2 of 2

Write now Article Tools

Being a movie affinado I've seen lots of movies. I have what I like to call an "Untainted Eye".
Meaning? Meaning, I see films for waht they are and not what critics or the majority tell me they are. I make it a point not to let popular influence, Oscars, or star power determine how I feel about a film.
That said, I watched The General starring Buster Keaton for my film class. This film, in my opinion is nothing more than the "Waterworld" of 1926. For those who do not know

Waterworld is a 1995 post-apocalyptic science fiction film. The film stars Kevin Costner who also produced it. Waterworld was released in July of 1995.

For awhile "Waterworld" held the dubious distinction of being the most expensive film ever made at the time. With a budget of $175 million, the film grossed $88 million at the U.S. box office. It is still considered to be one of the biggest flops ever made, because of its huge budget.
"Waterworld" was made because at the time Kevin Costner was a star (kinda). The producers were counting on Costner's star power to recoup the money spent. That did not ahppen giving the film the dubious title of "Biggest Flops" in movie history.

"The General' in that regard, is to me just a Buster Keaton film with a lot of trains and open spaces in it. I'm sure in 1926 it wasn't cheap to build a bridge and then crash a train.
After watching the film I made the assumption that Mr. Keaton was probably near the end of his career.
After doing some research I found out i was partially right. Mr. Keaton wasn't at the end, but midway in his career, which proves his star power was still a draw at the theatre's.
Next, I thought it was supposed to be funny and it wasn't. If a film is a horror film I know I should be scared. The same if a film is a comedy I expect to laugh.
The gags wee predictive and redundant. This further drives home the point that the film wasn't about being funny, but about the audience knowing Keaton and laughing not because he was funny, but because he was Buster Keaton.
The entire film Buster Keaton was in every frame, every scene. I can only remember one scene where Keaton wasn't in the frame or scene. This was the scene with the two generals discussing the stealing of the train. Immediately after this short break form Keaton, the director immediately went to Keaton afterwards, as if to say, "Don't go anywhere here he is again."
When discussing this with friends they thought that it was because the film was in black and white that I did not like it. Wrong, a good movie is a good movie no matter what color it's in. Would Pulp Fiction still be as great in black and white? Yes! Would The General still be boring and not funny in color? Yes, it would probably be an even worst film.
The story was basic boy meets girl, boy loses girl, etc.
most films follow this basic pattern, yet the story between the format is what makes a good film.
For that simple fact one can not use era as an excuse for lack of plot, and story. The producers knew exactly what they were doing when they made the film and that was showcase Buster Keaton and do it big. The same as big studios do today, hire a big name star, throw together a script, blow some stuff up, and keep the star in the frame 98% of the time.
I learned something though from this film, and that is even in Hollywood, where creativity and imagination should be the number one priority, there is still nothing new under the sun.
That is until I make my entrance. When it happens the entire world will know. The moment you see a film like you've never seen before, it's probably me.

Learn more about this author, James Jenkins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Movie reviews: The General (1926)?
We want to hear your view. Write now!