User reviews

O'Connor is very good here and gets the elements of Buster's comic timing down very well, plus he is very moving as a composite figure of a silent star who, just as he is doing his best work, is overcome by talking film, and just can't come to terms with the fact that at such a young age he's been made a dinosaur overnight. The problem is, other than the alcoholism, the overspending, and the talkies putting a dent in the value of pantomime comedy, this just isn't Buster's life.

In Buster's biography it was stated that Paramount meant to turn Buster's actual three wives into the one screen wife, Gloria Brent (Ann Blythe). Somehow, though, Paramount mixed together eggs, butter, and flour and came up with a steak!. None of Buster's three wives were casting directors at any studio as the screen wife is. And this maudlin melodrama of Keaton matrimony is just plain fiction. The film shows Buster roughing it on vaudeville as a kid and often going hungry, landing a studio contract by sheer force of will as a young adult, and then being a savvy business fellow when dealing with fictitious "Famous Studios" when none of this is true. From the time Buster became part of his family's act as a small child, the act succeeded and the family lived very well, and the doors of Hollywood swung wide for Buster Keaton starting with his very first meeting with Roscoe Arbuckle in 1917. Only the coming of sound hurt Buster because he didn't have the money to go on independently, causing him to sign with MGM and conform to their movie factory standards.

I'd watch this to see Donald O'Connor given a rare chance to really show his versatility and his acting chops, but this is definitely not even close to Buster's life.

A couple of side notes of interest - The screenwriters were in such a hurry to shove something out the door that they got some key facts about the era wrong - The Jazz Singer being an all talking picture and Peter Lorre's character trying to unnerve Keaton by telling him that John Gilbert's contract was canceled after his first unsuccessful talkie are two falsehoods, but they are common enough myths. However, one part of the plot caused by their sloppy research is just plain hilarious if you actually know something about Keaton's life. You may wonder where the Lena Lamont-like star came from that Keaton pants over until she marries a duke (Rhonda Fleming as Peggy Courtney). Fictitious Peggy Courtney was modeled after Mae Murray, who married European royalty in the 1920's before torpedoing her own career. You see, the screenwriters got confused and got Mae Murray mixed up with Mae Busch, a Keystone comic with whom Keaton did in fact have an affair. Keaton and Mae Murray were never involved. Sometimes a good research department can be invaluable!

I'm sure that Donald O'Connor gave Buster Keaton the performance of his life as he would like to be remembered. It certainly wasn't anything close to the life of the real Keaton.

In his prime Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel, and Chaplin contended for being the greatest of silent screen comedians with most conceding Chaplin was best. The others are still remembered for their wonderful routines and for the fact that they survived and made the transition to sound. So did the real Buster Keaton, but not as a star.

The best part of the film is Donald O'Connor recreating some of the classic routines that Keaton did from the silent screen. No doubt Buster worked with O'Connor because he sure got them down quite well.

Ann Blyth and Rhonda Fleming played the women in Keaton's life composites of women he was actually involved with in real life. Peter Lorre has an interesting part as well as a director who Keaton runs roughshod over in his star days, but who Lorre rather subtly gets back at when the movies transition to sound.

In real life it wasn't as simple for Keaton as talking or not talking. When later on he did do the bit parts in films that he scorns on the screen when producer Larry Keating offers him a role, Keaton did have a voice that matched his stoic stone face.

One thing I disagree with. In his case it was right for him never to crack a smile, very much like George Burns. But people like Red Skelton were always laughing at their own material and the audience didn't seem to mind. Different attitudes get different latitudes.

The Buster Keaton Story is not a great film, but O'Connor does well in the role and I'm sure Buster liked it.

Donald O'Connor does an amazing job recreating Buster Keaton's style and routines in this otherwise dreadful script, credited to Sidney Sheldon and Robert Smith. Buster was arguably a finer comedian than Chaplin, but fell into alcoholism for a number of reasons. This script has so little to do with his life it should never have been titled as it was. Read a real biography, and watch some of Buster's many wonderful movies, including his last, "The Railrodder". I remember watching "Waterworld (1995)", and thinking how poorly it compared to "Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928)", not least on value for the money expended on making it. And don't watch another movie until you have seen "The General (1927)". His movies are his biography, not this rotten script.

It's always been the case in Hollywood when "they" go to make a film based upon an actual historical event or do a biopic on an historical figure: they never get it right. The names and dates are usually correct but after that, it's pretty much whatever they think will sell tickets. And this picture is certainly no exception. The shame of it really is that this was made while Buster Keaton was very much alive and still relatively active in show business. But, obviously, he was never contacted concerning the facts about his own life. And that's a real shame. Donald O'Connor is great, for what he's allowed to show of Keaton's genius but the writers and producer were obviously much more interested in portraying Keaton as a base, alcoholic slob without any real feelings. And we who have read the books know that to be totally untrue. I'm surprised Keaton didn't actually sue the production company for defamation of character over this. I sure would have. In any case, despite Mr. O'Connor's valiant efforts to "save" this film, don't bother with it. Watch the documentary "Keaton: A Hard Act to Follow." You'll enjoy that much more.

The weird thing about this film is it's NOT the Buster Keaton story at all. The main character is a fictional studio executive named Gloria who falls in love with Buster (inexplicably, as he's portrayed as a graceless, unattractive slob) and puts her happiness and career on the line in order to nurture and protect him as he chases another woman, blows all his money and drinks himself silly. The surprisingly faithful recreations of classic Keaton routines dropped in awkwardly here and there do nothing to relieve the tedium of this glum, sour women's picture masquerading as a biopic.

I have just acquired a print of this movie on film and it is highly entertaining. I have read some reviews slating this because it shows Buster started in a circus. That is just not true, this film depicts the true fact that Buster worked with his parents in Vaudeville. In the first half of the film there is a composite short titled 'The criminal'. This takes some expertly executed routines from Cops and Sherlock Jnr. Overall highly recommended except it is not on any media. I was fortunate in obtaining a pristine original 16mm print taken from the original 35mm negative - stunning and wonderful to watch on a projector as it was always meant to be seen.

Donald O'Connor plays Buster Keaton in this flick. It follows him mostly from his arriving in Hollywood, becoming a star, hitting doldrums in his career as well as alcohol problems...especially alcohol problems.

"The Buster Keaton Story" is a bio-pic which represents the worst sort of thing that Hollywood could do. Why? Well, despite Keaton being a real person, so much of the film is completely wrong and the writers didn't even consult with Buster to make sure they got his life story right...presumably because they just didn't care. Too often bio-pics do this...and I wonder why...especially because Keaton DID have an interesting life and while he did have troubles with alcohol, it was way overblown for the movie. My advice is to read up on the man...you'll likely enjoy learning about him...much more than you'd learn in the film.

The Buster Keaton Story (1957)

** (out of 4)

Strange, inaccurate but slightly entertaining bio flick takes a look at the rise of Buster Keaton (Donald O'Connor) and his fall from grace due to the talkies (?!?!?) and alcoholism. The producers might have well called this THE JOE SMITH STORY because those familiar with Keaton are going to see very few similarities between his life and the events shown in this film. I understand that no bio film is going to be accurate because things need to be made up or left out for entertainment purposes. With that said, there's simply so much missing here and so many things looked over that I really wonder what the entire point of this film was. I'm sure Paramount wanted to get in on the bio-craze that was sweeping Hollywood during this period but this film does very little justice to Keaton. If you didn't know who Keaton was you'd never get the idea that he was a genius from this picture. In fact, the majority of the running time is devoted to Keaton's personal life, which includes having his heart broken by a Hollywood vamp but eventually being rescued by the woman (Ann Blyth) who has always loved him. We get a couple re-enactments from Keaton's professional career but they don't contain a single laugh including a pretty weak one from COLLEGE. O'Connor does what he can with the role and I think he gives a good performance but it's just not Buster Keaton he's doing. Blyth is also good in her role and we even get Peter Lorre playing a director in a small bit. No one should come to this film expecting a documentary on Keaton, that's very clear. However, I thought the film was slightly amusing simply because of how many liberties it takes with the truth. You're pretty much constantly glued to what's going on because you want to see what they're going to do next.

Having subjected myself to this film again, I found it was possible to find some small enjoyment in it by seeing it all as a big put-on, where the utter falsity of everything presented was itself a joke of sorts (whatever the filmmakers' actual intentions were, which I don't really care to know).

O'Connor was no slouch when it came to physical comedy, so he was a natural choice to play the part and does well in the scenes that recreate authentic Keaton gags, redeeming the film somewhat. Even so, these recreated gags don't always make sense in the context in which they're presented, and in any case, there are not enough of them to make up for all the other nonsense.

According to one of the better biographies of Keaton, Marion Meade's "Buster Keaton: Cut To The Chase" (HarperCollins Publishers, 1995) Keaton agreed to serve as technical advisor for the film, but discovered the the credit was only honorary. He was prepared to offer advice but found it was usually unwanted. The director and co-writer, Sidney Sheldon, who later wrote a series of best-selling books and created the television series "I Dream Of Jeannie" originally chose George Gobel for the the title role. It was decided Gobel was too old for the part and after considering Bob Hope, Danny Kaye, Jerry Lewis, and Red Skelton, Donald O'Connor was given the role.

Production of the film began in June 1956 and Sheldon said, "I had him (Keaton) there all the time. We got hold of his old films and I had him explain all the routines. Then he helped me set them up so I could shoot them." Keaton and O'Connor spent hours in a gym where he tried to teach O'Connor routines. Keaton's unique neck-roll tumble was a pratfall that O'Connor could never perform. Several of Keaton's trickier falls were not even attempted because O'Connor found them too "scary." The picture turned out to be a disaster. It does not resemble Keaton's life at all. One reviewer who has described himself as a HUGE fan of Keaton in past reviews, yet trashed him in these same reviews offers this comment on this film: "My advice is to read up on the man...you'll likely enjoy learning about him...much more than you'd learn in the film." This review has attempted to do just that.

While you might not immediately think Donald O'Connor would be the perfect choice to play Buster Keaton, after you watch The Buster Keaton Story, you'll change your mind. Buster was a trained stuntman and Donald was a trained dancer; they each have incredible control over their bodies. After all, if someone's going to portray Buster, it would be sacrilegious for him to use a stunt double, wouldn't it?

There are so many wonderful elements to this movie. If you know and love silent film legend Buster Keaton's stunt sequences, you'll get to relive his glory by watching Donald O'Connor recreate some of his most famous film scenes. Not only is this a treat because this movie was made at a time before audiences could rent or own their favorite films-they hadn't been able to watch these snippets in thirty years-but it's touching to see someone who was in diapers during Buster's heyday give such a tribute to his talent and legacy. Also, if you know anything about Buster Keaton's real life, you'll recognize that this Hollywood recreation is very sugarcoated. If you love Buster, you'll like seeing things turn out better for him, and that he could live out a do-over on the screen. And if you need one more reason to love this movie, here it is: Buster in real life didn't adjust well to talking pictures, and as his career ended, his bank account dwindled. By selling the rights to his life story for this film, Buster was able to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Isn't that heartwarming?

If you want to learn the facts about Marion Davies, you don't watch "Citizen Kane." If you want to learn the facts of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, you don't watch "Some Like it Hot." Similarly, don't watch "the Buster Keaton Story," if you want to learn the facts of Keaton's amazing life. This is what Keaton and some other people thought would be entertaining for a 1957 audience to know about Buster Keaton. It emphasizes three points 1. Keaton was a vaudeville child performer and became a big star in Hollywood Silent films in the 20s, 2. When sound came in some mean people in Hollywood forced him to talk in ways he didn't like and this caused his films to bomb and he became an alcoholic, and 3. Later Keaton with the help of a good woman who loved him, found appreciation again when he returned to live audiences.

The bad part is that there are no other real historical characters besides Keaton and his parents (for four minutes) in the film. Not only names but also characters have been changed and generalized into types , probably to avoid lawsuits. Even the clothes are not of the historical period.

The good part is that it is still an interesting story with very good acting, especially by. Donald O'Connor, Ann Blyth, Rhonda Fleming, Peter Lorre and Larry Keating.

The best part is that we know that Buster Keaton as the technical advisor on the film recreated about 15 of his great bits and gags from his early films. One of the funniest was a brief recreation of a great scene with Thelma Todd from the movie "Speak Easily," where he tries to put a drunk woman on a bed.

Take the movie for what it is: a fictional biography by and about Buster Keaton, and you will enjoy it. Take it for what it is not: a true biography of Keaton, and you will be disappointed.