sinjin – thanks, I’ll take that advice in the spirit of helpfulness in which it was offered. 
After Ebert (who I also read after watching the movie, as he gives away too much plot – before the movie I just look at his star review and read the first and last lines of the review), my favorite critic is AO Scott of the New York Times. Only bad thing about him is that he is one of about 3 critics on the Times, so he only reviews about 1/3 of the movies coming out.
Thanks for the Berardinelli recommendation; I’d heard the name, but never read his stuff. He looks interesting; he’s got “Patton” on the number one spot of his 100 Greatest Movies list, which certainly gives him points for being different!
May I recommend MaryAnn Johansen, the Flick Filosopher. I too enjoy reading reviews after watching a movie. MaryAnn has a knack for writing my thoughts far better than I ever could - and her insights where I disagree are always worth reading.
<snerk> It’s okay, I don’t think I know anybody else IRL who’s as interested in finding out the whys of why somebody whose opinion they respect did or didn’t like the movie. My boyfriend says I’m just a slave to Roger Ebert’s opinion; he doesn’t really get why I do it. Often it’s just because Ebert articulates whatever it was I thought about the thing much better than I did.
OK, I’m backtracking on Morgenstern for now. His alliterations are killing me. In today’s review of “The Departed”, he trots out these clunkers: “deadly dangerous doubles game”; “acidulous arias of imprecation”. I think the fact that he’s also the radio review on KCRW in Los Angeles is affecting his written work – you can just feel how excited he is to read those sentences on the radio.