Anonymous002 Living in 2018, it is impossible to imagine what the audience of that time think of this film . For me , it doesn't look that funny but it still entertains and is special in its own ways. Comedy completely relies on stunts . Each and every stunts amazed me. It is hard to believe how they shot it almost a century ago.Before this I have watched Sherlock jr. . While that film relies heavily on its special effects , this one seems to be more realistic (Many will disagree with me) . Buster Keaton himself performed all the stunts and no special effects were used .People always compare Buster Keaton with Charlie Chaplin. For me ,Keaton was not that good as an actor atleast in the silent films . Technical aspects of his are not either great . But one thing at which he was better is writing scripts . He was far more innovative than Chaplin . He was master at using special effects and stunts for comedy . Something even the modern day directors can't. For me Keaton >Chaplin.

Antonius Block There are some truly wonderful scenes in this film, which is full of adventure, comedy, and some pretty impressive stuntwork on moving trains by Buster Keaton and the other actors. The premise is that Keaton, a train conductor, has volunteered to fight for the South at the outset of the Civil War, but been turned down. When his train is stolen by Union soldiers, he immediately gives chase, on foot, then a handcar, briefly a bicycle, and then finally another train, not knowing quite yet that his girlfriend (Marion Mack) was inadvertently also kidnapped.In one of the memorable early scenes, Keaton is sitting on the connecting rod of the locomotive, lost in thought, when it starts up, bobbing him up and down. In another, he packs a cannon on his train with a massive charge, and as its angle slowly descends before firing, it appears he's going to blow himself up, until his train at the last minute hits a curve and he nearly hits his intended target. It's just wonderful. There is also of course the scene with a Union train going out onto a burning bridge which then collapses, one of the most iconic (and expensive) scenes of the era.In addition to those "big" moments, there are also innumerable little things Keaton does which highlight his genius. He is just so lovable and talented. He uses one of the large railroad ties intended to derail him to knock another off the track, as his train is moving. When he's hiding under a table surrounded by Union officers, he's subtly kicked and jostled in funny ways. As he makes his escape with Mack, he stuffs her into a large sack that he had emptied of shoes, only to lose his own shoe in the process and struggle to locate it. I also thought I saw bits of Woody Allen in the scene where he urges her to be quiet, only to knock things over and make noise himself.Ambitious, awe-inspiring, influential, clever, and still funny 90+ years later. Is it the best ever? I don't know, I liked 'The Cameraman' (1928) even more, but still – damn good.

Prismark10 To me Buster Keaton is more unknown compared to his other silent era rivals like Harold Lloyd or Charlie Chaplain whose work were shown more often on British television. Maybe Chaplain is more appreciated in Britain because he was British.The General is an epic silent comedy and at the time was an expensive undertaking comprising of many extras, dangerous stunts and a steam engine falling from a burning bridge.Set during the Civil War Keaton plays a devoted train engineer called Johnny Gray who tries to enlist in the Confederate Army to impress his girl and is turned down because he is more valuable as an engineer but no one tells him that was the reason.His girl think he is a coward who refused to join and will have nothing to do with him until he shows up in uniform. Some months later his beloved steam engine his stolen by Unionist soldiers and in a serious of escapades he tries to recover it and also rescue his girl.It is an elaborate chase film with for the time some clever sequences and slapstick. However it does go on too long as a chase film and despite some flourishes it does not showcase Keaton's acrobatic skills as much as I desired.The film was inspired by a true incident but to a modern viewer you still feel ill at ease that even 90 years ago the Confederate South was somehow being painted as heroic.

flumswack This is the first silent film I've seen, so I'd like to write this review for people who are also new to the silent film genre.Also: this is my only review (so far) without a rating. The General is a film that made me question the relationship between the quality of a film and how much I enjoy it.On one hand, The General is a well made film. The direction is interesting and engaging, the stunts are impressive (what do you expect from Buster Keaton?) and the story was surprisingly well-written.But did I laugh? Yes. I didn't guffaw, but some points made me chuckle. However, that's just what I thought. If YOU love this film, then fair enough. If YOU hate it, I can also understand. I simply didn't like it because I couldn't really get involved and interested with what was happening. I know I said that the direction was "interesting and engaging" but that's purely on an analytical level.DO NOT WATCH THIS WITH OTHER PEOPLE, especially those who will take the psis out of it/you. When you are reminded that this is a film, you realise how cartoony it is and can't really buy into it. If you don't care about what other people think - and we're talking The Big Lebowski levels of care-free here - then give it a shot.I would recommend this to someone getting into silent films for the first time, especially if you don't care give a fcuk about anyone else and you're a real gangsta. Thanks for making me censor myself, IMDb.