Boy are there a lot of negative, misguided, hateful reviews here. And boy could I not disagree more.
Plot In a Nutshell: A shy talent manager (Buster Keaton) causes havoc at MGM's studios while trying to find a job there for the woman he secretly loves (Anita Page).
Why I rated it a '7': Well for starters, I found it very entertaining. I laughed a lot through the first 2/3 of the film. The last third gets more serious and a few musical numbers are thrown in for good measure, with less opportunity for comedy. But overall I thought it was a solid film.
It can't be ignored, though, that most of the reviews here for this film are extremely negative in nature. Which would lead one to think that this film is terrible. Well, this is all subjective, right, but if one looks below the surface, you can see why there is a lot of (undeserved) negativity.
This is a 'talkie' - a film with sound, something still relatively new in 1930. All of the films Buster Keaton made before this were silent. Silent films are quite a different animal from talkies. It seems MGM was looking to exploit this new technology and wasn't interested in using Keaton in the same ways Keaton had been performing for the last 10 years - namely, a lot of incredible physical comedy where Keaton exhibited impressive dexterity when performing his own stunts.
This was not to be one of those films. It didn't have to be, because now there was sound. Now you can have a lot more dialogue-driven comedy, and that's what this film has. Oh sure, there are still bits of physical comedy, but nothing really like the death-defying stunts Keaton was known for in the 1920s. And to that I say....so what? This is just a different type of comedy. Watching it, I couldn't help but think of the early Marx Brothers films. In the scenes where Keaton is running loose and causing havoc all over the MGM lot, imagine Harpo doing the same thing. It works.
But there are many reviewers here crying in their milk because the Buster Keaton they wanted and expected to see isn't here. And for that ridiculous and childish reason, they then give this film a terrible grade and tell you it's awful. Well, I beg to differ. I thought it was just fine. It's like getting a glass of chardonnay when you expected merlot. Does that mean the chardonnay stinks? No. Not at all. But you wanted it to be something it wasn't, and so now you're going to complain about it and say it's bad? That's just silly and immature.
This film totally works as an early 1930s dialogue-driven comedy. If approached in that respect, you really should not be disappointed, at all.
7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
Plot In a Nutshell: A shy talent manager (Buster Keaton) causes havoc at MGM's studios while trying to find a job there for the woman he secretly loves (Anita Page).
Why I rated it a '7': Well for starters, I found it very entertaining. I laughed a lot through the first 2/3 of the film. The last third gets more serious and a few musical numbers are thrown in for good measure, with less opportunity for comedy. But overall I thought it was a solid film.
It can't be ignored, though, that most of the reviews here for this film are extremely negative in nature. Which would lead one to think that this film is terrible. Well, this is all subjective, right, but if one looks below the surface, you can see why there is a lot of (undeserved) negativity.
This is a 'talkie' - a film with sound, something still relatively new in 1930. All of the films Buster Keaton made before this were silent. Silent films are quite a different animal from talkies. It seems MGM was looking to exploit this new technology and wasn't interested in using Keaton in the same ways Keaton had been performing for the last 10 years - namely, a lot of incredible physical comedy where Keaton exhibited impressive dexterity when performing his own stunts.
This was not to be one of those films. It didn't have to be, because now there was sound. Now you can have a lot more dialogue-driven comedy, and that's what this film has. Oh sure, there are still bits of physical comedy, but nothing really like the death-defying stunts Keaton was known for in the 1920s. And to that I say....so what? This is just a different type of comedy. Watching it, I couldn't help but think of the early Marx Brothers films. In the scenes where Keaton is running loose and causing havoc all over the MGM lot, imagine Harpo doing the same thing. It works.
But there are many reviewers here crying in their milk because the Buster Keaton they wanted and expected to see isn't here. And for that ridiculous and childish reason, they then give this film a terrible grade and tell you it's awful. Well, I beg to differ. I thought it was just fine. It's like getting a glass of chardonnay when you expected merlot. Does that mean the chardonnay stinks? No. Not at all. But you wanted it to be something it wasn't, and so now you're going to complain about it and say it's bad? That's just silly and immature.
This film totally works as an early 1930s dialogue-driven comedy. If approached in that respect, you really should not be disappointed, at all.
7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.