I would have eventually gotten around to watching this film, but my curiosity was piqued when I saw that it had miraculously jumped to Number #17 on the 2007 version of AFI's Top 100 Movies of all time list. It didn't make the cut at all for the original compilation in 1997, so even before seeing the picture, I had to wonder what might have affected movie critics in the intervening decade to reach this conclusion. I usually line up with the majority in most cases, but I have to admit, I don't quite get it with this picture. I found it entertaining enough on occasion, but I never got the sense that it was one of the great comedy classics of all time the way it's heralded on the DVD sleeve. I don't think the Civil War lends itself much to comedy, so right there my expectations were greatly reduced. Keaton's somber demeanor and generally stone faced disposition don't help. On the flip side, I wouldn't have expected slapstick to move the story along either, so at least I wasn't disappointed in that regard.
What I DID enjoy were some rather offbeat moments that showed genuine creativity. When Johnnie Gray (Keaton) dejectedly considered his rejection by the Confederate Army, and pondered his situation while sitting on the train's connecting rod, the resulting visual was pure genius. The up and down motion lent a truly surreal juxtaposition to Johnnie's thoughtful reverie, and was one of the highlights of the picture for me.
The other significant scene that gave me pause was when The Texas collapsed on the burning Rock River Bridge. For starters, I found it unbelievable that a wooden bridge could possibly be constructed strong enough to support a locomotive. Then I came to learn that the scene was the most expensive ever made for a silent film, and I have to give Keaton credit for going out on that kind of a limb - unbelievable.
Oh yes, and I can't forget the sequence where Keaton's marksmanship is dead on when he makes contact with the rail tie blocking the train tracks, flipping it out of the way with a well timed throw of his own. Could that have possibly been done in one take? In a pre-CGI world, it's difficult to imagine how stunts like these could have been performed, particularly by an actor who had no recourse but to do his own. For that, Keaton deserves accolades.
In between all this clever film making however, I just wasn't inspired. The central plot element doesn't hold up for me - if Johnnie Gray was rejected as a volunteer, why wasn't he simply told the reason why. One could argue that then, you wouldn't have a picture, but for me it left the story on a shaky footing. If Johnnie was more valuable as a train engineer than a soldier, the picture might have taken a different approach, but the rest of the elements could have remained the same and he still would have come out a hero. Maybe I'm second guessing a master, but that's what I come away with.
Conclusion - if this movie didn't make AFI's Top 100 Film List in 1997, I don't understand what might have occurred in the intervening years to suddenly have film critics vault it into the Top 20. At the same time, Chaplin's "City Lights", in my estimation a superior silent film, fell OFF the list, while "The Gold Rush" moved up a few notches. I may not be a professional, but I know what I like, and this one just didn't do it for me.
What I DID enjoy were some rather offbeat moments that showed genuine creativity. When Johnnie Gray (Keaton) dejectedly considered his rejection by the Confederate Army, and pondered his situation while sitting on the train's connecting rod, the resulting visual was pure genius. The up and down motion lent a truly surreal juxtaposition to Johnnie's thoughtful reverie, and was one of the highlights of the picture for me.
The other significant scene that gave me pause was when The Texas collapsed on the burning Rock River Bridge. For starters, I found it unbelievable that a wooden bridge could possibly be constructed strong enough to support a locomotive. Then I came to learn that the scene was the most expensive ever made for a silent film, and I have to give Keaton credit for going out on that kind of a limb - unbelievable.
Oh yes, and I can't forget the sequence where Keaton's marksmanship is dead on when he makes contact with the rail tie blocking the train tracks, flipping it out of the way with a well timed throw of his own. Could that have possibly been done in one take? In a pre-CGI world, it's difficult to imagine how stunts like these could have been performed, particularly by an actor who had no recourse but to do his own. For that, Keaton deserves accolades.
In between all this clever film making however, I just wasn't inspired. The central plot element doesn't hold up for me - if Johnnie Gray was rejected as a volunteer, why wasn't he simply told the reason why. One could argue that then, you wouldn't have a picture, but for me it left the story on a shaky footing. If Johnnie was more valuable as a train engineer than a soldier, the picture might have taken a different approach, but the rest of the elements could have remained the same and he still would have come out a hero. Maybe I'm second guessing a master, but that's what I come away with.
Conclusion - if this movie didn't make AFI's Top 100 Film List in 1997, I don't understand what might have occurred in the intervening years to suddenly have film critics vault it into the Top 20. At the same time, Chaplin's "City Lights", in my estimation a superior silent film, fell OFF the list, while "The Gold Rush" moved up a few notches. I may not be a professional, but I know what I like, and this one just didn't do it for me.