- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#11
Off Topic Discussion / Re: What are you cooking?
Last post by Trevor - October 02, 2026, 01:57:14 PMI'm eating if anyone's cooking 😏😉🐢
#12
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by M.10rda - October 02, 2026, 12:12:58 PMWith apologies, a long one:
THE GENERAL (1926):
As a young person I never read anything but glowing praise for this one. I watched it 15-20 years back and was unimpressed, yet remember very little about it. (To be fair, I would often drink heavily while watching movies in those days.) As a newly minted Buster Keaton fan, I figured I should revisit it.
Enlightenment (or Red Pill vs Blue Pill, if you prefer) is a tricky business. My only perception of Roscoe Arbuckle until about a year and a half ago was that he was an overweight disgraced sex criminal of legendary status. Watching a ton of Roscoe's movies (and doing associated research) has demonstrated that he was railroaded for an unfortunate death he played no direct role in (and eventually was entirely cleared for) and also he was sort of a cinematic genius. My only perception of Buster Keaton until I started watching Roscoe's films that co-star Buster was that he was an extremely famous silent film star that I never quite got the appeal of. Watching Buster in Roscoe's films taught me that Buster was an extraordinary, Jackie Chan-level physical talent. Watching THE GENERAL and doing associated research has... diminished my opinion of Buster.
Purely technically, THE GENERAL is... competent. Co-directed by Buster and his frequent post-Roscoe director Clyde Bruckman, THE GENERAL is a full-length feature that has high production values and looks/feels like a Real Film....... unlike many of Roscoe's shorts, which look and feel like LSD-fueled fever dreams predicting the Warner Bros' animated catalogue. I guess this accounts for THE GENERAL's extremely warm late-20th century reputation. It isn't aesthetically embarrassing - it's a "prestige picture".
This is the nicest thing I'll say about THE GENERAL: there is a certain innate appeal to a story about a man simultaneously contesting with nearly unstoppable technology (in this case, a locomotive) and also the machinations of other men. That sounds like it should make for a great movie, and I know that many people value the idea of a film over the execution of said film. For the record, none of what I thought I remembered about THE GENERAL actually happens in THE GENERAL. My few fleeting positive recollections of my first (potted) viewing of THE GENERAL are actually scenes from the second half of GO WEST, the 1940 Marx Borthers runaway-train movie which is remembered fondly by no critics whatsoever yet which is, iirc, actually much funnier and more impressive than THE GENERAL.
Alas, from a cinematic perspective, THE GENERAL is not very interesting, entertaining, or funny. Buster is in full-Chaplin (or Harry Langdon) mode here: he's mostly deadpan in all circumstances, unlike in Roscoe's films where he displays a great range of emotions and characteristics through his facial expressions and body language. There is no single moment in THE GENERAL where Keaton does anything nearly as funny or impressive as what he does in ANY Arbuckle film I've seen, sometimes twice or several times, excepting THE HAYSEED (which is pretty boring). As comedy or action, THE GENERAL is... quite pedestrian.
But in order to communicate my distaste for THE GENERAL, it's important to describe what does happen in THE GENERAL... which (somehow!) I forgot about or didn't recognize 15-20 years ago. I'm not proud - alcohol can really compromise a viewer's mental faculties and judgment.
THE GENERAL begins with Buster working as the engineer of his beloved locomotive. Immediately the Civil War begins - oh, I'm sorry, I guess that would be "the War of Northern Aggression" from the perspective of THE GENERAL - and Buster's second great love, an actual woman, shames him and tells him she doesn't want to see him again until he's a Confederate war hero. Meanwhile, Union officers plot the hijacking of Buster's train, in order to sabotage the Confederate war effort. They launch their plan, but at great length, Buster foils the sabotage. At film's end, Buster is promoted to General of the Confederate Army, and his girl kisses him as a parade of Confederate soldiers march pass, and the soldiers salute General Buster, and he salutes them.
The Union Army are depicted as sinister villains, the Confederacy as valiant heroes. No African Americans appear onscreen or are mentioned.
Kneejerk response: Nah, son. Naaaaaaaaaaah.
So, I did some research. What was Buster thinking? Alas, though Buster only receives co-director credit, Buster was 100% responsible for the Direction taken by THE GENERAL. The film is adapted from a novel, which was based on a true story from the Civil War. However, the novel and the true story are about Union soldiers foiling a Confederate plot to hijack a Northern train. Buster looked at the source material and decided that it would be easier for audiences to sympathize w/ the protagonists if they were Southern Confederates.
...Hey... I almost see his point, in the most cynical and commercial terms imaginable. BIRTH OF A NATION was a big hit eleven years earlier, and the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes in that one.
Perhaps, though - somehow - audiences in 1926 were smarter than audiences in 1915 and smarter than the critics who rediscovered and celebrated THE GENERAL 30+ years following its release or maybe even some audiences today. I always wondered what Buster did after THE GENERAL, if THE GENERAL was so great. Well - Buster didn't do much after THE GENERAL, because THE GENERAL was such a colossal critical and financial failure that Buster was automatically demoted back to doing comedy shorts for the rest of his career. Justifiably, I would add.
Was Buster Keaton a bad person? Again, alcohol really does a number on the human brain. Apparently alcohol allowed me to watch this seventy-eight minute movie 15-20 years ago and not realize how horrifically wrong-headed and objectionable it was. Maybe alcohol also compelled Buster to make this seventy-eight minute movie and not realize how horrifically wrong-headed and objectionable it was. This isn't uninformed speculation - by the early 30s, Keaton's heavy drinking eventually p***ed off Louis B. Mayer to the extent that Mayer booted Keaton permanently out of MGM, right around the same time that Roscoe Arbuckle was being accepted back into polite society.
Should we remember the cinematic achievements of Buster Keaton? Absolutely. (Hey, Jackie Chan has some questionable political affiliations, too.) The best way to remember the cinematic achievements of Buster Keaton are in the remarkable films of Roscoe Arbuckle.
But we can forget about THE GENERAL. 1.5/5
THE GENERAL (1926):
As a young person I never read anything but glowing praise for this one. I watched it 15-20 years back and was unimpressed, yet remember very little about it. (To be fair, I would often drink heavily while watching movies in those days.) As a newly minted Buster Keaton fan, I figured I should revisit it.
Enlightenment (or Red Pill vs Blue Pill, if you prefer) is a tricky business. My only perception of Roscoe Arbuckle until about a year and a half ago was that he was an overweight disgraced sex criminal of legendary status. Watching a ton of Roscoe's movies (and doing associated research) has demonstrated that he was railroaded for an unfortunate death he played no direct role in (and eventually was entirely cleared for) and also he was sort of a cinematic genius. My only perception of Buster Keaton until I started watching Roscoe's films that co-star Buster was that he was an extremely famous silent film star that I never quite got the appeal of. Watching Buster in Roscoe's films taught me that Buster was an extraordinary, Jackie Chan-level physical talent. Watching THE GENERAL and doing associated research has... diminished my opinion of Buster.
Purely technically, THE GENERAL is... competent. Co-directed by Buster and his frequent post-Roscoe director Clyde Bruckman, THE GENERAL is a full-length feature that has high production values and looks/feels like a Real Film....... unlike many of Roscoe's shorts, which look and feel like LSD-fueled fever dreams predicting the Warner Bros' animated catalogue. I guess this accounts for THE GENERAL's extremely warm late-20th century reputation. It isn't aesthetically embarrassing - it's a "prestige picture".
This is the nicest thing I'll say about THE GENERAL: there is a certain innate appeal to a story about a man simultaneously contesting with nearly unstoppable technology (in this case, a locomotive) and also the machinations of other men. That sounds like it should make for a great movie, and I know that many people value the idea of a film over the execution of said film. For the record, none of what I thought I remembered about THE GENERAL actually happens in THE GENERAL. My few fleeting positive recollections of my first (potted) viewing of THE GENERAL are actually scenes from the second half of GO WEST, the 1940 Marx Borthers runaway-train movie which is remembered fondly by no critics whatsoever yet which is, iirc, actually much funnier and more impressive than THE GENERAL.
Alas, from a cinematic perspective, THE GENERAL is not very interesting, entertaining, or funny. Buster is in full-Chaplin (or Harry Langdon) mode here: he's mostly deadpan in all circumstances, unlike in Roscoe's films where he displays a great range of emotions and characteristics through his facial expressions and body language. There is no single moment in THE GENERAL where Keaton does anything nearly as funny or impressive as what he does in ANY Arbuckle film I've seen, sometimes twice or several times, excepting THE HAYSEED (which is pretty boring). As comedy or action, THE GENERAL is... quite pedestrian.
But in order to communicate my distaste for THE GENERAL, it's important to describe what does happen in THE GENERAL... which (somehow!) I forgot about or didn't recognize 15-20 years ago. I'm not proud - alcohol can really compromise a viewer's mental faculties and judgment.
THE GENERAL begins with Buster working as the engineer of his beloved locomotive. Immediately the Civil War begins - oh, I'm sorry, I guess that would be "the War of Northern Aggression" from the perspective of THE GENERAL - and Buster's second great love, an actual woman, shames him and tells him she doesn't want to see him again until he's a Confederate war hero. Meanwhile, Union officers plot the hijacking of Buster's train, in order to sabotage the Confederate war effort. They launch their plan, but at great length, Buster foils the sabotage. At film's end, Buster is promoted to General of the Confederate Army, and his girl kisses him as a parade of Confederate soldiers march pass, and the soldiers salute General Buster, and he salutes them.
The Union Army are depicted as sinister villains, the Confederacy as valiant heroes. No African Americans appear onscreen or are mentioned.
Kneejerk response: Nah, son. Naaaaaaaaaaah.
So, I did some research. What was Buster thinking? Alas, though Buster only receives co-director credit, Buster was 100% responsible for the Direction taken by THE GENERAL. The film is adapted from a novel, which was based on a true story from the Civil War. However, the novel and the true story are about Union soldiers foiling a Confederate plot to hijack a Northern train. Buster looked at the source material and decided that it would be easier for audiences to sympathize w/ the protagonists if they were Southern Confederates.
...Hey... I almost see his point, in the most cynical and commercial terms imaginable. BIRTH OF A NATION was a big hit eleven years earlier, and the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes in that one.
Perhaps, though - somehow - audiences in 1926 were smarter than audiences in 1915 and smarter than the critics who rediscovered and celebrated THE GENERAL 30+ years following its release or maybe even some audiences today. I always wondered what Buster did after THE GENERAL, if THE GENERAL was so great. Well - Buster didn't do much after THE GENERAL, because THE GENERAL was such a colossal critical and financial failure that Buster was automatically demoted back to doing comedy shorts for the rest of his career. Justifiably, I would add.
Was Buster Keaton a bad person? Again, alcohol really does a number on the human brain. Apparently alcohol allowed me to watch this seventy-eight minute movie 15-20 years ago and not realize how horrifically wrong-headed and objectionable it was. Maybe alcohol also compelled Buster to make this seventy-eight minute movie and not realize how horrifically wrong-headed and objectionable it was. This isn't uninformed speculation - by the early 30s, Keaton's heavy drinking eventually p***ed off Louis B. Mayer to the extent that Mayer booted Keaton permanently out of MGM, right around the same time that Roscoe Arbuckle was being accepted back into polite society.
Should we remember the cinematic achievements of Buster Keaton? Absolutely. (Hey, Jackie Chan has some questionable political affiliations, too.) The best way to remember the cinematic achievements of Buster Keaton are in the remarkable films of Roscoe Arbuckle.
But we can forget about THE GENERAL. 1.5/5
#13
Off Topic Discussion / Re: What are you cooking?
Last post by Rev. Powell - October 02, 2026, 10:34:57 AM
Chicken sausage gumbo.
#15
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by Rev. Powell - October 02, 2026, 10:06:45 AMWhy can't you just let it go?
#16
Entertainment / Re: What have you been listeni...
Last post by Rev. Powell - October 02, 2026, 10:01:59 AM
"Memory Bomb" by Kiefer
#17
Bad Movies / Re: actors yiu are surprised d...
Last post by Trevor - October 02, 2026, 09:03:46 AMWilliam Devane.
#18
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by bob - October 02, 2026, 07:26:38 AMI'm going with horror/Halloween themed posters this month
#19
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by FatFreddysCat - October 01, 2026, 09:19:55 PM"Ghostbusters" (aka "Ghostbusters: Answer The Call," 2016)
Three lady scientists and an NYC subway clerk team up to battle against a supernatural outbreak in New York City.
Paul Feig's attempt to re-boot the dormant "GB" franchise with a new crew of funny females was met with unprecedented hostility online and tanked at the box office. Honestly, it's not a terrible movie -- there are some legit laughs and the special FX were decent, but the fan base obviously didn't want to see anyone but the O.G. 'busters in the jump suits. File it under "interesting misfire."
Three lady scientists and an NYC subway clerk team up to battle against a supernatural outbreak in New York City.
Paul Feig's attempt to re-boot the dormant "GB" franchise with a new crew of funny females was met with unprecedented hostility online and tanked at the box office. Honestly, it's not a terrible movie -- there are some legit laughs and the special FX were decent, but the fan base obviously didn't want to see anyone but the O.G. 'busters in the jump suits. File it under "interesting misfire."
