You just wrote:

At least in our country, most "critics" are really entertainment writers and gossip columnists who lack knowledge of the language and history of cinema. Fine Arts and Literature critics are much better prepared to do their jobs.

Overstated, in my opinion. You don't have to read the gossip/entertainment writers. Other print movie reviewers who deal critically with current movies usually have an good knowledge of movies and their history. Maybe not "history of cinema," whatever that may mean, but they know what influences have fed into whatever film they're reviewing and they've seen a lot of movies. Movies are popular art. We don't need writing about them, especially not the new ones, to be in the control of academics, which seems to be what you are implying, Oscar. There is a place for academic, learned film critics, but it's not in reviewing the movies that come out every week. Your generalization about fine arts and literature critics (why the caps? Is this a university department you're talking about?) are not as superior as you imply, either. They simply are dealing with a less popular art.

www.chrisknipp.com