BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Sarah Everett 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.

TheExpatriate700 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.

Thistle-3 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.

Shai Perrot '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.