Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

John T. Ryan BEING ONE OF those less than super-budgeted shorts that Jules White produced while he was the head of Columbia Pictures' Short Subjects Department, this picture, GENERAL NUISANCE, is nonetheless fairly well known; at least among those of us who entered the World during that period affectionately known as "The Post War Baby Boom." THE REASON FOR this is a sort of indirect, unintentionally generated cause. It was included with the package of 2 reelers released to the television market by Columbia Pictures. In addition to Mr. Keaton's work, the package contained the work of Andy Clyde, Harry Langdon and some others. It also had the multitude of shorts made by the 3 Stooges; which was the main driving force behind the success of the films to a generation of rug-rats who were totally unfamiliar with them.ALL AROUND THE country, just about every TV market had its own THREE STOOGES Show. In our case, here in Chicago, it was WGN TV, Channel 9, which had daily a daily Stooges program beginning in early in 1959. In filling out the programming time, the station would also include other comedy shorts, the Keaton Columbia shorts were among them.* AS FOR THIS picture, it has much to recommend it. Inspite of the fact that it had this shoestring budget and that Buster Keaton was viewed as somewhat of a has been, the short is a fine example of what even a little picture could be.TO BEGIN WITH, there is a great deal of similarity in premise and structure to so many of the now considered brilliant. As for a plot, it's virtually thread-bare, involving the rich man, Buster, and his car being broken down. He meets two ladies (Dorothy Appleby and Elsie Ames, who are nurses heading for the nearby Army Camp. The rich guy, this Peter Hedley Lamar, Jr., decides to enlist in order to get next to Nurse Dorothy; although it is Nurse Elsie who has eyes for him.THE MOVIE WAS released about 3 months before Pearl Harbor was attacked and the Nation was "celebrating" our first Peacetime Draft. Just about every standard sort of "in the Army Now" gag was employed; especially when it came to the area of medical examinations.THE STUNTS WHICH are employed both by Keaton and Miss Ames are outstanding and demonstrated how Buster's physical skills had not diminished. Elsie Ames also does some fine work in this area and must have had background in gymnastics and eccentric dance.AS FAR AS the contrast between the two girls, it was strictly clichéd. Miss Appleby was (at least on screen) the "pretty" and more desirable. Elsie Ames' characterizations were that of the less glamorous but man crazy type as comic relief. The two would reprise these roles in several of the Columbia Keaton two reelers.IT IS WELL known how Keaton was a true genius when it came to comedy production and the construction of the sight gag. But that was not where his talents ended. He also enjoyed word play as exemplified by his use of the written word in title cards, such as: 4 Flushing Place (fore flushing) in COPS (1922), name of ship Damfino (damed if I know) in THE NAVIGATOR and others.IN THIS LATTER day production, he gave his character the name Peter Hedley Lamar (obvious lampoon of actress Hedy Lamar). Well, that must b where Mel Brooks got the name for Harvey Korman's character in BLAZING SADDLES (1974).BUT THAT'S OKAY, Mel, we forgive you. We know you did it to honor Buster!NOTE * In addition to the Stooges and the Columbia Shorts, we were treated to RKO Short subjects with Billy Gilbert, Benny Rubin and Gil Lamb.

Chrissie I hadn't thought it possible for anybody to put Buster Keaton into a film more inane and humiliating than "Free and Easy", but I stand corrected. I had to force myself to sit through this dreary dreck, in the mostly vain hope that Keaton would sooner or later give me something worth watching. That one thing worth watching does show up in the middle of an otherwise grim song-and-dance routine with Elsie Ames. Alas, the moment ends quickly, and we're back to Buster playing somebody so clueless he makes Rain Man look as canny as a Mafia don.I can't fathom what it is about this film that makes people pick it out as one of the better (or perhaps less dismal) of the Columbia shorts. "Mooching Through Georgia" is actually fun, and "She's Oil Mine" and "The Taming of the Snood" are the others most likely to give Keaton fans something they can watch without being embarrassed for Buster. This one left a bad taste in my mouth.I would guess that the dividing line between those who find it palatable and those who find it more of a cinematic emetic would be whether or not the viewer enjoys Three Stooges comedy. If you do, you'll probably like "General Nuisance". If not, spare yourself the ordeal.

Michael_Elliott General Nuisance (1941) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Columbia short with Buster Keaton playing a man who falls for a girl but she's only interested in men in the Army so Keaton joins with plenty of gags to follow. I had heard the Columbia Keaton films were pretty bad but this one here was pleasant enough, although it's certainly a long way from The General. There's plenty of nice one-liners from Keaton and he's good at the old time slapstick but there's plenty of more violent humor, ala The Three Stooges, that Keaton really can't pull off.

boblipton This is not one of the high points of Buster's career. He seems to be used for his remaining marquee value here. Even the two falls from the car near the beginning of the movie do not seem to be performed by him -- when Buster fell, his entire body moved and reacted, like a a trout struggling to not be drawn in by the universe. No, that's a stuntman taking the fall, competently but with no flair, and that makes this a waste of time. Far better to watch him doing little comic bits in big movies.This is, in short, far more of a Jules White comedy than a Buster Keaton comedy. Although the print on the new Keaton at Columbia set is far better than any more generally available, this is a short only for completists.