The Enduring Legacy of Roger Ebert: Why His Reviews Still Define Film Criticism

In an age where anyone with an internet connection can publish their opinion on the latest blockbuster, the voice of a true critic has become both more valuable and more difficult to discern. No figure looms larger in the landscape of film criticism than Roger Ebert, whose career spanned nearly five decades and whose influence continues to shape how we watch, discuss, and appreciate movies. His reviews were never simply consumer reports or academic dissertations; they were impassioned conversations about the human condition, written with clarity, wit, and an unmistakable warmth that made readers feel like they were discovering cinema alongside a trusted friend. Understanding what made Ebert’s criticism so unique—and why it remains the gold standard—requires exploring his journey from newspaper journalist to cultural icon, his distinctive critical philosophy, and the enduring power of his written word.

The Making of a Critic: From Chicago to the Pulitzer

Roger Ebert’s path to becoming America’s most beloved film critic was forged in the heart of the Midwest, where his accessible, unpretentious style first took root . Born in Urbana, Illinois in 1942, Ebert began his journalism career as a teenager, writing sports for the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette before serving as editor of the University of Illinois’s Daily Illini . After graduating with a degree in journalism in 1964, he briefly pursued graduate studies at the University of Chicago before accepting a position at the Chicago Sun-Times in 1967—the same year he was named the paper’s chief film critic, a role he would hold for more than forty years .

What set Ebert apart from his peers was not merely his prolific output—he reviewed films at a remarkably steady and rapid rate throughout his career —but his ability to write criticism that resonated with both casual moviegoers and serious cinephiles. He achieved something rare in the field: he was respected by his peers while remaining accessible to the general public . This balance earned him journalism’s Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1975, making him the first film critic to receive that honor . His subsequent success on television, co-hosting Sneak Previews and later Siskel & Ebert at the Movies with fellow Chicago critic Gene Siskel, elevated him to a level of fame previously unknown for film critics, granting him a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the kind of public recognition usually reserved for the filmmakers he covered .

A Voice of Clarity and Humanity

The true power of Ebert’s reviews lies not in their celebrity, however, but in their substance. His writing style has been described as humble, accessible, discursive, and immediate—characteristics that made his criticism feel less like a lecture and more like a conversation with an insightful friend . This approach was a conscious departure from the more Olympian, gimlet-eyed intellectualism of critics like Pauline Kael, whose prose could sometimes feel daunting to the average reader . Instead of alienating readers with academic jargon, Ebert empowered them, making his readers feel that they too could engage meaningfully with cinema . He was, as one commentator observed, “an intellectual by trade but a populist at heart,” an artist of wit and imagination who never forgot that movies were, at their core, a form of storytelling meant to be shared and enjoyed .

This populist sensibility did not mean Ebert was a simple cheerleader for Hollywood. He was famous for his sharp pans, collecting some of his most merciless takedowns in books with titles like I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie . Yet even in his harshest critiques, his love for the medium itself was always palpable. He approached films with a seriousness commensurate with their ambition, able to shift effortlessly between evaluating movies as entertainment and engaging with them as profound works of art . This flexibility made him a reliable guide, someone you could trust whether you were looking for a summer blockbuster or a challenging art-house film . Ebert famously described movies as “empathy machines,” and his criticism operated on the same principle—he used film as a vehicle to explore and expand human understanding, examining not just the technical craft of filmmaking but the emotional and moral truths it revealed .

The Power of Prolific Writing

While Ebert’s television appearances made him a household name, his most lasting contribution is undoubtedly his written work. He understood that criticism was not about delivering a simple verdict—a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”—but about engaging in a deeper conversation about the art and meaning of cinema . This is perhaps why his legacy has proven so durable in the digital age. Even as the landscape of film criticism fragmented with the rise of blogs and social media, Ebert embraced the internet, becoming a prolific presence online and writing more in his final years than at any previous point in his career .

His “Great Movies” series, which began as a collection of essays on films he considered worthy of the title, stands as a monumental achievement in film writing . These essays, later published in four volumes, range from silent-era classics to contemporary masterpieces, and they demonstrate the full range of his critical acumen . In these pieces, Ebert offers more than just informed appraisals; he provides background on the films’ making and significance, making them rewarding for film buffs while serving as ideal introductions for first-time viewers . His essay on Casablanca, for example, moves beyond plot summary to explore the film’s moral complexity, describing its characters not as heroes but as “realists, pragmatists, survivors” whose eventual heroism is so moving precisely because it contradicts their established nature . It is this kind of insight—the ability to illuminate why a film matters on a human level—that makes his criticism so enduringly valuable.

Why Ebert Matters More Than Ever

In the current media environment, where social media has “flattened the terrain” and made it harder for critical voices to be heard above the noise, Ebert’s example is more instructive than ever . The democratization of the web has given everyone a platform, but it has also made expertise harder to find and trust . Ebert’s career demonstrates that rigorous, thoughtful criticism can find a mass audience without sacrificing integrity. He showed that it is possible to be both a serious critic and a popular one, to hold films to high standards while remaining open to their pleasures.

His influence extends beyond his own writing; he inspired a generation of critics who saw in his example the possibility of a career dedicated to passionate, intelligent film discussion . He also opened the door for the many film lovers who now write reviews online, proving that criticism is not the exclusive domain of academics but a democratic pursuit open to anyone who loves cinema and can write about it with conviction . However, what many imitators miss is the depth of knowledge and the force of personality that underpinned Ebert’s work. It was not just his opinions but the way he expressed them—with clarity, humanity, and an unwavering faith in the power of movies to connect us to one another—that made his reviews so special . In an era of hot takes and algorithmic content, Roger Ebert’s writing remains a masterclass in how to think, feel, and speak about the movies that move us.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What made Roger Ebert’s reviews different from other film critics?
Ebert’s reviews stood out for their accessibility, humanity, and populist sensibility . He avoided the intellectual jargon of some contemporaries and wrote in a clear, conversational style that made readers feel included in the conversation . He was equally comfortable discussing Hollywood blockbusters and art-house films, bringing the same seriousness to both, and he famously described movies as “empathy machines,” using criticism to explore their emotional and moral dimensions .

When did Roger Ebert win the Pulitzer Prize?
Roger Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1975, becoming the first film critic to receive this honor . The award recognized his work at the Chicago Sun-Times, where he served as chief film critic for over four decades .

What were Roger Ebert’s favorite movies?
Ebert named a “best film” of the year every year from 1967 to 2012 . His favorites included Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Godfather (1972), Nashville (1975), Apocalypse Now (1979), GoodFellas (1990), and Hoop Dreams (1994) . He also wrote extensively about “Great Movies” in a series of essays, covering films from Casablanca to Spirited Away .

How did Roger Ebert influence film criticism as a whole?
Ebert helped bring film criticism to the widest possible audience through his syndicated newspaper reviews and his popular television show with Gene Siskel . He established a template for film writing that was both rigorous and accessible, inspiring countless aspiring critics . He also embraced the internet late in his career, becoming a prolific presence online and demonstrating how criticism could adapt to the digital age .

What is the “Great Movies” series?
The “Great Movies” series is a collection of essays by Roger Ebert on films he considered truly great, ranging from the silent era to the present . These essays offer in-depth analyses and appreciations, providing background on the films’ making and significance . They were later published in four volumes, with the final collection appearing after his death .

Where can I read Roger Ebert’s reviews today?
Roger Ebert’s reviews and essays remain available online at his official website, RogerEbert.com, which continues to operate and features new criticism from other writers. Many of his reviews are also archived on the Chicago Sun-Times website and various film databases. His collected essays, including the “Great Movies” series, are available in book form from the University of Chicago Press and other publishers .