Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

asc85 From what I read, it was important to Roger Ebert for the film to show how he looked at the very end. It is definitely difficult and uncomfortable to watch, but that is of course why Ebert insisted that it be included. The problem for me was that they just kept going back to it again and again, and after a certain point, it seemed gratuitous and unnecessary. Yes, it is tough to watch him like that, and I didn't need to be reminded of that throughout the entire movie (it is interspersed with a mostly linear story of Ebert's life and career).I thought the best moments were what was shown during the "Siskel and Ebert" years...maybe someone should make a documentary just about that! There are so many laudatory reviews on IMDb that I felt I should provide a different perspective. It was by no means terrible, but not at all deserving of all the hype it has received.

tavm Just got through watching this documentary of Roger Ebert's life and career on Netflix disc. Covering his beat at the Chicago Sun-Times, his TV appearances with rival Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel, and his final days incapacitated by health concerns with his wife Chaz by his side every step of the way, one gets touched by his determination-and sometimes dread-at what he went through and also how he always kept his sense of humor throughout all the ordeals. I suppose one could feel a little disappointed at no interview of the late Siskel's replacement, Richard Roeper, or even a mention of him but what is included should certainly be enough for anyone interested in the way Ebert lived. Anyway, anyone wanting to know more about this fascinating man's life should probably check out his memoir with the same title as this movie. So on that note, I highly recommend Life Itself.

bruce-129 For me this movie gets a 10/10 for being about "life itself".Yes, this movie is so, so hard to watch, especially since my thoughts and feelings about Roger Ebert have changed so much over the years.When the PBS show "Sneak Previews" began I watched as much as I could. I loved the show and seemed to agree more with Roger than Gene who I thought was callous and kind of cold, although occasionally on some movies the feeling reversed and I sided with Gene and felt that Roger was a big to soft and sappy.Then sadly Gene died, and Roger was left alone with a series of other people or different shows. I can still think of the theme song to "Sneak Previews" and I really appreciated that show and learned about so many movies and things in life that I never thought of or knew existed, particularly documentaries and foreign movies.Over the years I am not sure what happened but I started to feel that to make a living Roger had to sell the movies he reviewed. He was occasionally allowed to pan one or two movies, but there were a few movies that I thought he gave a 5 to, such as the Pirates of the Caribbean, that made me sick to my stomach. After seeing so many good things from this man to see him reduced to the relentless positivism that nauseates me so these days ... I just could not watch him anymore.Years went by, and now I heard that Roger was sick, and seeing him and what he had to live with in his last years just brings tears to my eyes. This is a true exploitation film, but he is right, it shows us something we do not see very often. I feel so sorry for Roger, and the compromises he made in his life, and what he ended up with.The movie is good in that it tells us about the good stuff Roger did in his life, his trials and tribulations, his triumphs and failures ... really about life itself. Roger lived a good life. I don't know I can say that I liked him or admired him, but there is a little bit of all that and some respect, but mostly thanks for the good parts of him that were transmitted through PBS, the media and the Internet to me so I could learn and grow, so how could I not be thankful and grateful and respectful of that.Here is a guy I would never have known in a million years who had a real personal, and yet non-toxic effect on my life and I am sure many others. There is a lot to be admired and respected in that, even if he was hard to work with or did write softballs reviews in his waning years.I'm sorry Roger is gone, and I feel terrible that he had to go through all of that. I know I would not want to, and probably could not afford to anyway. Thanks Rog. 10/10.

Neddy Merrill The documentary reasons that Ebert's enthusiasm for wanting the painful and explicit procedures he daily endures following the loss of his lower jaw comes from long-time colleague Gene Siskel's withholding of his own brain cancer from Roger. To be sure the procedures make this a challenging documentary to watch and arguably take away from the life the movie intends to document. While we do get some of the biography presented in Ebert's book segmented as he did by chapters devoted to those closest to him, much of the detail is missing. This choice makes for a major distraction from Ebert's contribution. However, unlike the book, the movie tells us some of Siskel's background and kindles some interest in learning more about him. When will that bio debut? In short, the fascinating "Zelig"-like life of Ebert shines through despite the narrative choices.