This is a light-hearted movie, with some funny slapstick moments. Has great period detail but could've done with a bit more depth of character.There are two versions of this movie on the DVD release (the one I have). The director's cut is apparently a few minutes longer than the theatrical release but I couldn't tell any difference between them. So the main difference is that the director's cut is in black and white while the other version is in colour. I'm not sure which I prefer. The black and white makes sense since the film is about the early days of American cinema, but the colour version looks great too; especially when they're out filming in the countryside.The ending, which portrays the premiere of DW Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation,' seems to be a lament for the demise of movies as purely fun entertainment and their transformation into serious works of art.

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!

"Targets": idiotic. "The Last Picture Show": dull, filmed in pretentious black-and-white. (Okay, at least he cast his bimbo girlfriend Cybill Shepherd naked there...) "What's Up, Doc?": as bad as every comedy with Big-Nose.Peter Bogdanovich was probably the most overrated director in the 60s/70s, and this painfully unfunny "comedy" only underlines the ineptitude that this pretentious ex-critic always exhibited. Bogdanovich, whose name very ironically means "God's gift", has stated on numerous occasions his belief that the best movies had already been made by the late 60s - which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. His almost sexual obsession with dumb black-and-white movies, the so-called "classics" of the 20s/30s/40s, had gotten so bad that he had decided one day to make this quasi-tribute to the "golden comedies" of the Silent Era by making a piece of junk called "Nickelodeon". And what better way to enhance an already awful script than by casting such comedy "giants" as Ryan O'Neal and John Ritter...If you think Bogdanovich's "Noises Off" was a pathetic, embarrassing-to-watch farce, then check out this little stinker: it's quite hard to figure out which is more cretinous or childish. "Nickelodeon" is full of sight gags that the writers of Loony Toons would reject on the basis that they are too stupid. This inept comedy can only be enjoyed by two types of people: 1) those who find circus clowns funny, and 2) those who have forced themselves to believe - despite the glaring contradicting, abundant evidence - that Bogdanovich must be a great director, simply because he is the critics' darling. And as we all know, you can't be a good movie student unless you agree with the film critics...A mystery that is on par with why Madonna has had a long career in music or what drugs you have to be on to enjoy Kanye West's excremental produce is certainly the film-critics' love for Bogdanovich's crap. I have no explanation for it, other than that perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that he used to be a critic himself hence knows all those guys by first name. They probably all drink in the same pub, and weep together whenever they hear Barbra Streisand being played on the radio...

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.