Review Analysis

In a fashion typical of Roger Ebert, his review is simple and from the heart. One might even go so far as to categorize his words as “what you're grandfather might think of this movie”. He writes about his favorite scenes, describes the direct “punch in the nose” style of detailing the issues, and even offers a gentle suggestion to our legislators and politicians as to what he believes is in the best interest of the students. He offers praise to the perseverance of Geoffrey Canada, who leads the charge in making charter schools more accessible. Ebert seems impressed by Canada's dismissal of any ideas that poor, urban student's cannot achieve success in education. While easily the most pleasant to read, Ebert doesn't highlight the weaknesses or offer any negative commentary on the film. Ebert's review – seen on rogerebert.com – is written very much as an individual who enjoyed the film and was disgruntled by its dark message. He is clearly not tied to the agenda of a larger affiliate. Ebert spends no time discussing his view on teacher's unions and charter schools, he focuses solely on the film and how it stylistically portrays the harsh realities of our current education system. He clearly recommends the film.

Denby, of The New Yorker, while still affiliated with a larger entity, gives a more middle of the road approach. While acknowledging the  shortcomings of charter schools, the review does applaud the efforts of the creators and co-stars, especially Geoffrey Canada's, noble efforts to “shake - up” the current, clearly flawed system. Interestingly enough, Denby pulls the review in another direction to focus on teachers. This was a film about the school system and the problems with bad teachers. However, the viewer cannot observe authentic teaching taking place in Waiting for Superman. Denby suggests looking further into the individual practices of good teaching, and what that really means. All – in – all, this was a fair and balanced review, quite unlike the two above, that didn't seem to sway readers into or out of seeing the film, it was just a thoughtful dialogue on what director Guggenheim had to offer.

Goldstein's piece in The Nation could not be more different from Ebert's. She does not recommend the film. She lengthily dissects the film's anti-union, pro-charter school message. Three pages are spent complaining about the hidden realities the film doesn't want viewers to see. These realities are the shortcomings of most charter schools, the influence of broken home lives on students' education, and the benefits of a strong system of unions. Much of her words ring true and are heavily backed with statistical data and research studies.