Jared Egol 1 hour ago ·  I would often read Roger Ebert's review on my phone while I watched the movie on DVD. He introduced me to the Criterion Collection, and helped me find a passion for film after my father died and I inherited his vast movie collection- a passion that I didn't necessarily have while in film school. He made me enjoy reading and writing film essays, sometimes more than the films themselves. He was one of the few mainstream critics outside of Pauline Kael who never struck me as being about "paralysis by analysis." He was thorough, consistent and real, a product of the Second City at its finest measure of ethic and ethos. After select professors and my father, he was the most influential cinema person in my life. He was a damned fine writer, often secondarily profound in the service of what he was reviewing. I often hated what he had to say, but came to respect his inconsistencies as a symptom of his volume. He waxed nothing but himself, was rarely idle, and whatever he wrote he seemed to adduce from his life, which was under more review than the Reel on his blog. He was not God, was annoying in his doomsday posts, and made a lot of money all of the time. I am certain that today's horrible downpour is his immediate action against us for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. RIP

Jared, that is a great commentary as you are right: Ebert wasn't a saint. He could be inconsistent. He was prone to Tweet rants, although I tended to agree with his politics. But something you note is really important: He WAS a "damned fine writer." Not only prolific, but articulate. More often than not, he hit that balance point of thoughtfulness, yet also analyzing movies on an emotional level. Some critics can go off on intellectual flights of fancy or get caught up in their analysis and theories. Hell, I do that from time to time. But Ebert was pretty consistent in making sure to bring in the emotional and psychological aspect of watching a movie, and I always appreciated that in his critiques. Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

While only Pauline Kael was greater, Roger's criticism was far more accessible and his influence on audiences more profound. Unlike Pauline and many of his contemporaries, he always understood that it's an inherently noble calling to make a film that allows someone to forget his troubles for the duration, and that a movie's primary goal is to entertain rather than to stand as a piece of art. But it didn't stop him from championing those movies he felt needed support or attention. Those sentiments gave him an everyman touch, as if a movie review was written by the guy with a beer at the far end of the bar, and made him a reliable barometer of taste. He made it simple, and I always felt that if he gave a thumbs up to a film, there'd be something in it for me to enjoy. In the end, whether you agreed with him or not, the fact that he was working right up to the very end tells everything you need to know about this man's love of film and his commitment to it. He is already missed.

This is a wonderful tribute. I was very saddened today. He was too young to die. He really wrote terrific reviews, which were consistently good. I have never found a reviewer I agreed with more or one who was so free from pretension. He had great taste, he really loved movies, and he wrote clear and lucid prose. This is a big loss for movie lovers.

He was my favorite living writer. I definitely agreed with him more than Gene, like you. I was a kid when At the Movies was on and never missed the show. The show was basically my film education and I continued to watch it with Roeper too. (I like Roeper a lot also - though he didn't have the old married couple chemistry with Ebert that Siskel had.) Ebert had a great life! And that's to be celebrated.

Christina, a good reminder amidst the loss folks are feeling to remember Ebert lived a great life. I saw him at the Sundance Film Festival and he just loved that place. Also, too, he won a New Yorker Comic Caption Contest last year after years of trying, so he was able to scratch that off his bucket list.

I'm happy he finally won the New Yorker Comic Caption Contest. It was a good lesson to watch this very successful man struggle with a sort of silly goal and not give up! It shows the type of persistence he had in his character. I've thought about him nonstop since I heard of his passing and I finally figured out why he was so beloved as a critic. It's because when you read one of his reviews, you weren't just getting his opinion about a movie, but rather a mini-essay about human nature by a very wise person. His review of 13 Conversations About One Thing has been forever etched in my mind. The last two paragraphs: "The film was directed by Jill Sprecher and written with her sister, Karen. It's their second, after "Clockwatchers" (1997), the lacerating, funny story about temporary workers in an office and their strategies to prove they exist in a world that is utterly indifferent to them. After these two movies, there aren't many filmmakers whose next film I anticipate more eagerly. They're onto something. They're using films to demonstrate something to us. Movies tell narratives, and the purpose of narrative is to arrange events in an order that seems to make sense and end correctly. The Sprechers are telling us if we believe in these narratives, we're only fooling ourselves. And yet, even so, there is a way to find happiness. That is to be curious about all of the interlocking events that add up to our lives. To notice connections. To be amused or perhaps frightened by the ways things work out. If the universe is indifferent, what a consolation that we are not." You can read the whole review here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020614/REVIEWS/206140301/1023 I feel today the same way I did Jerry Garcia died. So glad I was around to be a part of his audience.

Thanks for that, Christina. I swear I don't think I've seen such an explosion of tweets in the screenwriting twitterverse since Steve Jobs died. And I think you're right: "you weren’t just getting his opinion about a movie, but rather a mini-essay about human nature by a very wise person."

Man, I was really bummed to hear about his passing yesterday. That was quick. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert as a little kid with my mom and feeling so grown-up because it was an adult show I could sit through (I was born in the last hot second of '76 so I was fairly young). I'm certain that's where my fascination with dissecting movies began- I blame them for not being able to watch a movie without judging and critiquing every element. Ha! I might have been too young to get all the snark and barbs, but I could tell there was a verbal tennis match going on, and I distinctly remember the chemistry they had with each other (and the audience) despite how completely different they were. I absolutely loathe reading reviews these days, but I knew I could count on his being honest and insightful even if I didn't agree with him. Going back and reading about him is fascinating... I never knew all that about him. Here's another link that has some quotes from others: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/03/siskel_and_ebert_an_oral_history_.html and this one that has all their barbs :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bLVObNbyaQQ

"you know that for Gene, speech is a second language?" HAHA!