HotToastyRag Hollywood loves to make movies about itself. Audiences love to watch them; it makes them think they're all secretly true stories. In Silent Movie, Mel Brooks plays a has-been director desperate for another hit. He pitches the idea of creating a silent film to his studio, and once given the green light, he has to recruit movie stars to act in it.The entire movie (except for one spoken word) is silent, but the gags get old fast. It really isn't Mel Brook's finest hour. I was so bored I kept fast-forwarding sections of the film. This is one of those Hollywood movies that seem like it actually happened. When Mel Brooks has a hard time getting studio approval and actor interest in his film, it feels painfully realistic. The only bright spots are the actors who play themselves in cameo roles: Paul Newman, Burt Reynolds, Liza Minnelli, James Caan, Marcel Marceau, and of course, Anne Bancroft.

Irishchatter When I started watching the film and realising it was in colour, I really didn't think it works that way because I think black and white is better for silent films. Whatever Mel Brooks had in his head for making this in colour, was pretty much a very bad idea! It's just annoying, you can't hear what the characters are saying and they pretty were off sync. Yeah the sound effects and the instrumental music was suppose to save it, yet it really ain't good enough to make it one of Brook's best movies hes ever done! I wouldn't consider this to be watchable, it just drills your head and your brains out in a very unhappy ending!

Pete Huntley I'm half way through this, and it's awful. What was Brooks thinking? The silent comics had grown up making slapstick on stage and on film. Laurel and Hardy were both in their thirties with dozens of two reelers each before they were teamed up. Buster Keaton had been doing slapstick since the age of 3. I can say this because I'm currently in the middle of watching a whole load of silents from L&H, Keaton, Charlie Chase, Harold Lloyd and so on. Those two reelers work because they only have 20 minutes to tell a full story. Scenes are either full on slapstick or 10 seconds long to move the story on. Moreover slapstick is the comedy of pain and embarrassment and to make it work you have to sell that - through overacting if need be.Brooks completely fails to understand this. About 15 minutes into the film, Dom Deluise has a door slammed on his foot. Although the joke is blatantly set up, at first I didn't even realise that the slam had occurred. Deluise barely reacts. All I can think about is how Oliver Hardy would have sold the same gag - as I've literally just watched him do it several times over. Compare the two. No contest.Mel Brooks has written a completely normal film and then simply taken all the sound out and replaced it with captions. The only reason to watch this is for the cameos. Paul Newman, James Caan, Burt Reynolds, Liza Minelli, Marcel Marceau and Anne Bancroft gamely send themselves up. Paul Newman in his racing wheelchair is clearly enjoying himself and gives the best scene of the movie. As for the rest, Marty Feldman acts everyone else off the screen - when he's actually given something to do that is - thanks to his British physical comedy training.

disdressed12 although i wouldn't call this movie a laugh riot,id id found it amusing.and i did chuckles a few times.some of the slapstick is fairly funny.and it is essentially a silent movie.there is one audible word word uttered in the whole movie.there is some music and sound effects,as well.but otherwise,foe all intents and purposes,it's a silent movie.making a Silent Movie in 1976 must have taken quite a lot of moxie,so you have to hand it to Mel Brooks for that.i guess it didn't hurt that he got some big names of the day to agree to appear in it.still,it's no masterpiece,but it's a step up from History of the World Part I,which i had watched just prior to it.for me,Silent Movie is a 5/10