Nickelodeon

I had no idea this film cost so much. As charming and entertaining as it is, it is a million more than STAR WARS of 1977(and even THE BETSY...., sorry,) and 3 million more than Bogdanovich's previous film AT LONG LAST LOVE. At the time it was severely criticised by purists for lifting gags from his own 1972 comedy WHAT'S UP DOC? and for not really making a funny film about a topic falling all over itself with possibilities. Viewed THIRTY years later (Jeez!) NICKELODEON is an almost masterpiece of film craft and highly evocative, and I would like to say, as maligned as some other Bogdanovich films. It does stand the test of time and for a new audience, uneducated on silent films, would be a refreshing and often hilarious comedic revelation. Well, compared with Adam Sandler films and common day multiplex cine-stupidity, NICKELODEON is hilarious. It actually has production values, sight gags, engaging characters, actors and actually IS funny and endearing. It deserves re appraisal and I recommend it above CHAPLIN ....SINGIN IN THE RAIN it ain't, but PERILS OF PAULINE it is close................... NICKELODEON is well made fun.

When this movie was released they had a promotion for the premiere where you could see it for a nickel. So I went to the theater, stood in a very long line, and watched a very funny, entertaining movie that the audience seemed to quite enjoy. The next day I read a review that slammed it, and then another. And I have never understood it.

Over 30 years later I took a second look, and while sometimes you can't for the life of you figure out why you liked a movie from the past, I still really liked this one. It's a very funny movie that mixes in Keystone Kops-style slapstick with Howard Hawks-style screwball comedy. There are good performances by Burt Reynolds and Ryan O'Neal, and even better ones from Tatum O'Neal and, best of all, Brian Keith.

The strong negative reactions particular surprise me because the film is similar in feel to What's Up Doc (Ryan even plays basically the same character) and yet that movie was much better received.

I found this movie funny and likable. Everyone's good in it, including the lead actress, who apparently found film work so dispiriting that she gave up on them altogether and stuck with modeling. The first half is probably stronger than the second half, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Nickelodeon must have been a labor of love for Peter Bogdanovich as both a filmmaker and film historian. Whatever else you can say about Nickelodeon it was certainly meticulously researched.

This film is a portrait of the early years of motion pictures. Forthose who doubt the veracity of the film you can find stories like this in the autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille. Back in the early teen years DeMille went to Californiawith his troop and made The Squaw Man against the trust who are the villains here.

His name is not mentioned, but the trust was an effort by Thomas Edison to control all aspects of film making with patents. Unfortunately while it is arguable he was the first to invent moving pictures, he was not alone. Melies in France and Friese-Greene in Great Britain were doing te same work not to mention others in the USA. Ultimately Edison lost the patent wars as portrayed here.

Lawyer Ryan O'Neal and conman Burt Reynolds become director and action star working for Brian Keith an independent producer. They also become romantic rivals for Jane Hitchcock.

Tatum O'Neal as a nicepartas a precocious adolescent with a good imagination who becomes a screenwriter. John Ritter is an early cameramanand Stella Stevens another actress.

I'm surprised at the tepid reviews that Nickelodeon got. It's a well crafted film that shows the love Peter Bogdanovich has for his profession.

This expensive 70's flop is not nearly as bad as its reputation indicates. Leonard Maltin's review is pretty accurate. And it's got some fine performances by a good cast which includes- Ryan O'neal, Burt Reynolds, Tatum O neal, John Ritter, Stella Stevens and (especially) Brian Keith. Two highlights- Tatum's negotiating and Brian Keith's speech at the end. It's got some dull stretches and the slapstick gets wearying,overall not bad.

Just finished watching the color version on Turner Classic Movies. I loved "Paper Moon," especially the wonderful depression-era music, and "The Last Picture Show" (I grew up in Texas not so far from Archer City in the same era), so that's what I knew about Peter Bogdonovich, the director. I echo many of the reviews, without having known about the reception the film apparently received at the time. Even though I was grown when it came out, I just never got around to seeing it. Maybe I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much as now, as I approach 60.

Yes, it's filled with slapstick, sometimes goofy, but the audience is in on the jokes. I felt like I was invited to the party, with all these wonderful actors (not in the thespian sense, but in the popular sense)as friends. The magic is that it makes you feel comfortable, because loving movies and movie making is part of my life, too. It appreciates the audience and wants us to have a good time with it.

The director obviously loves the medium. In many ways, there was a Fellini-esque quality to it, as another reviewer wrote. The magic of Fellini was similar: he used the everyday strangeness of reality to make his films real. Hollywood is the make-believe; reality makes a better film.

This is art imitating life. It celebrates the birth of the industry and the magic of the universal language of moving pictures, captured beautifully and simply in Brian Keith's closing monologue. It is Peter's love letter to the industry and to the audience, as only a lover could compose. It is beautifully crafted, the acting balanced throughout the ensemble, and the message delivered with wry humor. Though I didn't see it when released, it may look better now, in nostalgic retrospect. It IS a love letter, and at my age, it is a delightful homage to an industry that just "doesn't make 'em like this anymore." Thank you, Mr. Bogdonovich and all the cast. Love you, too.