Read the text and answer the questions.

(CNN) -- Roger Ebert was seldom at a loss for words. 

His debates with Gene Siskel, his longtime co-host on a succession of movie-review television shows, sometimes seemed to start before the introduction and often appeared to continue well after the credits rolled. He wrote reviews, columns, interviews and articles, an astonishing collection of work that spanned more than four decades with the Chicago Sun-Times, freelance contributions for magazines such as Esquire, CD-ROMs (Ebert's movie guide was one of the sources for the popular Cinemania) and rogerebert.com. He hosted festivals for underappreciated films. He gave running travelogues from Cannes and Toronto. 

He tweeted, Facebooked, corresponded with film lovers and held court with words long after his physical voice was silenced by cancer a decade ago. 

Ebert lost his battle with cancer Thursday. He was 70. 

What a voice he had: firm, plain, brooking no claptrap and telling you exactly what he thought, a throwback, he said, to his newspaper reporter days. (Chicago, then and now, was full of such cheerily blunt personalities: Mike Royko, Irv Kupcinet, Studs Terkel -- perhaps to be expected in the birthplace of "The Front Page.") 

Opinion: Ebert's sheer love of life 

Above all, he was easy to relate to. Like many of his readers, I didn't always agree with Ebert, but I could understand his viewpoint. He understood movies were these complex machines of directors and actors and special effects guys and studio suits holding bags of money, machines that -- when they worked -- were magical, like dreams. And when they didn't, he could be a compassionate man, more forgiving than many other critics. 

1. Who does the article feature?
2. what is he famous for?
3. how did he die?
4. Who was his cohost?
5. Could he speak?
6. For his entire life?
7. how old was he when he passed away?
8. Did he hold back on his reviews?
9. Did people usually agree with him?
10. how was he different from other critics?

Numbered answers:
1. Roger Ebert
2. movie-review
3. cancer
4. Gene Siskel
5. yes
6. no
7. 70
8. no
9. to relate
10. magical, like dreams