Roger Ebert is a legend. His career spans more than forty years and his review column in the Chicago Sun 
Times (which he has been writing since 1967) is currently sold to over 200 newspapers in the United States and worldwide.He has also hosted Emmy nominated TV shows, written more than fifteen books and become the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize.
Quite simply, he is one of the greatest film critics of all time and his name deserves mention in the same breath as such icons of the profession as Pauline Kael, Alexander Walker and Judith Crist.
Since 2002 he has been battling thyroid cancer, a condition which cost him the ability to speak and means that he currently relies on a computerised voice box to communicate. Through all of this he has remained dedicated to his work and continues to write reviews and essays with the same intelligence, warmth and wit that have earned him the love and respect of millions.
Vision: You review a considerable number of films every month and, as with any journalist, are constantly working towards the next deadline. Do you ever re-watch a film after you’ve submitted your review and wish you’d written it differently?
Roger: No, although I’ve changed a few opinions over a period of years. When I
revisit a film after some years, of course my perspective has changed and (I hope) improved. There are some great films I’ve watched dozens of times.
V: You champion films that perhaps haven’t achieved the success that they deserve and in 1999 you launched an annual festival with this express purpose, ‘Roger Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival’. What motivated you to do this?
R: I feel keenly that many people get no opportunity to see the films that a film critic sees. Too much good work is lost. There are whole states that don’t play some films. I wanted to create an event where audiences could share these treasures. We also show silent and 70mm films.
V: There is a lot of buzz around the recent creation of 3D cinema screens that don’t require the audience to wear glasses. What is your take on this so- called renaissance of 3D?
R: 3-D is an abomination that has died many deaths. It failed in the 1950s as a novelty, and again in the 1970s as a device to breathe new life into exhausted franchises. It even fizzled as a promising innovation in porno. Somehow, audiences didn’t find it erotic to witness the legs of The Stewardesses extending above them as they zeroed in on the money shot. In short, the process is an annoyance and a distraction.
V: You recently wrote a defence of controversial film critic Armond White, after his negative review of ‘District 9’ provoked hundreds of angry comments on (movie review site) Rotten Tomatoes. You retracted most of it the next day and concluded that he is indeed ‘a troll’. Do you often read the reviews of other film critics?
R: Yes, I like to see how some other critics related to certain films. I admire Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic and many others. I believe David Bordwell is a paragon: A brilliant academic who writes clearly and with passion; he’s to film as Dawkins is to evolution.
V: How has your experience with thyroid cancer affected the way you work? Do you think it has altered your perspectives on films?
R: I’m writing more than ever, and have started blogging. I was struck, on returning to movies after some months, at how much I enjoyed them. A good one can take us somewhere else, and that’s where I wanted to be.