Radiant Ramyn vs. Roger Ebert

       There is not much comparison between me a Roger Ebert in regards to writing a review, a summary, a reflection. I guess a similarity is we both use words, but I think his make him a bit more money. His style is fairly straight forward. He touches on, what I imagine, are the personally important parts of the documentary which have stuck with him. Per the guided reflection questions, I did the same. There are a couple moments in review where it seems he is being cheeky, ("does the bathtub fill up with water when you turn on the tap?"). I think my sass to be of a more mild flavor, perhaps it may sharpen with age. I think the content of my reflection covered a similar amount of content, focusing on major plot points of the story and aspects of Balog's dedication to his project. I think his review is more in a style that might convince someone to watch Chasing Ice, whereas mine is more following a form given to me. Perhaps there'd be more similarities if I was writing without guidelines? I am not sure. To sum it up, there are some vague similarities in style and content, I don't think there are similarities in form. His review showed not only his opinions of the documentary but also which side of the matter he is on, I think I also am clearly on one side of the matter.