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.
48 Reviews
It could have been so much better...
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre11 May 2007
I have very mixed feelings about 'Nickelodeon', a movie by a director (Peter Bogdanovich) whom I find deeply self-indulgent. On the favourable side, 'Nickelodeon' is about the early days of film-making: a subject which passionately interests me ... and Bogdanovich makes clear that he shares that passion. Even more remarkably, 'Nickelodeon' makes considerable effort to get the historical facts straight. Much of the material here is adapted from personal experiences in the early film careers of Allan Dwan and Raoul Walsh, two directors unfortunately forgotten and whose work is often unfairly neglected. So, what went wrong?
To be getting on with, Bogdanovich might have had a better film if he'd done a straightforward bio of either Dwan or Walsh (especially Walsh, whose life was fascinating). Instead, the real incidents from their lives are incorporated into the much less plausible slapstick shenanigans of some blatantly fictional characters. Throughout 'Nickelodeon', I had the nagging feeling that this was a roman-a-clef, with each fictional character based on an actual person from the early days of cinema. For instance, Tatum O'Neal (age 13 here) plays a girl who earns a living writing movie scenarios. I suspect that this character was inspired by Anita Loos, who actually did earn money writing movie scenarios while still a teenager. (Sadly, the late Ms Loos told some very vicious lies about other show-business figures -- including Paul Bern and Alexander Woollcott -- so I'm reluctant to believe anything she said about her own life.) All through 'Nickelodeon', I kept trying to guess which character was based on which real-life film figure ... and the problem is, there's not enough reality here to go round.
We do get, commendably, a very accurate depiction of the Patent Wars. Thomas Edison held exclusive patents on several crucial components of the motion-picture camera: he hired men to shut down all film productions that used his technology without paying him royalties, and some of Edison's hirelings actually went so far as to fire handguns into the mechanisms of unsanctioned movie cameras. ('Nickelodeon' gets this right.) Most of the period detail is accurate throughout this film.
Regrettably, the character played by Burt Reynolds is given too much slapstick material: a decision which annoyed me even more because Reynolds's character is clearly based more than slightly on the young Raoul Walsh, a film pioneer who didn't deserve to have his life and career reduced to pratfalls. Reynolds is also lumbered with an unwieldy script device which I call the Convenient Excerpt. We see him reading aloud Owen Wister's novel 'The Virginian', which was a best-seller at the time when this film takes place. Fair enough ... except, to my annoyance, the only time when we actually see and hear Reynolds doing this -- presumably working his way through the entire novel -- he conveniently happens to be reading the one and only passage in 'The Virginian' which would be recognised by people who haven't actually read the novel. (I refer to the "When you call me that, smile!" quote ... which was reworded for the film, so please don't 'correct' my version.)
Brian Keith has a good supporting role in 'Nickelodeon', except that he delivers all of his dialogue with some peculiar sort of speech defect. Here, too, I got the impression that the fictional character on screen was based on a real person: in Keith's case, the early film producer Colonel Selig. Less effective here is John Ritter, who shows no sense of period and seems to be living about six decades later than the other characters.
As the love interest, Jane Hitchcock (who?) brings absolutely nothing to her role except a distracting surname and the same facial bone structure as Cybill Shepherd. The latter trait leads me to conjecture as to why Bogdanovich cast her.
I watched 'Nickelodeon' with a semi-consistent sense of enjoyment, but with a more prominent (and more consistent) sensation of "This could have been so much BETTER, if only...". Insert sigh of regret here. 'Nickelodeon' was a huge flop in its day, and I suppose that it deserved to be. At least it spawned one clever in-joke. Two years after starring in this flop, Burt Reynolds starred in the solid actioner "Hooper", in which Robert Klein played a character based on Peter Bogdanovich. When Klein starts spouting that movies are 'pieces of time' (a Bogdanovich quote), Reynolds hauls off and belts him. I'll rate 'Nickelodeon' 6 out of 10: it probably deserves less, but this poor movie is based on a subject very dear to me.
To be getting on with, Bogdanovich might have had a better film if he'd done a straightforward bio of either Dwan or Walsh (especially Walsh, whose life was fascinating). Instead, the real incidents from their lives are incorporated into the much less plausible slapstick shenanigans of some blatantly fictional characters. Throughout 'Nickelodeon', I had the nagging feeling that this was a roman-a-clef, with each fictional character based on an actual person from the early days of cinema. For instance, Tatum O'Neal (age 13 here) plays a girl who earns a living writing movie scenarios. I suspect that this character was inspired by Anita Loos, who actually did earn money writing movie scenarios while still a teenager. (Sadly, the late Ms Loos told some very vicious lies about other show-business figures -- including Paul Bern and Alexander Woollcott -- so I'm reluctant to believe anything she said about her own life.) All through 'Nickelodeon', I kept trying to guess which character was based on which real-life film figure ... and the problem is, there's not enough reality here to go round.
We do get, commendably, a very accurate depiction of the Patent Wars. Thomas Edison held exclusive patents on several crucial components of the motion-picture camera: he hired men to shut down all film productions that used his technology without paying him royalties, and some of Edison's hirelings actually went so far as to fire handguns into the mechanisms of unsanctioned movie cameras. ('Nickelodeon' gets this right.) Most of the period detail is accurate throughout this film.
Regrettably, the character played by Burt Reynolds is given too much slapstick material: a decision which annoyed me even more because Reynolds's character is clearly based more than slightly on the young Raoul Walsh, a film pioneer who didn't deserve to have his life and career reduced to pratfalls. Reynolds is also lumbered with an unwieldy script device which I call the Convenient Excerpt. We see him reading aloud Owen Wister's novel 'The Virginian', which was a best-seller at the time when this film takes place. Fair enough ... except, to my annoyance, the only time when we actually see and hear Reynolds doing this -- presumably working his way through the entire novel -- he conveniently happens to be reading the one and only passage in 'The Virginian' which would be recognised by people who haven't actually read the novel. (I refer to the "When you call me that, smile!" quote ... which was reworded for the film, so please don't 'correct' my version.)
Brian Keith has a good supporting role in 'Nickelodeon', except that he delivers all of his dialogue with some peculiar sort of speech defect. Here, too, I got the impression that the fictional character on screen was based on a real person: in Keith's case, the early film producer Colonel Selig. Less effective here is John Ritter, who shows no sense of period and seems to be living about six decades later than the other characters.
As the love interest, Jane Hitchcock (who?) brings absolutely nothing to her role except a distracting surname and the same facial bone structure as Cybill Shepherd. The latter trait leads me to conjecture as to why Bogdanovich cast her.
I watched 'Nickelodeon' with a semi-consistent sense of enjoyment, but with a more prominent (and more consistent) sensation of "This could have been so much BETTER, if only...". Insert sigh of regret here. 'Nickelodeon' was a huge flop in its day, and I suppose that it deserved to be. At least it spawned one clever in-joke. Two years after starring in this flop, Burt Reynolds starred in the solid actioner "Hooper", in which Robert Klein played a character based on Peter Bogdanovich. When Klein starts spouting that movies are 'pieces of time' (a Bogdanovich quote), Reynolds hauls off and belts him. I'll rate 'Nickelodeon' 6 out of 10: it probably deserves less, but this poor movie is based on a subject very dear to me.
The early years
bkoganbing6 August 2020
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 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.
A Director's Love Letter
rewolfsonlaw22 July 2015
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.
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.
not as bad as it's said to be
macduff5026 April 2005
The critical "view" of this film is that it's a dog. But that's only true if you want to see films through the eyes of critics; and when this one came out, the critics were gunning for Bogdanovich. Why? Who knows. They were gunning for Spielberg when "1941" came out, the difference being that Spielberg bounced back. Bogdanovich never really did, but that doesn't make "Nickelodeon" a bad film. True, it has no appreciable story, but it's a nifty little love letter to the makers of those early movies; which is why it has equal parts slapstick and straight drama. It's affectionate rather than melodramatic, and has a convincing evocation of what it must have been like to be around, scuffling on the edges of fame and fortune with this weird new invention, motion pictures. It's not going to scare you, or thrill you with wall to wall CGI pyrotechnics, it doesn't have a cast of thousands, and it didn't bankrupt a studio to make it. It's a good little film, well made, solidly cast and directed, and in general, well acted. A lot of what we like in film depends on our expectations. The critics were gunning for Bogdanovich because they were expecting Art with a capital A; instead what they got were a lifelong film fan's notes. Enjoy.
NINE million bucks? In 1976?
ptb-83 March 2005
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.
Nickelodeon
Prismark1010 January 2022
Peter Bogdanovich had a great start to the 1970s as writer and director. It began with The Last Picture Show.
By the later 1970s Bogdanovich's stock had declined and making movies such as Mask as a director for hire.
A few days after his death. I had another chance to see Nickelodeon.
Bogdanovich was a cinephile. This was his love letter to the early days of Hollywood that was inspired by the stories told to him by people who were there.
Nickelodeon is mainly a slapstick comedy that starts off in Chicago 1910. Leo Harrigan (Ryan O'Neal) is an incompetent lawyer who somehow staggers into a fast talking independent movie producer H H Cobb (Brian Keith.)
Cobb has been evading the Patents Company, a conglomerate of big movie producers who use patents on movie cameras to block smaller players entering the industry.
Harrigan is hired as a writer, quickly becomes a director and he keeps bumping into dancer Kathleen Cooke who has poor eyesight.
Cooke also keeps stumbling into cowboy Buck Greenway (Burt Reynolds.) He was meant to deliver a saddle, he ends up becoming an enforcer for the Patents Company. Later an actor for Harrigan.
Both of the end up vying for Cooke's attentions. As they make short reels quickly. They realise that the movie industry is changing with D W Griffith's Birth of a Nation.
Nickelodeon shares a lot with Bogdanovich's earlier slapstick comedy What's Up, Doc?
Nevertheless this is a fun charming film. I enjoyed the silly slapstick. Unfortunately it got mixed reviews and flopped at the box office. The reason being it lacked a dramatic impulse. There is no real danger as the Patents Company plot just fades away.
It features strong performances. Bogdanovich was one of the few directors who could get a good performance out of Ryan O'Neal. Both he and Reynolds are exemplary in the slapstick scenes.
Reynolds exudes natural charm and charisma. Yet he is never coasting. There is good support from John Ritter, Brian Keith, Tatum O'Neal and in her movie debut; Jane Hitchcock who plays Cooke.
By the later 1970s Bogdanovich's stock had declined and making movies such as Mask as a director for hire.
A few days after his death. I had another chance to see Nickelodeon.
Bogdanovich was a cinephile. This was his love letter to the early days of Hollywood that was inspired by the stories told to him by people who were there.
Nickelodeon is mainly a slapstick comedy that starts off in Chicago 1910. Leo Harrigan (Ryan O'Neal) is an incompetent lawyer who somehow staggers into a fast talking independent movie producer H H Cobb (Brian Keith.)
Cobb has been evading the Patents Company, a conglomerate of big movie producers who use patents on movie cameras to block smaller players entering the industry.
Harrigan is hired as a writer, quickly becomes a director and he keeps bumping into dancer Kathleen Cooke who has poor eyesight.
Cooke also keeps stumbling into cowboy Buck Greenway (Burt Reynolds.) He was meant to deliver a saddle, he ends up becoming an enforcer for the Patents Company. Later an actor for Harrigan.
Both of the end up vying for Cooke's attentions. As they make short reels quickly. They realise that the movie industry is changing with D W Griffith's Birth of a Nation.
Nickelodeon shares a lot with Bogdanovich's earlier slapstick comedy What's Up, Doc?
Nevertheless this is a fun charming film. I enjoyed the silly slapstick. Unfortunately it got mixed reviews and flopped at the box office. The reason being it lacked a dramatic impulse. There is no real danger as the Patents Company plot just fades away.
It features strong performances. Bogdanovich was one of the few directors who could get a good performance out of Ryan O'Neal. Both he and Reynolds are exemplary in the slapstick scenes.
Reynolds exudes natural charm and charisma. Yet he is never coasting. There is good support from John Ritter, Brian Keith, Tatum O'Neal and in her movie debut; Jane Hitchcock who plays Cooke.
Overdone slapstick gags make for a tedious look at early film-making...
Doylenf6 September 2009
If director Peter Bogdanovich hadn't used such a heavy-handed slapstick treatment of his little epic about early film-making called NICKELODEON, there might have emerged a fond tribute to the pioneering days of silent films in the early part of the 20th Century.
But instead, he has filled NICKELODEON with a whole series of non-stop sight gags that become tiresome and repetitious, even more so because none of the characters involved really come to life. As the pretty heroine of the piece, JANE HITCHCOCK has very limited abilities beyond staring wide-eyed into the camera lens for comic effect. BURT REYNOLDS at least does derive several good chuckles from his comedy efforts as a reluctant participant in RYAN O'NEAL's troupe of silent film actors.
O'Neal has obviously chosen to play his role as though he has just watched a Harold Lloyd film, wearing spectacles for his first entrance and doing the bumbling sight gags on cue, as hapless a hero as Lloyd was in all his comedies. He's not too bad, but is never as funny as he was in WHAT'S UP DOC?, an earlier Bogdanovich film.
Tecbnically, the film is handsomely produced and pleasing to look at in color, but STELLA STEVENS is given little to do in what amounts to a supporting role. JOHN RITTER doesn't have too much opportunity to display his comic gifts. Entirely too much footage is devoted to a rough and tumble fight between Reynolds and O'Neal that takes up too much time with too many slapstick pratfalls to emerge as anything more than filler.
The film plods along without the benefit of a tight script or a really compelling story and suffers, mainly, from the heavy-handed approach to comedy.
But instead, he has filled NICKELODEON with a whole series of non-stop sight gags that become tiresome and repetitious, even more so because none of the characters involved really come to life. As the pretty heroine of the piece, JANE HITCHCOCK has very limited abilities beyond staring wide-eyed into the camera lens for comic effect. BURT REYNOLDS at least does derive several good chuckles from his comedy efforts as a reluctant participant in RYAN O'NEAL's troupe of silent film actors.
O'Neal has obviously chosen to play his role as though he has just watched a Harold Lloyd film, wearing spectacles for his first entrance and doing the bumbling sight gags on cue, as hapless a hero as Lloyd was in all his comedies. He's not too bad, but is never as funny as he was in WHAT'S UP DOC?, an earlier Bogdanovich film.
Tecbnically, the film is handsomely produced and pleasing to look at in color, but STELLA STEVENS is given little to do in what amounts to a supporting role. JOHN RITTER doesn't have too much opportunity to display his comic gifts. Entirely too much footage is devoted to a rough and tumble fight between Reynolds and O'Neal that takes up too much time with too many slapstick pratfalls to emerge as anything more than filler.
The film plods along without the benefit of a tight script or a really compelling story and suffers, mainly, from the heavy-handed approach to comedy.
Saw it with Bogdanovitch in the Theatre
prometheeus9 March 2008
As Peter called it his Director's Cut and this was also a World Premiere. It was completely in black in white in a movie theatre for the first time ever. PB said he hadn't seen it ever on the big screen in this new and preferred way either. What a wonderful ode to the way that it was back in the 1910's.
I laughed frequently to the gags, film in-jokes, and silent film style action. Period detail was fun to see with the clothing, cars, white face for silent scenes, and silent inter-titles between scenes. All around this is one of those fun movies that's filled with a lot of info layered into the story. Even more so to those fans that know what it took to create and record performances on the first motion picture film stocks. The film score by Richard Hazard sounded like it was lifted from one of the Keystone Kops films. The cinematography by Laszlo Kovacs was superb. I loved the closing credits sequence showing a studio of glass with bright lights at night and showing the filming of soldiers marching through the set and then coming outside to go around again and again. The level of authenticity was undeniable and enjoying both at the same time. A Rare Feat.
Within the film it would show people watching silent films and what it took for those employees of that theatre to recreate with the in house orchestra and sound / special effects to be heard alongside the audibly silent film performance.
I miss John Ritter, Jane Hitchcock was gorgeous, James Best in his western garb, George Gaynes (the Commandant who got blown away in Police Academy 1), Harry Carey Jr, M. Emmet Walsh, Brian Keith, and the juicy Stella Stevens.
* Before the movie started there was a Q&A. Among the facts before the screening were these: Peter stated that the studio wouldn't let him use Cybil for this film (even though it was written only for her) or that if she would do Nickelodeon they would NOT let her do Taxi Driver. Also Peter wanted to go with Jeff Bridges in Burt's role.
That the then head of Columbia said it would be OK to film it in color and then we'll let you release it black and white. The studio also forced him to remove a scene of Ryan romancing Ritter's girl Stella. It was nothing more than Ritter seeing Ryan go into Stella's room and close the door. Ritter in that moment had Tatum at his side.
The copy we saw last night was on a Beta type tape. So there was a delay of perhaps 15 seconds in the theatre for switching the tapes. It came from the acting Columbia library mgr within the last few months. PB had only seen this print once before at Quentin Tarantino's house. QT has the gadgets necessary to play this apparently rare type of Beta stock. QT's quote for last night's theatrical screening was "It's F'ing Rad"; although QT was not in attendance.
Peter said that he hopes that there will be a future director's cut release onto DVD here in the states. As the abused Columbia release is so far only on DVD in the UK. I told him I'd love to hear his commentary for the movie. What a movie!!!
I laughed frequently to the gags, film in-jokes, and silent film style action. Period detail was fun to see with the clothing, cars, white face for silent scenes, and silent inter-titles between scenes. All around this is one of those fun movies that's filled with a lot of info layered into the story. Even more so to those fans that know what it took to create and record performances on the first motion picture film stocks. The film score by Richard Hazard sounded like it was lifted from one of the Keystone Kops films. The cinematography by Laszlo Kovacs was superb. I loved the closing credits sequence showing a studio of glass with bright lights at night and showing the filming of soldiers marching through the set and then coming outside to go around again and again. The level of authenticity was undeniable and enjoying both at the same time. A Rare Feat.
Within the film it would show people watching silent films and what it took for those employees of that theatre to recreate with the in house orchestra and sound / special effects to be heard alongside the audibly silent film performance.
I miss John Ritter, Jane Hitchcock was gorgeous, James Best in his western garb, George Gaynes (the Commandant who got blown away in Police Academy 1), Harry Carey Jr, M. Emmet Walsh, Brian Keith, and the juicy Stella Stevens.
* Before the movie started there was a Q&A. Among the facts before the screening were these: Peter stated that the studio wouldn't let him use Cybil for this film (even though it was written only for her) or that if she would do Nickelodeon they would NOT let her do Taxi Driver. Also Peter wanted to go with Jeff Bridges in Burt's role.
That the then head of Columbia said it would be OK to film it in color and then we'll let you release it black and white. The studio also forced him to remove a scene of Ryan romancing Ritter's girl Stella. It was nothing more than Ritter seeing Ryan go into Stella's room and close the door. Ritter in that moment had Tatum at his side.
The copy we saw last night was on a Beta type tape. So there was a delay of perhaps 15 seconds in the theatre for switching the tapes. It came from the acting Columbia library mgr within the last few months. PB had only seen this print once before at Quentin Tarantino's house. QT has the gadgets necessary to play this apparently rare type of Beta stock. QT's quote for last night's theatrical screening was "It's F'ing Rad"; although QT was not in attendance.
Peter said that he hopes that there will be a future director's cut release onto DVD here in the states. As the abused Columbia release is so far only on DVD in the UK. I told him I'd love to hear his commentary for the movie. What a movie!!!
Peter Bogdanovich still deserves a good reputation
lee_eisenberg3 July 2007
I've read about how, after Peter Bogdanovich enjoyed a trio of critical and commercial successes ("The Last Picture Show", "What's Up, Doc?" and "Paper Moon"), he suffered a trio of critical and commercial failures ("Daisy Miller", "At Long Last Love" and "Nickelodeon"). Now that I've seen the last one, I would say that it's no masterpiece in any way, shape or form, but not terrible. Some of the scenes drag a little bit, but this look at the early days of the film industry has its moments. I guess that a lot of people thought that Bogdanovich was making too many nostalgia pieces and thus turned this one down. I wouldn't recommend it as your first choice, but you might want to check it out if possible. I personally think that Peter Bogdanovich deserves a lot more credit than we give him. You'll really laugh at Ryan O'Neal's and John Ritter's confusion over "Tell me where to put it." Also starring Burt Reynolds, Tatum O'Neal, Stella Stevens and Brian Keith.
What went wrong?
JasparLamarCrabb14 January 2006
A lot is wrong with Peter Bogdanovich's NICKELODEON, which is particularly disheartening since it surely had a good deal of potential. What could have been --- and should have been --- an affectionate tribute to the silent movie masters Bogdanovich clearly idolizes is botched in every way imaginable: The pacing is sluggish, the casting is mostly bad and the acting ranges from the smarminess of Burt Reynolds to the lifelessness of Ryan O'Neal. Reliable actors like Stella Stevens and John Ritter barely register. In a role meant for Orson Welles, Brian Keith overacts to an embarrassing degree. A one time model named Jane Hitchcock has a pivotal role and although extremely fetching, she has the acting range of a young Cybill Shepherd, a distinction that should not be worn as a badge of honor. One major ASSET is the presence of Tatum O'Neal, whose caustic wit is matched by her really great driving!
After directing one great movie and a few really good ones, Bogdanovich's ride to obscurity was propelled by this wreck and AT LONG LAST LOVE released a year earlier. He has yet to fully recover.
After directing one great movie and a few really good ones, Bogdanovich's ride to obscurity was propelled by this wreck and AT LONG LAST LOVE released a year earlier. He has yet to fully recover.
Charming, very underrated comedy
cherold11 August 2013
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.
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.
Has good moments-- but absolutely no compelling story
MissSimonetta8 April 2020
NICKELODEON beautifully evokes the feel of early filmmaking, how these people had to learn everything on the fly, how unorganized filmmaking was before the mid-1910s. Unfortunately, all this is wasted on paper-thin characters who barely grow or change over the course of the movie, which seems to alternate between history lessons on the nickelodeon era and never-ending pratfalls (for real, these people fell over so much they seemed drunk rather than merely clumsy; I get it's supposed to evoke the silent comedians... but even Chaplin and Keaton didn't fall over this much in their movies, good heaven).
It's a shame because everyone is giving it their all. The costumes and cinematography are gorgeous. The actors give as much life as possible to these one-dimensional characters (yes, even the oft-panned Ryan O'Neal is good). I can tell Peter Bogdanovich is passionate about silent film... but couldn't he have just been a bit more passionate about telling a story inside that milieu?
It's a shame because everyone is giving it their all. The costumes and cinematography are gorgeous. The actors give as much life as possible to these one-dimensional characters (yes, even the oft-panned Ryan O'Neal is good). I can tell Peter Bogdanovich is passionate about silent film... but couldn't he have just been a bit more passionate about telling a story inside that milieu?
Comedy is an Art
howardeisman6 September 2009
Comedy is an art. It is NOT a lot of people perpetually stumbling, falling, or being knocked down. The main character should be somehow sympathetic despite major character flaws (vain, arrogant but cowardly; preternaturally naive but brave; etc.) In this turkey, two main characters have no personality. They are inadequately introduced, and there is little we know about them except they are exceptionally inept, at everything they try. One can't even sneeze without falling off his chair.
The story is tedious. The color photography and period clothing uninteresting.Except for Tatum O'Neil (who IS interesting), the cast, all playing empty stereotypes, seems to be just hanging around, doing one scene with one style of acting, and their next with another. I believe they were just marking time waiting for their next stumble.
Too bad. The time period and the topic have the potential for a great historical comedy
The story is tedious. The color photography and period clothing uninteresting.Except for Tatum O'Neil (who IS interesting), the cast, all playing empty stereotypes, seems to be just hanging around, doing one scene with one style of acting, and their next with another. I believe they were just marking time waiting for their next stumble.
Too bad. The time period and the topic have the potential for a great historical comedy
Desperately trying to be funny
laura731 February 2006
Clearly Peter Bogdanovich was running out of ideas and commercial luck by the time this movie hit the theaters. Ryan O'Neal repeating the role ( with much less success ) from What's Up Doc? is hardly watchable and very predictable. Burt Reynolds totally miscast and trying to be funny at all costs (as is the movie from time to time, the scenes don't work because they are too calculated to make us laugh ). The best comes from the three female leads, Stella Stevens is always a pleasure to watch even in a nothing role as hers in this movie, Tatum O'Neal steals all the scenes she is in ( not a very difficult endeavor )and the stunningly beautiful Jane Hitchcock ( a Cybill Shepherd look-alike ) makes the movie worth-watching again and again and again . For Jane ( whatever happened...), for the great movie that could have been ( and never was )and comparing from the crap we're getting today ( SNL comedians, Farrelly Bros, Stiller & Friends ... ). Nickelodeon is a must see.
What's the use of worrying?
theoneandonlyjimmypage15 March 2017
Nickelodeon is best to be for fans enjoyed . Enjoyed, and it will do. fortunes do! as it is about the early days of the movies. It's not a chronicle of one or two movie people, but all of them. It was a time in "the states" it was exploration, excitement and graphic art...bold bright flickering crazy strokes...they were madness, genius, fear, boldness. And truth .And lies. (Nickelodeon 1976) " What you're doing is giving them tiny pieces of time that they never forget"
It's WHO you meet, not necessarily the MOVIE
ub7 August 2006
In 1975, I was a Teamster Driver for the studios, and one of the first locations was a location caterer for the movie Nickelodeon. With all of the behind the camera activities, I happened to notice a "drop-dead" beautiful woman, who was always near Ryan. Feeling more confident with myself during the second week, we started a conversation about everything, but really about nothing. We stayed in touch; she went her way and I went my way. Before a short period of time, we went out (she insisted on driving). Why? Because she owned a 1925 Silver Cloud, black and silver in color. That was 1979, and during the summer of '80, I landed a prime job as the caterer for a total of 9 weeks; at sea; off Catalina Island; 3 meals per day; 7 days a week. It was just me and the ship's crew of 7. I had to always be there to service cast, crew and the ship's crew. O.K. not bad, but it got a lot happier on the 4th week end. I phoned Sheree and asked her to visit. She did. We stayed close friends, and in 1994, we got married. I never did see the movie!
Fun and charming film in which Bogdanovich pays tribute to silent cinema and its actors.
ma-cortes7 December 2023
In 1910 a new show, Nickelodeon, was born. It is called that because people paid 5 cents to see it. Then, Buck (Burt Reynolds) and lawyer Leo (Ryan O'Neal) accidentally enter film production in the early days (1910). Lawyer, then writer, then film director, it is the career of the shy Leo Harrigan. But Leo also has problems, such as being hopelessly in love with his leading lady (Jane Hitchcock), who decides to reward his attentions by hooking up with Harrigan's vulgar leading man, Buck Greenaway. Dreams. 5 cents. Love. Action. Comedy. Suspense. Excitement. Before Rhett kissed Scarlett. Before Laurel met Hardy. Before Butch Cassidy met the Sundance Kid. Before any movie made you laugh, cry or fall in love. There were a handful of adventurers who made flickering images that could be viewed for five cents.
An engaging 1970s comedy in the spirit of silent cinema but made by Peter Bogdanovich, featuring laughter, confusion, funny scenes, entertainment and great fun. Set between 1910 and 1915, it spends years confusing the protagonists' lives and their suitcases before they set out to make films. One ridiculous and absurd situation after another adds to the high-speed fun. The film successfully brought together famous stars and earned a moderate gross at the box office. Despite some hilarious intentions, the film takes itself too seriously as a tribute to film pioneers. But with Peter Bognadovich's wistful nostalgia partially lacking in perspective, this uneven reenactment becomes entirely a work of times past; there's certainly enough wit, rhythm or verve to suggest it's alive. There are funny sketches and cute sets about the silent filming with a series of anecdotes highlighting the mistakes, failures and upheavals. However, in some scenes, several actors are completely exposed, mugging in a clumsy and charming manner. Throughout all its outlandish incidents, this wacky comedy about early silent films rarely manages to elicit laughs. Filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich's pacing seems a mistake and his actors could be acceptable when trying to record real roles. There are acceptable actors paying silent film clichés and especially paying homage to The Birth of the Nation or The Clansman, the silent film masterpiece of the great D. W. Griffith and actors of the time such as Mary Pickford, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton.
The main and supporting cast give decent performances, such as: Ryan O'Neal as the headstrong lawyer trying to achieve fame and fortune in the world of cinema, Burt Reynolds acting in his usual style, the inexperienced protagonist Jane Hitchcock of short career is a washout, Tatum O'Neal escapes the clutches of the script to provide a genuine spark. Along with other nice supporting characters, they are all in nice shape, including: Brian Keith, Stella Stevens, John Ritter, George Gaynes, M. Emmet Walsh, Brion James.
It contains admirable and evocative cinematography by Laszlo Kovaks. The film is acceptable and passable, it is professionally directed, although it is terribly pedantic for a comedy. Peter Bognadovich achieves the uneven balance between chaos and control, adding sparkling dialogue and disconcerting incidents. Peter was one of Hollywood's greatest directors. He directed 6 different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: Ben Johnson, Jeff Bridges, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Tatum O'Neal and Madeline Kahn. Johnson, Leachman and O'Neal won Oscars for their performances. Peter made some masterpieces and directed all kinds of genres with a predilection for Comedy, such as The last Picture Show, Targets, Paper Moon, Daisy Miller, Saint jack, Everybody laughed, Mask, Illegally yours, Texasville, Noises OFF, A thing. Called Love, A Saintly Switch, among others. Bognadovich was offered the opportunity to direct The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974). It's definitely a must-see for Peter Bogdanovich enthusiasts and he's sure to make you fall off your seat with slight laughter. It's a true family film that will appeal to fans of Ryan O'Neal and Burt Reynolds.
An engaging 1970s comedy in the spirit of silent cinema but made by Peter Bogdanovich, featuring laughter, confusion, funny scenes, entertainment and great fun. Set between 1910 and 1915, it spends years confusing the protagonists' lives and their suitcases before they set out to make films. One ridiculous and absurd situation after another adds to the high-speed fun. The film successfully brought together famous stars and earned a moderate gross at the box office. Despite some hilarious intentions, the film takes itself too seriously as a tribute to film pioneers. But with Peter Bognadovich's wistful nostalgia partially lacking in perspective, this uneven reenactment becomes entirely a work of times past; there's certainly enough wit, rhythm or verve to suggest it's alive. There are funny sketches and cute sets about the silent filming with a series of anecdotes highlighting the mistakes, failures and upheavals. However, in some scenes, several actors are completely exposed, mugging in a clumsy and charming manner. Throughout all its outlandish incidents, this wacky comedy about early silent films rarely manages to elicit laughs. Filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich's pacing seems a mistake and his actors could be acceptable when trying to record real roles. There are acceptable actors paying silent film clichés and especially paying homage to The Birth of the Nation or The Clansman, the silent film masterpiece of the great D. W. Griffith and actors of the time such as Mary Pickford, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton.
The main and supporting cast give decent performances, such as: Ryan O'Neal as the headstrong lawyer trying to achieve fame and fortune in the world of cinema, Burt Reynolds acting in his usual style, the inexperienced protagonist Jane Hitchcock of short career is a washout, Tatum O'Neal escapes the clutches of the script to provide a genuine spark. Along with other nice supporting characters, they are all in nice shape, including: Brian Keith, Stella Stevens, John Ritter, George Gaynes, M. Emmet Walsh, Brion James.
It contains admirable and evocative cinematography by Laszlo Kovaks. The film is acceptable and passable, it is professionally directed, although it is terribly pedantic for a comedy. Peter Bognadovich achieves the uneven balance between chaos and control, adding sparkling dialogue and disconcerting incidents. Peter was one of Hollywood's greatest directors. He directed 6 different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: Ben Johnson, Jeff Bridges, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Tatum O'Neal and Madeline Kahn. Johnson, Leachman and O'Neal won Oscars for their performances. Peter made some masterpieces and directed all kinds of genres with a predilection for Comedy, such as The last Picture Show, Targets, Paper Moon, Daisy Miller, Saint jack, Everybody laughed, Mask, Illegally yours, Texasville, Noises OFF, A thing. Called Love, A Saintly Switch, among others. Bognadovich was offered the opportunity to direct The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974). It's definitely a must-see for Peter Bogdanovich enthusiasts and he's sure to make you fall off your seat with slight laughter. It's a true family film that will appeal to fans of Ryan O'Neal and Burt Reynolds.
A Plodding Slap-Stick Epic
LeaBlacks_Balls21 February 2010
This homage to the childhood days of the motion pictures starts in 1910, when the young attorney Leo Harrigan (Ryan O'Neal) by chance meets a motion picture producer. Immediately he's invited to become a writer for him - the start of a sensational career. Soon he's promoted to a director and shoots one silent movie after the other in the tiny desert village of Cacamonga with a small crew of actors. But the competition is hard: the patent agency sends out Buck Greenway (Burt Reynolds) to sabotage them. When they visit L.A., his crew is surprised by a new species: fans! This movie has many problems. The biggest one being it's running time. At over two hours, it's just way too long for a comedy, especially one that aspires to recreate the screwball humor of the olden days. The second problem is the confusing tone. One moment it's a love story, the next it's a slapstick comedy, then it's a history of early film-making, then it's a melodrama, then back to comedy. Repeat that for over two hours and things get pretty tiresome. Because of the constant jerking of the tone, none of the leads make much of an impression with their characters.
The slapstick comedy that worked so well in director Bogdanovich's hilarious 'What's Up Doc?' falls flat on it's face here. If Bogdanovich hadn't used such a heavy-handed slapstick, there might have emerged a fond tribute to the pioneering days of silent films in the early part of the 20th Century. But instead, he has filled the movie with a whole series of non-stop sight gags that become tiresome and repetitious, even more so because none of the characters involved really come to life. As the pretty heroine of the piece, Jane Hitchcock has very limited abilities beyond staring wide-eyed into the camera lens. Burt Reynolds at least does derive several good chuckles from his comedy efforts as a reluctant participant in the troupe of silent film actors. Younger and elder O'Neal are not too bad, but Ryan is never as funny as he was in 'What's Up Doc?' and Tatum, whose performance in 'Paper Moon' is still the best child performance ever on film, isn't very memorable here.
Technically, the film is handsomely produced and pleasing to look at in color, but it plods along without the benefit of a tight script or a really compelling story and suffers, mainly, from the heavy-handed approach to comedy.
The slapstick comedy that worked so well in director Bogdanovich's hilarious 'What's Up Doc?' falls flat on it's face here. If Bogdanovich hadn't used such a heavy-handed slapstick, there might have emerged a fond tribute to the pioneering days of silent films in the early part of the 20th Century. But instead, he has filled the movie with a whole series of non-stop sight gags that become tiresome and repetitious, even more so because none of the characters involved really come to life. As the pretty heroine of the piece, Jane Hitchcock has very limited abilities beyond staring wide-eyed into the camera lens. Burt Reynolds at least does derive several good chuckles from his comedy efforts as a reluctant participant in the troupe of silent film actors. Younger and elder O'Neal are not too bad, but Ryan is never as funny as he was in 'What's Up Doc?' and Tatum, whose performance in 'Paper Moon' is still the best child performance ever on film, isn't very memorable here.
Technically, the film is handsomely produced and pleasing to look at in color, but it plods along without the benefit of a tight script or a really compelling story and suffers, mainly, from the heavy-handed approach to comedy.
"Kathleen Cooke"-An Irresistible Screen Heroine
aimless-462 February 2005
Oddly this is a film that I have always liked and still make a point to watch when it is televised. I say "oddly" because I find Peter Bogdanovich and Ryan O'Neal excellent examples of two people pretty much clueless about their chosen professions. Bogdanovich was a journalist/critic/film theorist turned director (who had the bad taste to be involved with Cybill Shepperd) and O'Neal was a Hollywood personality who occasionally acted (who had the good taste to marry Leigh Taylor-Young).
Jane Hitchcock is the most interesting thing about "Nickelodeon". Hitchcock was a magazine model who Bogdanovich hoped to groom into a star. Bogdanovich historically has had a weakness for beautiful women of marginal talent (Shepherd and Dorothy Stratten's sister come to mind). Unlike the others, Hitchcock was quickly turned off by both Bogdanovich and the movie game-she already had a lucrative modeling career and didn't have to put up with the Hollywood starlet system. Whether Hitchcock would have made it big in movies is hard to tell, but in "Nickelodeon's" "Kathleen Cooke" she found a character she could play with wide-eyed innocence and complete sincerity. While it doesn't hurt that Hitchcock is drop dead gorgeous, her Kathleen Cooke character is more than gorgeous, she is absolutely captivating. Which makes her completely believable as the object of the movie's love triangle and elevates her to the top of my list of the all-time most irresistible screen heroines (even ahead of Fay Wray's "Ann Darrow" and Clara's Bow's "Mary Preston").
But "Kathleen Cooke" is not the only good thing about "Nickelodeon". It has one of cinema's all time funniest sequences. O'Neal arrives by train at a remote shooting location out west. He steps off the train at a watering stop and looks out over the desert to the movie set 500 yards away. The sun is high overhead baking the desert landscape and O'Neal is not enthusiastic about the prospect of walking that far in such heat. A tiny dog with the movie company spots him from that distance and begins running toward him. The dog is making a bee-line for him, as it gets closer we wait for the happy reunion, but when it arrives it immediately bites his leg. The dog hates him so much that it was willing to run that far in the hot sun just for the opportunity to attack him.
It also is an excellent and generally accurate history lesson about the early days of movies and the serendipity that determined who became involved with the new industry. Serendipity is the theme of the film and the source of most of its comedy, as the expanding talent needs of the new movie industry were often met by whoever they happened to encounter at a particular moment and not through any systematic process. Thus Burt Reynolds (in his best comic performance) becomes a stunt man only because at that moment they need a stunt man and he needs a job. A running gag is his boastful declaration with each new job that the job title (whatever it might be) is his middle name. Also a great take on how milestones like "Birth of a Nation" periodically set the bar higher throughout film history and inspired those within the industry to stretch themselves to do better work.
Ryan O'Neal is fairly low-key and therefore tolerable. In addition to Hitchcock and Reynolds, Bogdanovich gets excellent performances from Tatum O'Neal (great negotiating sequences), John Ritter, Stella Stevens and Brian Keith.
The main problem with "Nickelodeon" is that the depth and breathe of early film history is too complicated for a small comedic treatment. As a film historian Bogdanovich was dealing with a subject near and dear to his heart. He appears to have borrowed heavily from Fellini's "Variety Lights" and "White Sheik" to construct his company of players but could not integrate the intimate and light-hearted flavor of those films with the huge historical subject he was documenting. "Nickelodeon" is still entertaining and informative but the whole is less that the sum of its parts.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Jane Hitchcock is the most interesting thing about "Nickelodeon". Hitchcock was a magazine model who Bogdanovich hoped to groom into a star. Bogdanovich historically has had a weakness for beautiful women of marginal talent (Shepherd and Dorothy Stratten's sister come to mind). Unlike the others, Hitchcock was quickly turned off by both Bogdanovich and the movie game-she already had a lucrative modeling career and didn't have to put up with the Hollywood starlet system. Whether Hitchcock would have made it big in movies is hard to tell, but in "Nickelodeon's" "Kathleen Cooke" she found a character she could play with wide-eyed innocence and complete sincerity. While it doesn't hurt that Hitchcock is drop dead gorgeous, her Kathleen Cooke character is more than gorgeous, she is absolutely captivating. Which makes her completely believable as the object of the movie's love triangle and elevates her to the top of my list of the all-time most irresistible screen heroines (even ahead of Fay Wray's "Ann Darrow" and Clara's Bow's "Mary Preston").
But "Kathleen Cooke" is not the only good thing about "Nickelodeon". It has one of cinema's all time funniest sequences. O'Neal arrives by train at a remote shooting location out west. He steps off the train at a watering stop and looks out over the desert to the movie set 500 yards away. The sun is high overhead baking the desert landscape and O'Neal is not enthusiastic about the prospect of walking that far in such heat. A tiny dog with the movie company spots him from that distance and begins running toward him. The dog is making a bee-line for him, as it gets closer we wait for the happy reunion, but when it arrives it immediately bites his leg. The dog hates him so much that it was willing to run that far in the hot sun just for the opportunity to attack him.
It also is an excellent and generally accurate history lesson about the early days of movies and the serendipity that determined who became involved with the new industry. Serendipity is the theme of the film and the source of most of its comedy, as the expanding talent needs of the new movie industry were often met by whoever they happened to encounter at a particular moment and not through any systematic process. Thus Burt Reynolds (in his best comic performance) becomes a stunt man only because at that moment they need a stunt man and he needs a job. A running gag is his boastful declaration with each new job that the job title (whatever it might be) is his middle name. Also a great take on how milestones like "Birth of a Nation" periodically set the bar higher throughout film history and inspired those within the industry to stretch themselves to do better work.
Ryan O'Neal is fairly low-key and therefore tolerable. In addition to Hitchcock and Reynolds, Bogdanovich gets excellent performances from Tatum O'Neal (great negotiating sequences), John Ritter, Stella Stevens and Brian Keith.
The main problem with "Nickelodeon" is that the depth and breathe of early film history is too complicated for a small comedic treatment. As a film historian Bogdanovich was dealing with a subject near and dear to his heart. He appears to have borrowed heavily from Fellini's "Variety Lights" and "White Sheik" to construct his company of players but could not integrate the intimate and light-hearted flavor of those films with the huge historical subject he was documenting. "Nickelodeon" is still entertaining and informative but the whole is less that the sum of its parts.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
BOGDANOVICH'S HOMAGE TO THE SILENT SHORTS...!
masonfisk21 May 2022
Peter Bogdanovich's 1976 homage to the silent shorts of yesteryear starring Ryan O'Neal, Burt Reynolds & Jane Hitchcock. O'Neal is a lawyer who literally falls into a job as a scriptwriter & is whisked away out to the West Coast to help w/a shoot that is in peril. He meets Hitchcock, a sort of blind ingenue (she's always causing calamity whenever she bumps into something), who he takes a fancy to but then she meets Reynolds, a former cowpoke making a saddle delivery, & sparks fly w/him too. All three meet up again on the flailing film set to find the previous director has absconded w/the budget sending O'Neal into a panic but then some encouraging words from the cameraman, played by John Ritter, convinces him to direct & he makes a go of it finding a star in Reynolds & later a co-star in Hitchcock when she's fired from a dance revue. Hounding them along the way is the notion that there particular brand of film-making is starting to go away (talk of D. W. Griffith's new project is bandied about which turns out to be Birth of a Nation) & the inevitable love triangle soon asserts himself. Lovingly photographed & shown in black & white (something the studio didn't want even though Bogdanovich already had 2 critical/commercial hits w/The Last Picture Show & Paper Moon made in that format) but the letdown is how overlong the film is (considering the brevity of the medium the characters are engaged in) & over-reliance on slapstick soon wears out its welcome but the actors are exceedingly game & the screenplay (by the director & W. D. Richter) is a welcome throwback w/its heart in the right place. Also starring Brian Keith as the studio head, Stella Stevens & George Gaynes (Punky Brewster's dad) as members of the acting troupe, James Best shows up as part of the film crew, future Blade Runner stars Brion James & M. Emmet Walsh turn up as a bailiff & a fake clergyman respectively & last but not least Tatum O'Neal, reuniting w/the director & co-star of Paper Moon (her dad) as a plucky gopher dazzled by the lure of young Hollywood.
A childish and very unfunny movie!
richard-g2897 September 2009
Maybe children under the age of ten would enjoy this movie, which is supposed to be a comedy, but I, a 56 year-old man, was very disappointed when I saw it. Sure, it does have a good cast, but for me it fell flat on it's cinematic face. I kept waiting for it to make me laugh, but it was so lame and childish that after an hour of boredom I debated whether to keep watching it. How many pratfalls and silly unlikely quips can you sit though? Aside from some occasionally nice scenery and the period costumes, this movie doesn't have much to offer. I haven't yawned so much since I saw Jerry Lewis'old stink bomb "Don't Raise the Bridge, Lower the River". Oh well!
I was on the set of Nickelodeon
paulie_aragon2 July 2008
Much of Nickelodeon was shot in the foothills outside of Modesto CA where I lived. Everyone connected with the film stayed at the Holiday Inn which was where I hung out. Modesto is a small town and there wasn't much to do except to go to the Inn and swim and play chess. I meet a few people and the next thing I know I was on set everyday. Most people think of filming as long and tedious but I loved watching it all. The first person I met was Ryan but because he was dressed in costume I didn't recognize him immediate but I must say he was charming. John Ritter was very nice. Mr.Bogdonovitch was very impressive, as was Polly Platt! The one person who impressed me above all others was Tatum. She was a very caring and sweet girl. It didn't take long to learn enough about her history to help me understand the problems she is having in her later years. I wish she could let go of the past pain and really enjoy life in a healthy way. In all, I had a wonderful time and enjoyed the movie probably more than some people just because of the experience I had while it was being made. Just today I found out that Lazlo Kovacs passed away last year, on my birthday, and that I had not heard about it. How sad, he was a great talent and a wonderful person. Meeting him was an honor. When he looked at you it was if he was seeing who you for who you really are, through and through. What a life you have lived, Mr. Lazlo. Thank you for sharing your visions of beauty with us all.
Should've been great
jbacks35 November 2010
This has to be one of the most aggravating movies ever made. With the possible exception of Marty Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich has the knowledge of the era. Unfortunately, the setting (1910-15) is the only thing that Bogdanovich gets right. Why slapstick? Nearly everyone is miscast (Reynolds, Ritter, who seems oblivious to the period), vapid (the beautiful Jane Hitchcock) or wasted (Stevens) and everyone is embroiled in a disjointed script (which seems oddly like a first draft) that abruptly jumps from slapstick to melodrama to comedy. I'd imagine that anyone interested in seeing the film would have some interest in embryonic filmmaking, but Nickelodeon is a total mess. The best scenes come at the very end; I'll disagree with another reviewer on one point: I felt that Ryan O'Neal's emotion while watching "The Clansman" (AKA Birth of a Nation") was the sad realization that he'd never make a film of that caliber, not that he was capable of better things. In some ways, Nickelodeon seems to be the culmination of so many period Hollywood films released in the mid 70's that went horribly wrong (W.C. Fields and Me, Gable and Lombard, Won Ton Ton, the Dog that Saved Hollywood)--- the two best (Day of the Locust, and the almost unseen Hearts of the West were also flawed); Nickelodeon is, considering the director and the budget, the worst offender, since it should've been so much better. It's a train wreck.
Disappointing look at the golden age of movies.
jrs-820 July 2002
It is quite obvious that director Peter Bogdanovich is in love with old movies. It's a shame his love didn't translate well with the making of "Nickelodeon" which tells the story of a group of misfits making movies in its earliest days.
Ryan O'Neal and Burt Reynolds play, respectively, director and star of the movie being made. Bogdanovich makes a crucial mistake with these characters. He plays them as silly comedians who do pratfalls and get into lots of trouble. How much more interesting had they played it straight and let humor derive from the hard work that goes into making movies.
The film has a nice supporting cast but most of these fine actors are wasted (especially Ryan's daughter Tatum who was fresh off of "The Bad News Bears").
There are two terrific scenes that illustrate where Bogdanovich might have been going with this film had he played it a little more straight. The first is when the group comes upon the world premiere of "Birth of a Nation." They watch the film in awe and realize that perhaps they all are capable of far better work. The other is a scene where the group stops at a nickelodeon shop and watch the film they have made. Upon exiting some people recognize Reynolds as the star of the movie they have just watched. They clamor around him wanting to touch him and have his autograph. Thus the movie star is born.
Two great scenes in an otherwise disjointed comedy from a director who should have known better.
Ryan O'Neal and Burt Reynolds play, respectively, director and star of the movie being made. Bogdanovich makes a crucial mistake with these characters. He plays them as silly comedians who do pratfalls and get into lots of trouble. How much more interesting had they played it straight and let humor derive from the hard work that goes into making movies.
The film has a nice supporting cast but most of these fine actors are wasted (especially Ryan's daughter Tatum who was fresh off of "The Bad News Bears").
There are two terrific scenes that illustrate where Bogdanovich might have been going with this film had he played it a little more straight. The first is when the group comes upon the world premiere of "Birth of a Nation." They watch the film in awe and realize that perhaps they all are capable of far better work. The other is a scene where the group stops at a nickelodeon shop and watch the film they have made. Upon exiting some people recognize Reynolds as the star of the movie they have just watched. They clamor around him wanting to touch him and have his autograph. Thus the movie star is born.
Two great scenes in an otherwise disjointed comedy from a director who should have known better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
