A quick glance at the user comments will tell you that this film is worth seeing. I'm neither a musical fanatic nor a boxing enthusiast, but the numbers, performances and nuances were entrancing.

Somehow, Donen found the perfect blend for the self-reflexive genre picture, a combination that is exceedingly difficult for modern filmmakers to get a handle on. The viewer is watching a spoof yet all of the elements are still real. We feel for the pitifully archetypal characters because it seems that they realize their fate as symbols. George C. Scott's glances of reaction, just askew of breaking the third wall, depict someone who is aware of his limited fate, but still experiences with all of his emotions every situation as if he doesn't know it's coming. In this way, the actors, as in the Brechtian mode of theater, are somewhat like audience members themselves. They know the story and the ending, but they can't help suspending their disbelief, just for fun.

The musical numbers work in the same way. They are spoofs, fulfilling specific purposes and making all the proper illusions, yet are thoroughly enjoyable as musical numbers.

"Movie Movie" isn't necessarily a great movie, but it gives the illusion of greatness in its sincerity. In a medium where the audience often feels that they are the butt of a joke only the director knows the setup to, "Movie Movie" puts across the feeling that the director genuinely enjoys movies and expects everyone involved to derive the same pleasure from them.

Just wrote a review of the far, far, far, far, inferior "National Lampoon's Movie Madness," which also parodies films, though contemporary ones. I brought up "Movie Movie" as an example of the same concept which is as excellent as the National Lampoon movie is awful.

This is a delightful trip back to the movies of the 1930's. Somehow I saw this movie when it first came out. I guess I sought it out as (having been an eager consumer of Mad Magazine as a little squirt) I am a fan of parodies and mockumentaries of this sort. I remember watching it in a tiny closet-sized movie theater in a shopping mall in New Jersey. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the only movie theater in the state of New Jersey that played it. I was only 12 years old at the time, and obviously not around during the 1930's, but I had been exposed to enough old movies on television during my young life that I enjoyed the whole thing fully.

I remember noticing that both movies start off with the same stock footage of a busy Manhattan street, the first one in black and white of course, and the second one in color, both backed by a similar jaunty tune meant to evoke the bustle of Manhattan in the 1930's. Sure to provoke a big laugh even before we meet the characters or hear the first line of dialog.

Who know George C. Scott had such a facility for comedy? It's worth finding out. If you are in any way, shape or form a fan of crusty old movies, you should seek this out. A lovable way to spend 100 minutes.

I loved this film and truly believe that most people will find the movie boring and trite. That's because I am a huge fan of the Golden Age of Hollywood and only lovers of these old movies would find this lovingly made film interesting. The movie is broken down into two wonderful parodies of Warner Brothers movies--specifically a musical similar to 42nd STREET and a boxing film similar to KID GALAHAD. These parodies, though, are meant more as a homage to the genres, as the movie really seems to try to honor the style instead of ridicule the originals. It was like the exact same writers and sensibilities were magically transported to 1978. George C. Scott did a great job--it's too bad this film is a one of a kind.