User Reviews

FOLLOWING A TREND THAT was so popular in 1950's Hollywood, Paramount decided that it would take a chance with committing a rendering of the story of "the Great Stone Face" to celluloid. So, THE BUSTER KEATON STORY fell in line along with THE JOLSON STORY,THE FABULOUS DORSEYS, THE EDDIE DUCHIN STORY,THE JOKER IS WILD, LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, THE GENE KRUPA STORY, THE HELEN MORGAN STORY, etc., etc.,........

FACTUAL ACCURACY WAS not a prime ingredient in these particular productions and THE BUSTER KEATON STORY could well go to the head of the class here. Whereas one would expect historical representation, studio honchos obviously preferred to showcase their Leading Men and Female Stars in fanciful screenplays which would both comply with the production Code; as well as stories which would be satisfying and palatable to the audiences. And at this point in time, those who were buying the tickets at the box office were increasingly younger. They were ( S-C-R-E-A-M!!!) TEENAGERS!!

IT DOES APPEAR that in the area of biopics, the better ones are made when there is some elapsed years in between the incidents being dramatized and the filming. Both PATTON and CHAPLIN would both be prime examples of this point.

AS FOR THE choice of Mr. Donald O'Connor in the role of Buster Keaton, the multi-talented singer/dancer/actor did a fine job of creating his characterization. All of his performance is limited, however, by the ludicrous situations being presented on the screen.

ANOTHER ASPECT OF the production's inadequacy is in recreation of the filming of what can only be described as gems of comic history. As an example of this, just look at the scene where the subject is obviously Buster's Short, COPS (1922). No matter how well a recreation is done, it's just not the original and this particular "homage" has nothing to recommend it.

ALL OF THIS would seem to have been all too unnecessary. You must understand that Mr. Keaton, himself, was hired as a paid consultant to the production.

OBVIOUSLY HE WAS paid to stay away from the set.

The Buster Keaton Story is possibly one of the most wildly inaccurate biopics you'll ever see. This is no exaggeration; pretty much all the writers got correct was: 1) His name, 2) His deadpan comedic style, 3) His success as an child actor on vaudeville, 4) His success in film during the twenties, and 5) His struggle with alcoholism. That's it. Everything else is pure rubbish (or "artistic license", to put it nicely).

The "Buster Keaton Story" as told by Paramount is as follows: After leaving the family vaudeville act, young comedian Buster Keaton wants to break into the movies. He goes to Famous Studios where he becomes a comedy success in several films. Success doesn't come to every area of life for Buster, however: his proposal of marriage to a beautiful starlet spurned, he starts drinking, a problem which worsens once the talkies take over and his career begins to crumble before his eyes. He's rescued from destruction by practical but tender-hearted Gloria Brent, the casting director who got him into pictures in the first place and has loved him from afar for years. The film ends with Buster returning to vaudeville, performing the "drunk bride" routine from Spite Marriage with Gloria and learning that a third Keaton is on the way.

As you can tell from the synopsis alone, the plot focuses more on Keaton the alcoholic than Keaton the great silent comedian. The golden age of his film career is compressed into a montage of movie posters, two excerpts from The Frozen North and College performed by O'Connor, and Variety articles declaring every film he made a smash hit (including The General and College, both which LOST money upon initial release). The end of Keaton's career as a starring actor portrays him as yet another casualty of not making the transition to sound, though the truth was much more complicated than that and had nothing to do with his voice or acting ability. Another notable error made by the film was having Keaton work under contract for a studio (he was an independent filmmaker until he signed with MGM in 1928, which would prove detrimental to his career).

Inaccuracies abound in TBKS, and not just when it comes to Buster himself. Though the majority of the action takes place in the 1920s, there's a severe lack of period feel, especially evident in the costume choices made for leading lady Ann Blyth, whose dresses seem more fit for the late 1910s.

However, divergence from the truth is not the only thing which makes this a bad film: it's also dreadfully bland. When you forget this is supposed to be a biopic and try to see the film for what it is, it fails to be entertaining or poignant at all. The secondary characters are dull, dull, DULL. The only two who leave any mark on the memory are Ann Blyth and Peter Lorre's characters. Lorre plays a laughably bad-tempered director who seems to hate Keaton for no reason from the start. Blyth's performance as Gloria is a little better, but that's not saying much; she's merely a one-dimensional savior/love interest for Keaton.

If anything good can be said about this film, it's Donald O'Connor. He proves a talented dramatic actor and manages to excellently emulate Keaton's deadpan style during the recreations of his old gags.

Combined with a forgettable score and a poor script, The Buster Keaton Story has little to offer anyone who isn't a die-hard fan of either O'Connor or Keaton. If you're a Keatonphile and need a good drinking game, then this is your movie. Though be warned, you'll more than likely blackout after the first thirty minutes.

Although filmed with Buster Keaton's co-operation and in his presence (he's billed as "technical adviser"), The Buster Keaton Story is a load of rubbish. Donald O'Connor plays Keaton as an unlikely, bumptious, aggressive and thoroughly unlikable clown in this small budget foray into Hollywood fiction. What's worse, it's directed with excruciating dullness and lack of sparkle by Sidney Sheldon. Admittedly Sheldon's heavy hand didn't smother any comic moments. There weren't any! Even when some of Keaton's sure-fire gags were re-staged, they emerged as totally unfunny in the hands of Mr O'Connor. As for the drama, it too was sadly lacking. Peter Lorre gives a rather listless performance and it's equally sad to find Rhonda Fleming mixed up in this cheaply-made charade in black and white VistaVision.

As other reviewers have emphasized, this film is wildly inaccurate as a tribute to the entertainment career, as well as the personal life, of famous silent film comedy star Buster Keaton. To begin with, it doesn't emphasize the importance of his vaudeville education by his parents in performing falls with minimal injury, important in his later film career. Thus, the scene where he is unconscious from a fall, as a boy, is unlikely, as is the implication that his family was frequently destitute. Also, the implication that the advent of silent films immediately rendered vaudeville obsolete is false. It was talkies that finally killed vaudeville! To its credit, the film does not portray 'The Three Keatons' as circus performers, as incorrectly stated in the 'trivia' section at this site. This film completely ignores the vital importance of Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbucle in getting Keaton started in films, and as a frequent partner in his early film shorts.(I have copies of some). The implication that he was initially rejected by his film studio of choice and initially walked out because he was not given full control over his films is wrong.

The screen play blames his period of alcoholism in the late '20s and '30s solely on the advent of talkies. It ignores the more important factors of the end of his control over the content of his films, exasperated by his signing with MGM, and his problems with his first and second wives, who ultimately divorced him, taking most of his fortune. Actually, Keaton adapted comparatively well to the advent of talkies, compared to his major competitors: Chaplin and Lloyd. Several of Chaplin's best silent films were made well after talkies were introduced, when Keaton was often employed in talkies, either as a costar,subsidiary player or gag writer. But, if you check their entertainment careers after '40, Chaplin made just a couple of not well received talkies, including "Limelight", with Keaton as a subsidiary player. In contrast, Keaton continued until his death in numerous film and TV appearances, often in subsidiary roles. Inexplicably, in this film, the absurd implication is that he regained his sanity by returning to vaudeville, which was dead and buried by then! Since Keaton was still very much alive when this film was made and received a large sum for its production, it's hard to believe that such an inaccurate film was made without his vehement objection!

This film is really more about an emerging and rocky love story between Keaton(Don O'Connor) and a largely fictional Gloria Brent(Ann Blyth), initially a reluctant girlfriend, then a long suffering wife during his alcoholic period, then a supporting stage partner during his supposed reemergence in vaudeville.Gloria is sort of a blend of Keaton's 2nd and 3rd wives. There is no mention of his 2 financially devastating divorces during this period, nor his 3 children, nor his first wife. His flirtation with the Peggy Courtney(Rhonda Fleming) character could be taken as a stand in for his affair with actress Kathleen Kay,while married. This was not the first pairing between Don and Ann. In fact, this film might be seen as a sort of remake of Ann's first 2 films back in '44, when she was 16 y.o. and became the emerging girlfriend of a teenage Don O'Connor!

Like Keaton, Don was schooled in vaudeville from an early age, and began in films at a much earlier age. He was, of course, a much more complete vaudevillian talent: an excellent singer and dancer, as well as a superb physical and verbal comedian.In this film, he is only allowed to exhibit Keaton's forte of physical comedy. Unfortunately(fortunately?), his face was nothing like Keaton's, but he did his best to imitate Keaton's style. Several segments where he does Keaton-style comedy routines, either in film("The Criminal" and the soda jerk scene) or stage(the 'drunk wife' skit, at ending) or informal circumstances(the neighborhood baseball kids) are the highlights of the film and the only valid reason I can imagine for viewing it. Rating:1 for the screen play, 9 for D.O's skits. average 4, since the melodrama takes up much more time. Ann, Rhonda and the others did OK with what they were given. Hopefully, some day, a real Keaton biop will be made, comparable in quality to the '92 "Chaplin" partial biop.

While films on Jimmy Walker and Lon Chaney had better luck in 1957, others on Helen Morgan and Buster Keaton did not. This suffers, not from imperfect casting, but from an intentional untruthful telling of the great stone face's life. After "Singin' in the Rain", Donald O'Connor was the only choice I could see playing Keaton outside of Keaton himself. And Keaton was far too old and tired to do that. He desperately needed money and allowed Paramount (not even his own studio) to exploit him onscreen.

The problem is in the script and direction, combining three Mrs. Keatons into one, and presenting a very poor paced drama that outside of the recreated comedy bits didn't interest audiences one bit, or perhaps they were too smart to believe it. Ann Blyth (who had the misfortune of playing Helen Morgan the same year) plays the wife the same way other male biographies are presented, one note and cliched.

Even worse is Peter Lorre as a fictional director, trying to get laughs when being a fictional Mack Sennett when he's as dour as Erich Von Stroheim. Robert Keith as the studio head is far too cheerful and approachable to seem believable. Rhonda Fleming as a vampy vixen seems far too modern for the time period. O'Connor is the saving grace because he seems to be the only one here who understands the subject of the film.