Wonderful character development!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

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.

'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.