THE GENERAL

I am really torn on this 1926 Buster Keaton film.  

As a great Keaton admirer I want to love it, especially since it has a reputation as a classic  (it was ranked in the top ten greatest films of all time in a couple of the prestigious Sight & Sound polls). 

Yet I can well understand why audiences and critics of the time were disappointed with it. 

The key point is that it is not a comedy as such so if you watch it with that expectation you are bound to come away somewhat bemused and disappointed.

Wikipedia describes it as an action comedy which calls to mind something like 'Lethal Weapon' rather than this loving recreation of a real event from the Civil War. 

Which is not to say there isn’t a lot of comic energy on display in the various set pieces involving trains as well as some amusing moments interspersed.

But there isn’t the level of comedic invention one would expect from a Keaton film, and Keaton himself plays a different persona than the one we are used to.  Instead of being a rather aloof or effete fish-out-of-water character here he is full of energy and competence as a railroad engineer who ends up behind enemy lines and who has to thwart an enemy attack (and of course rescue his girlfriend).   

The spectacular train wreck stunt towards the end of the film was (according to Wikipedia) the most expensive single shot in all silent cinema. 

It's a shame that such an ambitious and accomplished film was a commercial flop that ended Keaton's independence as a film maker.

But we should be thankful it got made so that we have it to enjoy.