Comparing & Contrasting Man on Wire Review

Many of us have read film reviews by Roger Ebert during his life.  If you haven't you must have been living under a rock.  If that's actually the case, then welcome to the world!  Roger Ebert was a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years.  Our reviews do share a lot of similarities, but we also have different opinions on certain aspects of the film.

In both of our reviews, we straight away acknowledge the fact that we have a fear of heights.  That fear is also what ultimately what drew us both into watching this documentary.  We are both drawn into Petit's story and in awe that he did what he set out to do: walk a high-wire between The Twin Towers.  Philipe Petit's passionate energy about the event was clear in his present day interviews and it was something we were both intrigued by.   

While we share the same reason of why we were initially drawn into the documentary, our thoughts on the movie as a whole is where we differ in opinions.  Ebert praised the use of flashbacks by saying how combined with photos and re-enactments helped to "flesh out the story."  I was more critical on the flashbacks by saying how they felt out of place and brought me out of the story.  His review includes more backstory on the event while I went straight into my opinions.  He explained exactly how they got into The World Trade Center, while I didn't go into too much detail about it.  I also spoiled the use of the bow and arrow while he was more mysterious about it by claiming if we don't already know how they did it then he won't tell us.  

Overall, we shared the same reasons of why we were drawn into the film, but our opinions of how well certain aspects were executed is where we differed in our reviews.  As a whole we both enjoyed it, but I was more critical.  Wow.  Never thought I would say I was more critical than Roger Ebert..

Here is the link for Roger Ebert's review if you are curious!: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/man-on-wire-2008