Memento is the most creatively made and brilliantly engaging film of at least the last decade.

Rating: 10/10 (6 April 2002)

SPOILER ALERT First of all, I would like to point out that I am a huge fan of Roger Ebert. His reviews are well written and enlightening about the movies that they focus on and often a lot of obscure movies that are related to the one in question, but his review of Memento is one of the most ignorant and just flat-out incorrect pieces of film criticism that I have ever read. Sure, there's a hole in the plot. If the last thing that Leonard remembers is his wife dying, then he should not technically remember that he can't form short term memories. Plot hole, yes. But who cares?! Anyone? Anyone? Me neither. Plot holes plague the Back to the Future series, one of the most entertaining trilogies ever made, left and right. In Part II, Marty McFly leaves 1985 to travel to the year 2015 to prevent his teenage son from robbing a bank and getting thrown in jail and starting that horrible chain reaction that destroys his entire family. In his review of that film, Ebert seems to have overlooked the MASSIVE plot hole that far overshadows the one that he points out in Memento  if Marty leaves 1985 and travels to 2015, there is no longer any Marty left in 1985 to grow into the 47-year-old Marty that he finds in 2015. This little revelation suggests that Ebert is either judging films on varying and unstable criteria, or he has something against someone involved in the making of Memento.
Regardless of what Ebert says, Memento is an absolutely brilliant film that engages the viewer and literally brings him or her into the mind of the main character. Ebert naively points out that the reverse plotline of the film has nothing to do with Leonard's condition, which is arguably the most foolish thing that he says in his review. Ebert has made what may be called the idiotic assumption that the reverse plotline represents the way that Leonard lives. I am finding it difficult to determine how he has managed to come to that conclusion without inserting plotlines of his own into the film, such as ones involving time travel or some other such science fiction nonsense. Memento is a dramatic thriller about a man with a severe psychological memory disorder, and the reverse plotline is there to put the audience in Leonard's shoes. He has no idea what happened before what he's doing right now, and neither do we. Are you hearing this, Roger? I suggest you watch this movie again, because you missed a LOT.
(spoilers) Another gigantic element of the plot that Ebert seems to have missed (BOTH times he saw the film), is the fact that Leonard's wife was never raped, and never killed. There is a single shot near the end of the film (I warn again, there are spoilers ahead!) that is not more than a few seconds long, that proves that she was never killed (I suppose rape is still a possibility), and also eradicates the plot hole that Ebert pointed out, that Leonard should not be able to remember his `condition' if the last thing that he remembers is his wife being killed. The shot that I am talking about is one in which Leonard is laying in bed, and his wife is laying next to him with her head on his shoulder, running her fingers over the tattoo across his chest that says `John G. raped and murdered my wife.' Are you hearing THIS, Roger? One viewing, contrary to what Ebert foolishly suggested in his review, is NOT enough for this film. Memento is one of the few films that not only invites repeat viewings, but requires them.
Confusion is not the state to be in here, not by any stretch of the imagination. Repeat viewings will remove you from that state and put you in a state of blissful enlightenment as you realize the astonishing intricacy of this film. The poignant back story about Sammy Jankis and his wife is not only powerful and moving, but relates DIRECTLY to Loenard's condition, which is yet another thing that Ebert has amazingly managed to completely miss. In Ebert's defense (because I do not intend this review of my own to be a knock against one of my otherwise favorite film critics), I can only say that maybe he latched onto some erroneous idea the first time he saw the film that clouded his cinematic vision the second time he saw it, or perhaps he was simply viewing it from the wrong perspective. I invite you all to read his review but also note that there are maybe half a dozen or so things that he says in that review that are simply wrong, and this can be easily seen just by watching this incredible film. Roger, I love your work, and I have all of your books, but in this case, it seems that YOU may be the one with the condition!'