If I hadn't been with friends as a social event, I might have walked out halfway through TTT. There were like three moments in the whole movie that I enjoyed, and each was solely due to Ian McKellen. (Though I must admit the scenery in Rohan was very pretty.)

By contrast I loved Fellowship and saw it three times in the theaters and about 50 on cable. Return of the King was enjoyable, but not so much that I ever wanted to sit through it again.

I just watched The General. That was really good! It's like the prototypical action comedy. Lots of chuckles. One thing that struck me was how real everything looked. I think that's because basically everything was real, right? They were shooting on actual trains and firing actual cannons and destroying actual bridges?

It was a great silent film, but it's not like it has a huge point or anything. It's probably got a permanent spot on Lists due to its reputation of Not Sucking.

Two things: that's what Buster Keaton looks like? I always thought he was more rotund. Maybe I'm confusing him with Jackie Gleason. Also, which one is it where the house falls on him, with the window space keeping him safe?

It was a great silent film, but it's not like it has a huge point or anything. It's probably got a permanent spot on Lists due to its reputation of Not Sucking.

Oh dear. I don't even know where to start.

Yes, that's what Buster Keaton looks like. And the falling wall shot is from Steamboat Bill, Jr.

The Two Towers was my favorite of the three.

me too, P-C! Fellowship was my least favorite.

P-C, yeah, those are real Civil-War era locomotives, and the train stunts are all done by Keaton. He purchased some train tracks (and a bridge) up in WA, IIRC, so he could destroy the trains at the climax on that RR bridge. In fact, I'm told that the wreckage is still there in the ravine to this day.

But what's important about The General is that it pioneered so many of the action elements that are standard in today's thrilling movies, and did them better. Not to mention that Keaton was so inventive and a really good example of an auteur.

Another example of what Keaton was doing that other filmmakers use was the rather restrained use of title cards. His direction assumed that viewers were smart enough to figure out when somebody on the screen was asking for directions, not needing it to be, literally, spelled out for them.

Check out the short films he did, in particular Sherlock, Jr. and The Cameraman for more examples of why he was such a strikingly genius filmmaker.

Also, you can count the gags that Looney Tunes stole for their cartoons later in the 30s....

Yeah, I've got a Keaton thing, have had it since I saw Sherlock Jr in a college film class....

Anyway: the falling house facade was a "get it right/one shot" deal. Keaton very very carefully measured out the angles with surveyor's instruments, because even if it was a fake facade falling, it still weighed considerable and could have easily killed him -- and then to stand there, ACTING, as it fell.

I don't think we've seen a action star of his caliber until Jackie Chan came along.

I don't think we've seen a action star of his caliber until Jackie Chan came along.

And at least Jackie gets to have facial expressions. Keaton's deadpan is a thing of wonder. I think Jackie may have broken more of his bones, though.

What's really cool about Keaton's acting is that he'd been onstage with vaudeville since he was a small child, and vaudeville acting is all about the broad gesture and loud declamation, not at all subtle. But in a very short time, he took to the way-more intimate acting to a movie camera, and took on a stoneface aspect that is actually very expressive. It's a whole 'less is more' approach, which renders his persona still easily appreciated by modern audiences, whereas the contemporary theatrically-influenced acting of the 20s put on film really takes some getting used to.

OK, I think I've used up my allotment of Buster-fangirlish glee for the day....

To tie them together, Jackie Chan did a stunt like the falling facade one in homage to Keaton.

me too, P-C! Fellowship was my least favorite.

I think that's mine too!

In fact, I'm told that the wreckage is still there in the ravine to this day.

I think they were there until WWII.

But in a very short time, he took to the way-more intimate acting to a movie camera, and took on a stoneface aspect that is actually very expressive.

Heh. One thing I noticed was that were no close-ups. But that was a 1927 thing. As for the acting, I guess I was also surprised that it wasn't broader throughout. With the exception of one scene in the beginning, no one did that hilariously over-the-top stuff you see in the older silent films and silent film parodies.