I loved me some Roger Ebert reviews. I know he was the famous one, so it seems like of course I'd think he was great. But honestly, I found out that I agreed with him like 80% of the time. Even when I disagreed with him, I usually understood his reasoning (even though it was wrong in that case).

Seeing him go was a big bummer. Now I'll never get another review from him to compare with. However, this documentary gives a nice sum up of how he got to be what he was. It gives you an idea of what he thought critics should be, and it also gives you an idea of how he could be kind of a dick sometimes in his stubbornness.

As you might have noticed, I like to argue my side strongly. What you may NOT have noticed though, is that I really like it when someone else argues their side right back. I think that's why I loved Siskel and Ebert so much. They both didn't give in to the other, and instead sharpened each other by having to defend their opinions even harder.

I really wish we had gotten more about Gene Siskel, how their show went in more detail, and how it transitioned into Ebert & Roeper. Sure he got his pulitzer on his own, but he got his household name from his show. Another big drawback for me is how much this focuses on his death. I want to know more about the man's career and influences than about his cancer.

That might sound bad, but when you think about it; would you want others to spend most of the time remembering your death, or your life? I'd rather you remember my life itself.