User Reviews

Documentary about film criticism. It follows it from the days of silent cinema to the present. We're shown or told about the most influential film critics ever. Most memorable are Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris and their debates through reviews. It also makes it clear that film critics are now being phased out left and right. The Internet has taken over. Many papers and magazines either cut down on their movie review staff or deleted them all together. It makes you wonder where will the next film critics come from and what they will be like. It's good and interesting but somewhat slapdash in execution. Scenes seem to wander all over the place and sometimes it gets WAY too intelligent for its own good (the auteur theory explained is all over the place). It's not a bad movie--just a good one. The director seems to lack a clear point of view and I wasn't sure what exactly he was trying to get at. Some of the commentary by critics is amusing and the clips from old movies are always welcome...but this left me kind of cold. I give it a 7.

I love this examination of the rise and fall of the professional film critic... while today we have Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael and A. O. Scott, in the beginning this was just not so. This documentary shows how the critics (notably Frank Woods) pushed how film was more "subdued" in its acting than theater and how Pauline Kael helped get Martin Scorsese noticed.

I loved the bit on "Two Thousand Maniacs" from Elvis Mitchell, which briefly touched on the b-movie sensibility. Indeed, not all films can be reviewed by the same meter.

I also liked how they used "Amelie" as a example of difference, with one critic loving it and another saying it was nothing but a "cartoon" with "no human dimensions". This is quite the difference.

And, of course, one much touch on the effect of the Internet Movie Database and the Internet in general on film criticism. Is it democracy on the rise, or a race to the bottom? I can see it both ways.

I don't know why so many people have been critical of this production. If Gerald Peary hasn't put together a masterpiece, he's at least delivered a documentary history of film criticism, full of talking heads and clips from the films themselves, that is both entertaining and informative.

The two most engaging points, I thought, were the feud between Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. I won't get into the substance of the conflict. Kael was a splendid writer who knew how to structure an essay, but, as a personality, she comes in second -- bitchy and manipulative -- while Sarris seems generous and forgiving.

The other observation was that print criticism by professionals is fast disappearing, along with the media that were their conduits to the public. Experienced reviewers cost money. It's easier to replace them with red hots who will work for coolie wages. Furthermore, nobody reads newspapers or magazines anymore. Everyone is on the internet. (Even Gerald Peary.) If you want to write a movie review, you can do so, even if you can't spell your own name. I expect this reflects a general degradation of our arts.

I'll give an example of what I mean by that last Olympian generalization. In, I think, 1968, Stanley Kauffmann was teaching film studies at Columbia. He had just shown Otto Preminger's "Joan of Arc" and asked for responses. Man, did he get them, and they were sophisticated too, comparing Preminger to Carl Dreyer's silent "The Passion of Joan of Arc," commenting on the evolving historical and regional images of Joan of Arc, drawing from Shakespeare, who portrayed her as a villain, and so forth. Kauffmann was inspired to write an essay, "The Film Generation", predicting that in another twenty or so years everyone would be as familiar with historical films as they were with classic novels. Twenty years later he wrote another essay, correcting himself. Students were dumber than ever. Not only couldn't they compare Dreyer to Preminger, they had to stretch for Joan of Arc. (My students were unable to identify my peerless impression of Jimmy Cagney.)

Peary doesn't blame the internet entirely, and neither would I, but a general deterioration of our intellectual curiosity -- our willingness to face any kind of challenging material -- just seems so obvious. We elect governors because they've been stars of mindless movies and presidents because we'd like to have a beer with them. "Belles lettres? Think I'll pass on that. I'll have another chili dog, and a Bud for my main man here." And I suppose it's becoming excessive to ask that an indefinite article and a common noun be separate words -- "a lot" rather than "alot." And that "losing" shouldn't be spelled "loosing." On top of all that, today's youngsters are promiscuous, by cracky. Well, don't get me started. I get all excited, my pince-nez falls off.

Among the ranks of talking heads, I sort of missed John Simon. Of course he's retired now but there ought to be footage of him around somewhere and he was by far the most savage of critics from the 70s and 80s. Who else, of the Maysles brother's "Gimme Shelter," featuring the Rolling Stones, could write: "Here we are, hungry for bread and the director gives us stones"? At any rate, I enjoyed this documentary and would recommend it to just about anyone with an interest in movies -- and to anyone under the age of 30, with or without that interest, because it will all be news to them.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (2009)

*** (out of 4)

Somewhat uneven but entertaining documentary taking a look at film critics from the past to the present. The documentary from director Gerald Perry actually features plenty of interviews with actual critics, which is a major plus as they get to comment on various subjects including the history of film criticism, how they got into doing it, their relationship with studios and directors and there's even some nice talk about the theory that everyone is a critic. As someone who loves movies, loves writing about movies and loves reading other's opinions on movies, this documentary kept me entertained from start to finish. I really liked the knowledge of how film criticism first started back around 1907 and it was fascinating to learn about the few critics who were out there at the time. It was also fascinating being able to see how the profession has changed throughout time and during which eras were critics most important when it came to people listening to them. The likes of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris are discussed as well as what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert brought to the table. Other critics like Rex Reed, Owen Gleiberman, Elvis Mitchell, Janet Maslin and even Harry Knowles are interviews as well. FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES certainly has some faults including how it jumps around on its subjects too much. I'm not sure if this was originally much longer and then edited down but it just seems like several subjects are brought up and not fully discussed. Either way, if you're a fan of film then this here should keep you entertained and especially if you like discussing and debating movies.

... but then this is about film criticism, not really the love of the movies.

It tries to break out the areas of film criticism by eras, but eras overlap and some years are just left out entirely. Still, if you want a good overview of how movie critics began and how the craft changed through the years, this will fit the bill. It starts out in 1909, when films were just a little more than actualities, with maybe the first prototypical film critic, Frank E. Woods. Interesting bit about Mr. Woods - he cowrote the script for "Birth of a Nation" and became wealthy via buying up real estate in southern California. There is lots of footage of individual important film critics. Funny excerpts include Kenneth Turan talking about how James Cameron tried to get him fired over his bad review of Titanic. I have always agreed with Turan's assessment that the plot is ham fisted. But then that seems to be a hallmark of Cameron - make something that is technically dazzling yet empty. But I digress.

Then the documentary turns to the invention of the internet (oddly Al Gore is never mentioned) and how suddenly everybody is a movie critic. I don't think that they mentioned that Amazon initially hired paid reviewers for products - including movies - but soon realized that there are plenty of us willing to do this work for free.

You can't fit 100 years of history - this documentary was made 12 years ago - in one 80 minute film. Things left out? The documentary mentioned James Agee and his mid twentieth century piece on silent comic Buster Keaton. It is not mentioned that this one piece resurrected Keaton's career from the dead. He was a gag writer at MGM at the time, and suddenly he had offers rolling in from early television for guest appearances.

What did it mention that I did not know? Elvis Mitchell's personal journey in film criticism, and him mentioning a 1964 film I had never heard of before called "Two Thousand Maniacs" in which a back water town takes revenge for the loss of the Civil War out on complete strangers. Yikes! That will stay with me.

There are not too many documentaries on this subject, so if you are interested in the subject, it will be worth your while. Just realize it is broad but not very deep.

Since the subject matter is unique for a film, I'm glad a got a modicum of information from it. I have watched thousands of films (like so much of the population) but most of the critical stuff has come from books. So if one talks about Paulin Kael, my source is her books and ultimately her reviews. Being a Midwesterner, I didn't know that there was a 30 year's war with Andrew Sarris. And to see Rex Reed again (the smuggest of the smug) was fun. I think this is a little period piece, not to be taken too seriously, but presented as an opportunity to put a face to those names that I've seen for some sixty years. Some write with great depth while others knock off two paragraphs for a national magazine. It did drag a bit after a while, but I'm glad I saw it.

Showing at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, this film preceded a panel discussion which was one of the best things I'd experienced all week. That it should spark off such animated dialogue is only one of the good things about For the Love of Movies. I also adored the title, promising a documentary that has never been done before. The only other thing I liked was the last of the end-credits. When the entire film had instilled in me the excitement level equivalent to reading an ingredients list on a packet of Cup-a-Soup.

The audience and distinguished panel were less enthusiastic. Less enthusiastic than possibly the world's most renowned popular-press critic, Roger Ebert. Who apparently said, "I enjoyed it immensely, I learned a lot. Very well done, edited and researched – and narrated!" Roger Ebert does coincidentally feature quite heavily in this film. And presents himself better than most, it must be said. One critic not featured is Gerald Peary. Pearce, however, is the movie's director.

So there are different views. It compels me to explain that this film is not to be avoided lightly. Make a determined detour, if necessary, to avoid it forcefully. At all costs. Petition your local cinema to show it only on condition that noted academics discuss the subject afterwards. Then go along for the discussion alone.

EIFF's discussion featured critics who are in a different category to newspaper opinion-makers. Editors of Sight & Sound, and of Screen. Both industry magazines. Both devoted to analysis, rather than popular criticism. And both rather good at their jobs. One espoused the view that 'preview' criticism – the sort that newspapers publish – is dead. The future for critics is more one of post-viewing analysis. Where a film-goer might want a deeper understanding of certain aspects. Preview reviews can suffice as a short paragraph: Is it your sort of film? If there a consensus for or against? Or an alternative reading you might relate to? Stuff you can get online. Without buying a paper.

Pearce asks, would more people read the critics if they could see them? Personally, I am unable to convince myself of this. And Pearce doesn't really bother. Apart from parading them. Critics are not film stars. Or catwalk models. They are hardly objects to idolise. Many are neither charismatic in the flesh nor easy on the eye.

As online media takes hold, many critics lose jobs. This is presented as regrettable. Hard as it sounds, I'm not sure I agree. If no-one pays money to read their columns, such critics might find more productive work. From the film, most do not even seem great graduates of film studies. They are fans. People who love movies and are lucky enough to get a nice job. No serious analysis of how they disseminate cinema. The film is a mere descriptive showcase in historical lecture format. Soundbites and trivia.

The film would not make me respect the likes of James Agee and Susan Sontag had I not read them. The simplistic description of Agee as, 'an early proponent of auteur theory' says little (there are better proponents). No mention is made of his deeply humanistic, everyman approach. Or his bravery in dismissing a whole week's worth of films as unwatchable. (Newspaper critics, of course, generally provide a set number of words, however bad the current crop is.) Susan Sontag, one of the greatest American thinkers of recent times when it comes to analysis of the arts (and many other things, including the nature of criticism) is here reduced to a mere name flashed on screen ("Goodbye Sontag").

"My first desire," says Pearce, "is for an audience to become intimate with the reviewers behind the bylines, so it can be understood how critics think about and see movies." This is well-intended, but the film doesn't show it. It feels like an ill-judged attempt to hold on to jobs for newspaper hacks. Knowing that Roger Ebert loves films so much he watches them in his spare time doesn't tell me how he writes about them. How he structures his reviews entertainingly. It might have given him immense narcissistic pleasure to see himself on the big screen. But this particularly self-serving Love of Movies really presents him rather shoddily. (Roger – with respect – if you thought this horrendously slapdash editing was a job 'very well done,' you must have seen a different cut. Or been on a lot of medication.) For the Love of Movies is an incredibly unlovable, boring movie. Excruciating to sit through. The Friday Night with Jonathan Ross chat show is Pulitzer Prize material by comparison. The editing has as much bite as a bowl of soggy cornflakes. Ironically, Pearce does seem to have interesting ideas. He suggests in the discussion how film criticism can help to contextualise and make foreign-language films more accessible. But his good ideas are not contained in his film. If Mr Pearce is hoping to change careers any time soon, for whatever reason, I sincerely hope he finds a job more suited to his ability than directing.

The post-film discussion winds up with a rather cheap parting shot. Pearce, obviously aggrieved by the lack of enthusiasm, somehow infers that good critics say nice things about his film while those lacking in taste say nasty things. Apart from the rather pathetic psychological blackmail implied (even if unintentional), or the fact that 'good' critics quoted in the trailer have conflicts of interest, my duty is not to Mr Pearce and his estimation of my taste. But to the film-goer who might get little more than a torn-up ticket stub as reward for spending money on this poorly made effort. As a nice gesture to the director's friends in the business, it might possibly go down quite well. As a defence of why we need film critics at all, I am rather less convinced. I deeply suspect it is rather less successful on that score.

Witty, long-overdue documentary narrated by Patricia Clarkson chronicling the colorful history of movie criticism, from the silent-era days of Frank E. Woods (who wound up collaborating with D.W. Griffith on the screenplay for his "Birth of a Nation") and Vachel Lindsay to the prolific online bloggers of today. Most enjoyable and enlightening are the comments from newspaper and magazine critics still employed in the 21st century (apparently a rare lot, as professional film criticism has become less essential due to the internet, thereby leaving seasoned and even promising cinephiles without paying jobs). There are some stray but no less intriguing details dropped here (Robert Sherwood became the first celebrity critic, while Kate Cameron of the 1930s was the first newspaper writer to use the star-rating system), though the juicier stories--such as the Andrew Sarris-Pauline Kael grudge-match which raged throughout the 1970s--are the ones most likely to interest non-rabid movie buffs. Certainly the core audience for this material won't be vast, yet it is an entertaining assemblage of journalistic talents and film clips, well-assembled by Gerald Peary and with plenty of humorous commentary. *** from ****

This is an affectionate look at American film critics and the rise of criticism that was already out of date when it came out. It's not the movies fault, but it does make a viewing a quaint experience. Also, any time Harry knowles is on screen is cringeworthy. Would be worth an update, but no one really cares about critics anymore, so this will just stay a time capsule of a time and place.

'For the Love of Movies' is no more than a pedestrian low-budget TV program written slapdash style and directed by an untalented first-timer. After paying to watch this cheesy video production in a theater, I think it safe to advise anyone interested in the subject that they should wait until it's aired on TV or available on DVD. As a critic and academic, Peary is only competently mediocre at best and, frankly, it comes as no surprise that his first effort as a documentary director is marred by an over-abundance of talking heads (do we really need another sound-bite by the omnipresent endlessly-interviewed Roger Ebert?), clichéd narration based on paint-by-numbers pedagogy, irritating whining over the rise of internet criticism, cheesy production values, poor cinematography and lighting, and the general sense of an essay on film criticism in which logic has been split-haired by a muddled filmmaker who couldn't see beyond his editor's shoulders.

Nothing's treated in depth here and the talking heads are rarely given time to develop their arguments, at least not on-screen. This is a fault often perpetrated by first-time documentary directors in the mistaken belief that the more heads they can cram on-screen, the better chances they have to improve rhythm and pacing. This method works well with DVD featurettes (puff-pieces by definition) but not with ambitious, well-constructed films by Errol Morris or Ken Burns (among other professionals) at their best.

Sure, the program has value as some sort of historical document on American criticism but this rich and potentially fascinating subject ought to have been conceived and helmed by someone with cinematic talent to justify its theatrical release. Desperately lacking visual imagination, originality and daring, 'For the Love of Movies' won't win any significant awards (other than Roger Ebert's embarrassing self-endorsement) and will no doubt be re-edited to a 52' version for TV. You mark my words.

I recently viewed Gerald Peary's "For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism," at the Lake Placid Film Forum. It drew a small crowd. It wasn't aided by the seasonable weather, or its matinée schedule. But the audience knew there was something genuine about it. For the first time, to my knowledge, a critic has taken their discussion to the screen in order to prove the influence of film critique on cinema culture. The result was a fascinating look back to the beginning of the medium up to the modern age of internet based critics.

The film gives us a brief history of film review, from the early writings of Robert Sherwood, to the debating Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. It further goes into the age of recognized television personalities like Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel leading up to the current realm where printed media is on the way out and people look to the web for reviews.

The film asks its audience the question of why do we need film critics? Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe argues that they "expand and inform the reader about what is more than just a movie." Stuart Kalwans of The Nation further explains that "criticism is about your relationship to the work, the world and the shifting ways of that world."

Each of these opinions is correct. However, a mentor of mine who recently passed away left these words—"I believe in writing and the power of art to transform consciousness." His name was Donald Kearns, a local resident of Plattsburgh NY who loved film and literature. It is my belief that this is the true nature of film critique, as is any critical opinion: to allow the reader to see another perspective. The film clearly illustrates that many of the original recognized film critics, like Sarris, were devout film lovers. The art of cinema set them free and provided for intellectual stimulation that encouraged their discussions.

One of the reasons that I enjoyed this film so much was because of my own interest in film review. Several years ago I wrote for a local news-magazine near my hometown. I wrote a review for every movie that I saw theatrically, although only a handful were ever published. But it allowed me, a lonely film buff, the opportunity to reach out to others and create a discussion. In so doing, I met the most extraordinary people: film lovers, writers, exhibitors, musicians, professors and people from all walks of life. And every one of them had something to comment on, whether they liked the movies or not.

Moreover, "For the Love of Movies" expanded my own knowledge not only of the review process, but of influential theories by Sarris and Kael. Their collected works influenced filmmakers of their generation and the next. But as we head father into the future, and critique jobs become eliminated by online clip-quotes, movie marketing campaigns only emphasize what is big, loud and aggressive. As such, we lose something so valuable—the genuine voice of those who love film.

There is debate between filmmakers and critics as some movies reviewed are poorly received. Filmmakers may ask the question to critics, do you think you can make a better movie? Maybe they can. Maybe they cannot. The truth is that it does not matter. Critics are connoisseurs of film. They do not have to go and produce something better because that's not their job. My advice to filmmakers is to take it all in stride. The process of making a movie is like crafting an art form. Not everyone will appreciate your perspective. After all, a person can be a wine lover and have never made their own bottle. And how many people do you know who love cars but have no idea what is going on beneath the hood.

Alarmingly enough, over 28 major film critics for printed journals have lost their jobs in recent years. The situation is not helped by the current economic times, as well as the push to websites. Some formerly employed critics are now heading to the web. However, the internet has given rise to its own breed—James Berardinelli is a perfect example. He is a web based film critic who can actually write a fine review whether you agree with him or not. But there are so many others who only comment on what is flashy or the current fads in the market. Therefore, how can their opinions be justified if they cannot provide a backdrop to compare a film against?

My advice to the average reader seeking movie recommendations is trust your best judgment. It's easy to see the hacks and the ones who actually care about film. Even with the shift from print media to online sources, critics will go on. There's always going to be a different perspective out there that deserves its recognition. But who will be the next film critic, online or in print, to truly change the way films are perceived? We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, see "For the Love of Movies" and get the other perspective that is being shut out from our society.

Kinda weird to be on this site reviewing a film about film reviewing and how sites like this have brought about the egalitarianism of said reviewing. Anyway, I guess, like most social phenomena, this has its pluses and minuses. Certainly with the internet and everyone being a film critic and all one has to put up with a lot of chaff to get at the wheat. On the other hand it's kinda refreshing to live in a world where, say, a Snoopy Style on IMDB has as much film cred, for me at least, as a Bosley Crowther, if not an Andrew Sarris or a Pauline Kael. And speaking of Andy and Pauline I have read and admired and been driven to distraction by both of them and now find their whole contretemps more than a little tired. As I do this documentary. Give it a C plus.

"I am a part of all that I have met; Yet all experience is an arch where through Gleams that untraveled world, whose margin fades For ever and for ever when I move. How dull it is to pause, to make an end,"

--Ulysses, Tennyson

My major criticism of this film (about film criticism) is that it ends where it should begin: the future of film criticism.

I saw this film recently at Dartmouth College on Winter Carnival Weekend. Whether due to competing campus events or cold weather, the film was attended by an audience of less than two dozen, nearly everyone eligible for a AARP film discount, if one had been available. Dartmouth College offers a robust Film & Media Studies program, but only a handful of students were in attendance, most arriving at film's end. This alone is probably testimony enough about the future of film criticism, but the closing on screen statement about the gangplank exits suffered by 28 major (print media) film critics in recent years reveals an ongoing mutiny not yet plundered for the reasons why.

My own conjecture 'why' (offered as nothing more than by a film buff keyboarding here and now) is that you are reading the reason why: the ubiquity of the internet, and the suffusive flow, if not tsunami, of blogging. One blog catalog alone offers over 5,600 film blogs. Film critics, you have met the enemy and it is I.

But back to the film, not the future, for now. For the Love of Movies (FTLOM if a textter) plays like a filmed version of Cliff Notes on the history of film criticism rather than an insightful exploration. Informative? Yes, but I am a 'film criticism' neophyte or idiot savant depending upon your take. So I learned some new names and film flotsam to toss out at the next dinner party I attend, but nothing to provide me with much of a cogent argument as to why we need to rescue any of those 28 film critics off the gangplank to guide us through the chop and swell of Avatar's 'perfect storm' of movie-making, blockbusters, 3-D, computer technology, and the future.

As I watched FTLOM I was reminded of concurrent dynamics in other streams of criticism such as food and restaurant criticism (i.e. the demise of Gourmet Magazine), journalism, and music criticism, to mention a few. Now longtime culinary, journalism, and music critics are finding safe harbors harder to come by to avoid the plunder by today's pirates twittering and blogging away with iPhones and iPads. Arrgh! mateys, prepare to be boarded!

So what lies on the horizon for the future of film criticism? The one thing I do know is that I may become an adventurer in this brave new world and journey to new vistas of critical opinion, discourse, and blogging, but that does not make me a navigator, GPS notwithstanding, nor a film critic. I still want to listen and learn from those who can tell me if (how, and why) a film can carry me to those newer worlds. Unfortunately For the Love of Movies provides scarce few cinematic buoys to help navigate the waters.

So its fade to black and bon voyage. Ben Moore

For the Love of Movies is an interesting, if rather dry, history of film criticism. It starts from the beginning of cinema going to the present day. Overall, it is a mixed bag with difficulties in pacing.

The long span of the subject matter has both benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, viewers are introduced to now obscure film critics such as Otis Ferguson. You will inevitably come up with a reading list of critics you'll want to track down. However, many of the critics, especially from the first half of the twentieth century, are dealt with in passing, so that it is easy to confuse them.

The film goes into greater depth from the 60s onward, as it examines figures such as Pauline Kael and the debate over auteur theory. However, there are distracting elements such as periodic 'questions' which interrupt the narrative, such as how the critics got their jobs.

Furthermore, it would have been interesting to learn more about how the critics evaluate movies, what criteria they use, and so forth. In the end, the film is worth a rent if you stumble upon it, but is not worth seeking out.

I've been writing reviews online for a long time. I'm one of 'those' internet people that this documentary mentions with regards to 'amateur' reviewers who now, of course thanks to the internet, can write whatever I want, whenever I want, online. And also of course the difference between me and everyone else who writes online and the film critics really comes down to money, who gets paid for it (though sometimes, a lot of the time, writing talent and luck come into play as well). This documentary touches on that, as well as the history of film criticism. In America only, really.

It isn't bad exactly. But the film feels like it was put together in cheap, and the documentarians, with the exception of a couple of subjects (i.e. Elvis Mitchell, Andrew Sarris - I imagine the interview with Ebert happened before he lost his jaw), look like they were interviewed quickly in-between movies in a cafe or something. And the editing has that very basic, slapped-on feel. Perhaps it doesn't need to be 'much' more, it gives the goods quickly on the first American film critics and the history of the likes of Farber and Agee.

And I can see the irony in me reviewing something like this, that a guy who is the subject is having to say whether or not it's worth watching. I wish it was longer, or done by someone who had some stronger filmmaking chops. Again, nothing offensive about how the film is put together, or the interviews chosen (though the lack of the French New Wave in any talk about film criticism is shocking, they are mentioned but it's too fleeting). For a quick Netflix viewing, it's fine. But it's also cursory, and a little too basic.

There is a lot to be said for the film criticism industry. There is a rich history and a multitude of viewpoints of its impact on modern day cinema. This documentary interviews various critics on the history and evolution of their industry in hopes of understanding its decline as a whole. Each critic lends their part to giving the background of film criticism and each gives more insight to the issue which the internet has caused among print critics. Unfortunately, the editing of this documentary makes it extremely dry and unentertaining if you're not already interested in the topic. The cuts are random and in between history lessons unrelated stories are told from critics. Perhaps these were put there to break up the action, but all they really do is distract the audience. The music is not matched well at all with the film and often plays a distracting role in the overall effect of the movie. I will not be watching this one again, and that's a shame. Film critics are an important part of the movie industry, but I have no interest in learning more about them if all their films are like this.

It seemed a bit surreal. I'm in a movie theater with a bunch of movie buffs, and more than a few of them review films professionally or just for fun, like me. And, we're watching a documentary about the evolution of movie reviewers.

For the Love of Movies is a film by a guy who did it professionally, Gerald Peary. He's also a professor, and the movie has that instructional tone. He breaks down film criticism by eras, starting with the Talkies and how the papers promoted them in the early 1900s. I've always loved discussing films. My Mom was a school teacher and had teacher friends. Some of them considered themselves to be intellectual, I suppose. We still share our yearly favorites in our Christmas notes to each other. It was interesting to get a perspective on the way reviewing has grown and developed and broadened to the point that 7 year olds do movie reviews on their computers and post them to youtube. "Everyone's a critic," right? For me, the key is finding a touchstone, someone who shares some of my sensibilities, so that I can tell from their review whether I will like the film or not, myself. Though to be honest, I rarely read reviews before I see a movie, because I like to judge for myself. After, I will seek out critiques to see what I missed or didn't know about the film's genesis. It was a revelation to me that people got paid to do what we did naturally, discuss and argue about films, when I first saw the show Coming Soon on Chicago TV. Gene Siskel was my touchstone. Getting to see a bit of their first show ever and hear Gene again was worth the price of admission, and I'm so happy Gerald Peary made that a part of his film. He interviewed Roger Ebert for the movie, and it was pre-serious surgery Roger, vibrant and telling great stories. Gerald also interviewed A.O. Scott from The New York Times, in casual settings, like they were buds and at some screening together or something. A.O. was the first big movie critic to podcast his reviews. And likely, that what made him the best person to take over for Roger, when he retired from the TV gig. You get to see how Tony has developed. Despite his love for Where the Wild Things Are, I really like his style. Style is one thing I found a bit lacking in For the Love of Movies. It switches between history and quips from current critics, and some of the transitions between the parts are very long fade to blacks that I found jarring. The soundtrack is good, and it could have been smoother. It seemed like I was watching a rough cut, but Gerald was in the theater selling DVDs of his doc, so I guess it's done! If you like film and you're interested in criticism, this is an excellent documentary to check out. I liked it and was entertained and informed, and I got to see Gene. So, despite the editing issues, I give For the Love of Movies an 8.

What, no mention of John Simon? Shirley, you can't be serious.

This film gave me the fun of listening to various people talking on a subject that interests me. I love,also, the way that it was done in a 1907 to the future manner that gave a historical form to it. Opinions are such a pleasure to hear, no matter whether I agree or not. My favorite was James Cagney's from the 30's film.

I was sorry they did not mention Susan Sontag.

Another thing that critics do today that works for me is to put commentary tracks on DVDs such As the fine one that Roger Ebert does on "Citizen Kane".

As i watched "For the Love of Movies" I thought, sometimes the best par of the movie is the cup of coffee we share after.

While ostensibly a survey of 100+ years of American film criticism, and while it spends half its time discussing Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris the film never even mentions John Simon.

The film is about the history of film criticism and it goes all the way back to 1907. Then, the movie progresses through the print era...and the man newspaper and magazine critics who made a name for themselves. Finally, it progresses to modern day, when critics are not necessarily working for newspapers but includes bloggers, online entertainment websites and more.

The filmmakers tell this story in the early portion with film clips, photos and a few interviews. Later, because so many of these critics are alive, you get to hear from them. You also get to learn how nowadays, it's no longer the one or two or three big critics who influence, but perhaps thousands. Overall, an interesting and well constructed documentary.