Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

MartinHafer In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the great Buster Keaton was out of work and in desperate need for money so he made a string of forgettable short films for Columbia Pictures. Although he was a comic genius during the silent era, his career in sound movies was mostly horrible due to the industry's unwillingness to simply let him do what he did best and they insisted in trying to force him into uncomfortable molds that just didn't work. Sadly, because Keaton was lousy with money, he was so hard up for cash and unwilling to balk with the studios that he made some dreadful film and TV appearances that probably made him ashamed to look in the mirror. This is a stark contrast to Chaplin and Lloyd who made far fewer sound films but chose them much better. Plus, they knew when to walk away and retain much of their dignity. This is particularly true of Harold Lloyd, who never would have appeared in American-International movies such as BEACH BLANKET BINGO or a particularly wretched episode of "The Twilight Zone" like Keaton did.As for the Columbia shorts, they were directed and produced by Jules White who was also responsible for the Three Stooges shorts. This is very, very obvious when you watch the Keaton shorts as the plots look indiscernible from the Stooges' films--with the same gags, sound effects and style. In fact, in some cases, Keaton does the same plots the Stooges had first done and this isn't surprising. That's because Columbia OFTEN repeated plots and many of the Stooges' later shorts for the studio are remakes of their earlier films! While Stooges die-hards might excuse this and think ALL of their films are gems, this is definitely NOT true--the remakes are definite duds. As for Keaton fans (and I am definitely one--having seen more of his silent films than practically anyone on the planet), they will also usually admit that his sound films were pretty poor and the Columbia films were at best passable entertainment. Plus, the Stooges' style is a horrible thing to try to fit the great Keaton into. It's akin to putting Greta Garbo in a Marx Brothers film!!! Sadly, while GENERAL NUISANCE is a poor outing, it's probably better than most of the Columbia outings. So, if you don't like this film, you should probably steer clear of the rest! Like so many of their films, the film co-stars the rather untalented and annoying Elsie Ames and Dorothy Appleby. This time Buster falls for Dorothy and decides to join the army because she likes men in uniform! While having Keaton in a military film is dumb since he's 46 and looks 46, this can be forgiven given that many other comedians did similarly improbable army films in 1941! The portly Lou Costello (age 34) did BUCK PRIVATES. The 49 year-old and morbidly obese Oliver Hardy did GREAT GUNS and Stan was 51 at the time! So, in hindsight, it was not only a great year for war comedies but Keaton was more believable than most of the rest--though Bob Hope at 38 and in better shape was probably best cast in CAUGHT IN THE DRAFT which, amazingly enough, was ALSO released in 1941! Fortunately, some of Keaton's old physical humor is used in the film. While a few of the stunts appear to involve stunt men, many clearly don't and it's nice to see he can still take a fall or do a back-flip. Unfortunately, much of the plot is downright stupid (such as a man who thinks people are cows and he wants to butcher them) or straight from a Stooges film (such as the many 'antics' in the hospital). The results are at best interesting and at worst embarrassing. Truly a dull little film and I suggest unless you are a glutton for punishment you stop here with this film and not see any more--they don't get any better!

Michael_Elliott General Nuisance (1941) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Columbia short with Buster Keaton playing a man who falls for a girl but she's only interested in men in the Army so Keaton joins with plenty of gags to follow. I had heard the Columbia Keaton films were pretty bad but this one here was pleasant enough, although it's certainly a long way from The General. There's plenty of nice one-liners from Keaton and he's good at the old time slapstick but there's plenty of more violent humor, ala The Three Stooges, that Keaton really can't pull off.

Igenlode Wordsmith "General Nuisance" is raucous stuff -- complete with a honk-whistle comedy soundtrack -- compared to Buster Keaton's own preferred style, but it's actually pretty good. It also features a daft and charming song and dance act from Keaton and comedienne Elsie Ames, in which the performers demonstrate alternate grace (there are moments when Keaton is stunning) and grotesquerie, in a take-off of different styles of dance that ends in a highly unusual percussion routine! The scene in which an indignant Keaton mutely resists the medical officer's attempt to undress him is a development of the one used in "Doughboys"; but this is no detriment to enjoyment for viewers of the earlier film -- far from it, as we see a whole new set of gags, of which my favourite is perhaps the one where the two medics grapple with each other while an elusive Buster looks quizzically on. Likewise, the scene in which Dorothy struggles to transport Keaton's unconscious body is a freshly inventive variation on one of his favourite routines, originated in "Spite Marriage" and quoted many times -- but never in this form...In addition to the interest of the reworked material -- entertainment value actually heightened by acquaintance with the original, since expectation is constantly surprised! -- there is a good deal of fast and furious new action, with never a dull moment and very few gags that fall flat. Perhaps some of the most memorable moments are Keaton's various creative attempts at injury and his unusual use of a leg in plaster when confronted with an axe-wielding lunatic (not to mention his prudent stowing of the axe...); but others are worthy of note. This is broad-brush comedy, but it's not half bad.

boblipton This is not one of the high points of Buster's career. He seems to be used for his remaining marquee value here. Even the two falls from the car near the beginning of the movie do not seem to be performed by him -- when Buster fell, his entire body moved and reacted, like a a trout struggling to not be drawn in by the universe. No, that's a stuntman taking the fall, competently but with no flair, and that makes this a waste of time. Far better to watch him doing little comic bits in big movies.This is, in short, far more of a Jules White comedy than a Buster Keaton comedy. Although the print on the new Keaton at Columbia set is far better than any more generally available, this is a short only for completists.