"A film by Ross McElwee could be made by no other. Since his hilarious autobiographical breakthrough, Sherman's March, the profound artist-philosopher has been using his own life as a springboard to examine humankind's biggest issues, and tiniest. McElwee makes movies the way life might, ideally, be lived," said one writer for “Entertainment Weekly.” I completely DISAGREE with this critic. We all watched it, or should I say we all fought off sleep in order to stay awake and observe “Sherman’s March.” I just don’t understand how this critic could find this documentary hilarious. The only thing funny about the documentary was how pathetic Ross McElwee tried to portray his point, even his life. Then, for this critic to claim McElwee as a artist-philosopher is absolutely ridiculous. He has no philosophies; he just was trying to use his camera to catch the attention of passing females. Maybe I’m not the most artist person in the world, but I know for sure that his documentary had no artistic capability at all. After all, art is supposed to be beautiful, passionate, and meaningful. McElwee is not a beautiful person and having to watch his attempts of scoring with women is not a beautiful sight. McElwee does not have passion, or else he would have landed a permanent, or semi-serious, girl friend. Instead, all he got were a few rejections and heart-aches. And last, but certainly not least, McElwee’s film was not meaningful. It had no point. He started out trying to show the meaning behind General Sherman’s march through the South during the Civil War. Now THAT would have been a meaningful documentary. Instead, he strayed from his point and filmed himself getting rejected by many women. Like I said, he has no artistic components in his film.

"For the past twenty-five years, Ross McElwee has given new meaning and flair to first-person non-fiction cinema. Always wise and irreverent, ever the unreliable narrator, McElwee makes the grandest themes of human comedy his artistic province: love and death, chance and fate, memory and denial, the marvelous and the appalling," said one writer at the Museum of Art. Ok, let’s go through this quotation step-by-step. Love he deals with in “Sherman’s March”, but death not so much. But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe his other documentaries included death in them. Chance, ok he takes that. But it’s certainly not entertaining chance, because he can’t even ask a girl straight-out to be his girlfriend. Fate, not at all. He may believe in fate, but fate certainly doesn’t believe in him, or else “Sherman’s March” would have been a much better love story. He gives us his memories, but memory has an even bigger impact on the viewer, because we will forever be forced to remember how awful his film was. Denial can be applied to “Sherman’s march” because the whole documentary is about denial, about how McElwee keeps on believing that these women will someday fall in love with him, if he just pushes them into it enough. He doesn’t deal with the marvelous, because otherwise I would be a much happier camper when criticizing this documentary. And finally, the only appalling thing about McElwee is that someone actually thinks his documentary is worth watching over and over again. Sorry for whoever reads this, I’m really not an angry person, I just can’t stand that documentary.