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.

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 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.

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.