films razed by a man who speaks of the Zeitgeist and media-savvy like a street preacher on acid? Armond White may fit your fancy.

For the rest of us, however, he’s a most unfathomable reviewer, eviscerating certifiably good films  — “District 9,” for instance — while exalting stink bombs like “Norbit.” This might be forgivable if he made judgments within a clearly defined modus operandi, but his critical philosophy remains, at best, nebulous.

Predictably, many charges have been leveled against White, from “hypocrite” to “contrarian” to today’s new Internet-ism, “troll.” More effective, however, than any name-calling was a single July article from Slant Magazine, entitled “Hating the Player, Losing the Game,” which respectfully but devastatingly deconstructs White’s scathing review of “Toy Story 3,” exposing both factual and critical/logical errors.

Peter Travers/Rolling Stone: B

There are two reasons why Travers’ blurbs appear in seemingly more trailers than any other critic’s. One — he’s a snappy writer and infinitely quotable. Two — he’s a generous critic, much like his Rolling Stone colleague David Fricke in the music department. If there’s one populist movie reviewer, it’s Travers.

Fittingly, he’s in the same camp as Ebert: impassioned, hilarious, but often quick to surrender to sentiment. More than any other prominent reviewer, Travers is a sucker for cheeky violence — see “Kick-Ass” — and popcorn-movie fun. It should be noted, however, that this doesn’t stop him from bringing the hammer down on his mortal enemy, Michael Bay — see his zero-star review of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” in many ways the antithesis of Armond White’s review.

A. O. Scott/The New York Times: A

The most levelheaded of The New York Times’ critics — on the other side of the spectrum is the blistering Manohla Dargis — Scott isn’t known for snappy one-liners or novel methods of judgment à la Roger Ebert’s thumb system, but he digs deep in the space allotted him, even when his source material is seemingly void of opportunities for insight — see “Piranha 3-D.”

Granted, Scott can sometimes be unnecessarily scathing — he seems to have little to no tolerance of “fun” movies — but in a world of humoring Eberts and Traverses, he provides some much-needed groundedness.

Andy Tybout/The Pitt News: A+

What are we to make of The Pitt News’ movie columnist, who so fearlessly delves into the heart of cinema to unearth hidden truths about ourselves, the world and the universe? Only that he’s a genius some 1,000 years ahead of modern civilization.

Tybout’s prose is an unfettered stream of brilliance — in equal parts Plato and The Notorious B.I.G. — elevating readers to new planes of existence, if only for the duration of his all-too-brief 600-700 word column. When Tybout goes, the world of film will doubtlessly follow suit.