I don't have the time or inclination to read every single one of Ebert's reviews much less keep flow charts categorizing them.  Generally though I do agree with what he writes about movies.  Not always, but certainly often.  He has written at least one book that I know of that was entirely devoted to bad reviews he gave to movies.  A cursory look at his website tonight revealed that he'd given thumbs down to about half the movies he'd reviewed.  There were several one and a half star reviews too.  So I don't see him as a soft touch.  He's only given X-Men Wolverine 2 stars.  X-men is the type of movie that a lot of people rave about being so amazing . . . I find it refreshing to see someone taking exception to that. 

I noticed that Ebert gave L.A. Confidential 4 stars.  I would give it 1.  It's another one of those movies that a lot of people rave about being so amazing, but I didn't like. 

If we're talking highly indulgent reviewer . . . I've always thought Leonard Maltin is too easy going . . . to the extent that if I didn't know better I'd think he was a schill for the studios.  It's sort of a feeling though.  Nothing I'd stand by and say for a fact.