That was an excellent one.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Since there are so few resources on the critique of film criticism (i.e., meta-criticism), a film like this is very interesting to me, and I suppose many others who are the frustrated film critics writing down their thoughts/opinions in venues like this on IMDb! I enjoyed listening to what Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael had to say, as well as Roger Ebert and a fantastic-looking Molly Haskell. Many of the other critics seemed a little too self-important and full of themselves, which wasn't much of a surprise to me.The problem I had with this film occurred at the beginning and the end of it, where director Peary laments the fact that film critics are being fired at newspapers, like Elvis Mitchell, Jami Bernard, and Michael Wilmington. While I take no pleasure in people losing their jobs, it was hard to feel bad for people who clearly would end up landing on their feet doing something else. As much as I like film criticism, these people are not curing cancer, and I fail to see the "crisis" of film critics losing their jobs.

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.

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.

I recently viewed Gerald Peary's "For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism," at the Lake Placid Film Forum. It drew a small crowd. It wasn't aided by the seasonable weather, or its matinée schedule. But the audience knew there was something genuine about it. For the first time, to my knowledge, a critic has taken their discussion to the screen in order to prove the influence of film critique on cinema culture. The result was a fascinating look back to the beginning of the medium up to the modern age of internet based critics. The film gives us a brief history of film review, from the early writings of Robert Sherwood, to the debating Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. It further goes into the age of recognized television personalities like Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel leading up to the current realm where printed media is on the way out and people look to the web for reviews. The film asks its audience the question of why do we need film critics? Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe argues that they "expand and inform the reader about what is more than just a movie." Stuart Kalwans of The Nation further explains that "criticism is about your relationship to the work, the world and the shifting ways of that world." Each of these opinions is correct. However, a mentor of mine who recently passed away left these words—"I believe in writing and the power of art to transform consciousness." His name was Donald Kearns, a local resident of Plattsburgh NY who loved film and literature. It is my belief that this is the true nature of film critique, as is any critical opinion: to allow the reader to see another perspective. The film clearly illustrates that many of the original recognized film critics, like Sarris, were devout film lovers. The art of cinema set them free and provided for intellectual stimulation that encouraged their discussions. One of the reasons that I enjoyed this film so much was because of my own interest in film review. Several years ago I wrote for a local news-magazine near my hometown. I wrote a review for every movie that I saw theatrically, although only a handful were ever published. But it allowed me, a lonely film buff, the opportunity to reach out to others and create a discussion. In so doing, I met the most extraordinary people: film lovers, writers, exhibitors, musicians, professors and people from all walks of life. And every one of them had something to comment on, whether they liked the movies or not. Moreover, "For the Love of Movies" expanded my own knowledge not only of the review process, but of influential theories by Sarris and Kael. Their collected works influenced filmmakers of their generation and the next. But as we head father into the future, and critique jobs become eliminated by online clip-quotes, movie marketing campaigns only emphasize what is big, loud and aggressive. As such, we lose something so valuable—the genuine voice of those who love film. There is debate between filmmakers and critics as some movies reviewed are poorly received. Filmmakers may ask the question to critics, do you think you can make a better movie? Maybe they can. Maybe they cannot. The truth is that it does not matter. Critics are connoisseurs of film. They do not have to go and produce something better because that's not their job. My advice to filmmakers is to take it all in stride. The process of making a movie is like crafting an art form. Not everyone will appreciate your perspective. After all, a person can be a wine lover and have never made their own bottle. And how many people do you know who love cars but have no idea what is going on beneath the hood. Alarmingly enough, over 28 major film critics for printed journals have lost their jobs in recent years. The situation is not helped by the current economic times, as well as the push to websites. Some formerly employed critics are now heading to the web. However, the internet has given rise to its own breed—James Berardinelli is a perfect example. He is a web based film critic who can actually write a fine review whether you agree with him or not. But there are so many others who only comment on what is flashy or the current fads in the market. Therefore, how can their opinions be justified if they cannot provide a backdrop to compare a film against?My advice to the average reader seeking movie recommendations is trust your best judgment. It's easy to see the hacks and the ones who actually care about film. Even with the shift from print media to online sources, critics will go on. There's always going to be a different perspective out there that deserves its recognition. But who will be the next film critic, online or in print, to truly change the way films are perceived? We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, see "For the Love of Movies" and get the other perspective that is being shut out from our society.