MisterWhiplash 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.

moonspinner55 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 internet 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 becomes 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 ****

bjm-6 "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, TennysonMy 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

preppy-3 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.