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.

This film flopped when it was released in late 1926 for several reasons. First, its premiere was delayed because "Flesh and the Devil" was such a sensation that it was held over an extra couple of weeks. Second, people came to the movies to see Buster Keaton the comedian, not Buster the filmmaker and director, which is more of the role he played here. The film was funny, but it was not gag after gag, like so many of Keaton's other films. Keaton plays a railroad engineer living in the South. A title card declares he has two loves - his girl and his engine. when the Civil War starts he tries to enlist, but is considered too valuable to be in the Army due to his profession. His girlfriend misunderstands, thinks him a coward, and says she won't speak to him again until he is in uniform.Meanwhile, the Union forces have developed a plan to crush the South that involves stealing Buster's train. Unknown to Buster, his girlfriend is on the train at the time of the theft. Buster starts out in hot pursuit of the thieves to retrieve his train, still without the knowledge of his girl's captivity by the Union army.Forgotten with the arrival of sound, the film revived - often cut up from its original length - in the 1950's because Buster didn't preserve his rights to the film and it fell into the public domain. That is the reason there are so many versions of The General out there today, often with poor video and hideous musical accompaniment.Today The General is considered one of the best silent feature length films, and one of the few silent films to not only be on DVD but to get the Blu Ray treatment too. SHERLOCK, JR. is clever. OUR HOSPITALITY is hilarious. The General is both of these things. It's story driven, races to a climax, and is fueled by cute, clever, inventive gags.Buster recycled these gags when he was a writer for MGM years later in "A Southern Yankee".

because I have sworn to myself, that I will rate honestly from today's point of view. If I throw in that this movie was done 90 years ago and that all the playing with the locomotives and cameras and photographing was pioneering work back in 1926 this movie must get 10 stars out of 10. But looking at it today, there is too much action. I guess, in the 20's the action was overwhelming to the audience. But today the scenes without too much action are the best: Mack and Keaton throwing wood into the fire of The General, Mack and Keaton fleeing in the forest, Keaton in the home of Mack. Anyway, there have been sitting children in the cinema and they laughed a lot, proving that the movie still works. And I have to admit, the crashing locomotive is still amazing to watch. Regardless of any rating, this movie is a must-see at least two times in a lifetime.

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.