For the Love of Movies Review

For the Love of Movies is an insightful documentary about film critics. It explores from the early 1900s of cinema to the present day. The most memorable critics the documentary lingers on are Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris as well as their little war between one another over the auteur theory. In all honesty, director Gerald Perry depicts Kael as an antagonist and Sarris as a victim. The footage shown of Kael gives me the impression that she is pompous, arrogant, and full of herself. The fact that Andrew Sarris mentions that Pauline Kael personally attacked his writing via a written letter makes her anything but admirable. Unfortunately, she cannot defend her opinions since she has been dead for some time. We can only hear the opinions of other critics. Many loved her while others despised her.

A bigger issue the documentary brings to light is the fate of film critics via the Internet. I’ve known for years that print media is going away and film critics along with it. Multiple magazines and newspapers have gone out of business because of the Internet. Even so, the documentary poses the question: what is the fate of movie critics? Due to the Internet, any individual can start a blog and write about a film he/she loves or hates. As an IMDB member, I am one of those millions of people. I consider myself a film critic, but I am not a paid professional. I write about movies because I love them! As a result of this, the line between amateur and professional is blurred. Which type of critic should the masses read and believe in?

The documentary also reveals that more youthful individuals are replacing the older critics like Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit. In part, this is because many of these older generations of critics have written pulverizing reviews of successful films. For instance, Roger Ebert gave Armageddon a very negative review, despite the fact that it was a huge draw for the public. This implies that older critics cannot keep up with or understand the new generation of movies and as a result, more youthful critics are replacing them. This has been seen before back with the 1967 release of Bonnie and Clyde. Many old time critics in that period bashed it because of its graphic depiction of violence. However, young critics at the time like Pauline Kael loved it. This shows that the cycle of movie critics has to change and realign with the current zeitgeist of cinema. If a critic cannot do this, then he or she is outdated. This once again blurs the line of which type of critic a person should believe in, the young blogger or the old, esteemed critic.

The documentary itself is well done. It has a variety of interview subjects and gives a thorough, in-depth analysis of the reign of the movie critics. I particularly like the tight close up shots of the interview subjects. This creates a sense of closure and intimacy with the interviewee. If the interviews were composed of medium or long shots, there would have been a sense of distance. This feeling of intimacy that I experienced would have been non-existent.

There are some minor technical quirks that I had problems with. Some of the sound recordings in the interviews were a bit hot, especially the Jonathan Rosenbaum interview. I could hear what he was saying, but his voice bordered on being distorted. The editor also used the fade to black technique too much. This was very unnecessary for it creates false endings; each one made me think the movie was over. Only one fade to black is needed, and that is for the very end.

Despite these technical faults, For the Love of Movies is an informative, well thought out, and fun documentary. It goes at a slow, steady pace, but it is not dull. I learned much from it and I was also entertained by it. For film buffs, movie historians, and any other individual who has an interest in cinema, this is a real treat.