So much average

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

'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.

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.