For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism

This is an affectionate look at American film critics and the rise of criticism that was already out of date when it came out. It's not the movies fault, but it does make a viewing a quaint experience. Also, any time Harry knowles is on screen is cringeworthy. Would be worth an update, but no one really cares about critics anymore, so this will just stay a time capsule of a time and place.

I love this examination of the rise and fall of the professional film critic... while today we have Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael and A. O. Scott, in the beginning this was just not so. This documentary shows how the critics (notably Frank Woods) pushed how film was more "subdued" in its acting than theater and how Pauline Kael helped get Martin Scorsese noticed.

I loved the bit on "Two Thousand Maniacs" from Elvis Mitchell, which briefly touched on the b-movie sensibility. Indeed, not all films can be reviewed by the same meter.

I also liked how they used "Amelie" as a example of difference, with one critic loving it and another saying it was nothing but a "cartoon" with "no human dimensions". This is quite the difference.

And, of course, one much touch on the effect of the Internet Movie Database and the Internet in general on film criticism. Is it democracy on the rise, or a race to the bottom? I can see it both ways.

... but then this is about film criticism, not really the love of the movies.

It tries to break out the areas of film criticism by eras, but eras overlap and some years are just left out entirely. Still, if you want a good overview of how movie critics began and how the craft changed through the years, this will fit the bill. It starts out in 1909, when films were just a little more than actualities, with maybe the first prototypical film critic, Frank E. Woods. Interesting bit about Mr. Woods - he cowrote the script for "Birth of a Nation" and became wealthy via buying up real estate in southern California. There is lots of footage of individual important film critics. Funny excerpts include Kenneth Turan talking about how James Cameron tried to get him fired over his bad review of Titanic. I have always agreed with Turan's assessment that the plot is ham fisted. But then that seems to be a hallmark of Cameron - make something that is technically dazzling yet empty. But I digress.

Then the documentary turns to the invention of the internet (oddly Al Gore is never mentioned) and how suddenly everybody is a movie critic. I don't think that they mentioned that Amazon initially hired paid reviewers for products - including movies - but soon realized that there are plenty of us willing to do this work for free.

You can't fit 100 years of history - this documentary was made 12 years ago - in one 80 minute film. Things left out? The documentary mentioned James Agee and his mid twentieth century piece on silent comic Buster Keaton. It is not mentioned that this one piece resurrected Keaton's career from the dead. He was a gag writer at MGM at the time, and suddenly he had offers rolling in from early television for guest appearances.

What did it mention that I did not know? Elvis Mitchell's personal journey in film criticism, and him mentioning a 1964 film I had never heard of before called "Two Thousand Maniacs" in which a back water town takes revenge for the loss of the Civil War out on complete strangers. Yikes! That will stay with me.

There are not too many documentaries on this subject, so if you are interested in the subject, it will be worth your while. Just realize it is broad but not very deep.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (2009)

*** (out of 4)

Somewhat uneven but entertaining documentary taking a look at film critics from the past to the present. The documentary from director Gerald Perry actually features plenty of interviews with actual critics, which is a major plus as they get to comment on various subjects including the history of film criticism, how they got into doing it, their relationship with studios and directors and there's even some nice talk about the theory that everyone is a critic. As someone who loves movies, loves writing about movies and loves reading other's opinions on movies, this documentary kept me entertained from start to finish. I really liked the knowledge of how film criticism first started back around 1907 and it was fascinating to learn about the few critics who were out there at the time. It was also fascinating being able to see how the profession has changed throughout time and during which eras were critics most important when it came to people listening to them. The likes of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris are discussed as well as what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert brought to the table. Other critics like Rex Reed, Owen Gleiberman, Elvis Mitchell, Janet Maslin and even Harry Knowles are interviews as well. FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES certainly has some faults including how it jumps around on its subjects too much. I'm not sure if this was originally much longer and then edited down but it just seems like several subjects are brought up and not fully discussed. Either way, if you're a fan of film then this here should keep you entertained and especially if you like discussing and debating movies.

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.