I’ll see you at the movies.

These were legendary film critic Roger Ebert’s final written words to fans before he died April 4 after a long battle with cancer. Just a day before, Ebert announced he would take a “leave of presence” and allow other critics to fill in for him.

I remember staying up late to watch Ebert’s show. By the time I really followed film criticism, he was co-hosting with Richard Roeper; their syndicated show ran Sunday nights at 11, and I would anticipate watching because even if my opinion on a movie differed from his, I knew that I could respect his point of view. Even when he called “Knowing” one of the greatest sci-fi movies he had ever seen.

Advertisement

Hey, we all get one mulligan.

Ebert made me want to become the most concise critic I could be. Even when I didn’t agree with him. Honestly, his reviews were a huge influence on my decision to enter journalism.

So the tone of those final words, the direct address of the audience, represents everything that made Ebert stand out as a film critic. He was a film critic for the masses, never throwing a film to the side because it was beneath him. While others simply would come up with the best blow they could for a subpar film, Ebert would give solid examples of why the movie was not worth your hard earned money.

It seems like that should be the main goal of a film critic, but sometimes we get so lost in the hyperbole that we forget we are providing a public service. Certainly, I’m guilty of that. But it was reading Ebert’s reviews that reminded me to bring my criticism back down to Earth. Readers are done a disservice when the only problem a critic has with a film is that it is simply too loud, because that’s often the main selling point. One must let audiences know if the explosions in “Transformers” are effective enough.

Ebert always knew films should be compared to other films within the same genre, rather than trying to compare two films that were nothing alike. While reviewing the psychological thriller “The Silence of the Lambs,” Ebert made this comment to his sparring partner Gene Siskel, who thought the movie was too trashy to be art.

“This is the movies! What did you want, a documentary? Black and white? …Why can’t you criticize it on its own terms instead of saying what it isn’t?” he said.

Ebert kept his passion for movies even after his health turned bad. The procedures Ebert had to go through ended up taking his ability to speak or eat solid food. Even so, he upped his work, tweeting almost non-stop and reviewing hundreds of films in 2012 alone. He never gave up — he never let his health deter him from his love of film. No matter what career, everyone should strive for this sort of dedication. I don’t even know if passion is a strong enough word. It’s love, plain and simple.

Advertisement*

The outpouring of love for Ebert was huge in the hours after his death. RIP Roger Ebert was trending on Twitter within minutes, and President Obama actually wrote a letter of condolence to Ebert’s widow Chaz. I highly doubt that there will ever be another film critic whose passing will be acknowledged by the nation’s highest-ranking office.

So Ebert’s work isn’t going anywhere anytime soon; it will be present in the work of the film critics he inspired. In his more than 40 years as a film critic, he sought to show people that film could be a true art form, more than simple entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. He truly believed there was magic in the movies, and he convinced me 100 percent.

And now, for good, the balcony is closed.