Avis des utilisateurs

There has never been a more comic use of a `train' (if the label is appropriate) than in this film. This is ingenuity at its finest, the most sustained comic sequence I've ever seen. Travelling from New York ca. 1830 to the Appalachians to claim an `estate', Keaton on this journey provides the highlight of the film-and what a highlight it is! From the bouncing actions of passengers to the lifting and moving of track, this series of images is non-stop pleasure. A dog, a hobo, a man throwing rocks at the engineer, a mule-all are inspired catalysts to laughter.

Once Keaton (a McKay) reaches his destination, the movie changes pace. And despite many good moments, especially those when Keaton has taken up `permanent residence' at the Canfields, the humor never reaches the level of the first portion of the film. Nonetheless, Keaton's genius is evident throughout the film, and it is this ability to innovate that constantly amazes.

This fine film represents one of the earlier attempts at "dramedy", long before the term was invented. The story has a highly realistic feel to it, yet the funny stuff is never far away.

The film does start a bit slowly as they set up the story, but things pick up quickly once the funny (but true, from an old photo) shot of 1810 Times Square hits the screen.

The little train which takes Buster to Kentucky is a hoot, and THAT is based on the real 1830's deal, too. Movable, bumpy, flimsy tracks and a couple nutty characters and situations are highlights.

My favorite bit in the whole film, though, is when poor Buster realizes the fabulous mansion he thought he was inheriting turned out to be a broken-down shack, ending his dreams in spectacularly explosive fashion.

The story was strong and believable, and the climactic (and very dangerous) scenes at the river and waterfall were amazing. As a matter of fact, these scenes are so impressive, it's easy to forget that they are funny; this is the only reason for me to not give the movie a 10.

Side note to those who have said the poor soundtrack detracted from the film: If you EVER have the opportunity to see this or other silent movies in their proper environment (A glorious movie palace with live musical accompaniment by theatre organ or an orchestra), DO it! The "half-live, half-canned" aspect is very important to the enjoyment of silents. It also keeps any film you've seen many times (as is often the case with "The General" or "Phantom") fresh. Even the same organist doesn't play the same film the same way every time, and a different organist can accompany the film in such a different way that it can almost fool you into thinking you're seeing a new movie.

I'm one of those lucky enough to have done so and there's nothing quite like it.

Although not Keaton's greatest film, this one has sure got some really great moments. The build-up is rather slow while the main plot is being established: 1830s Kentucky. Keaton gets invited by a pretty girl to attend her family dinner. What he doesn't realize until too late is that the family in question is his inherited mortal enemies in a blood feud that has been going on for centuries. The girl's father and brothers all want to kill him but is prevented from doing so until he has left their house (hence the title).

Our Hospitality has got some amazing action sequences but the tempo is very uneven. The early part of the film treats us to some beautiful replicas of old vehicles including trains and bicycles and also some of Keaton's usual train-rail comedy. The middle part, where Keaton guests his blood feud enemies is full of running in and out through doors. Up until now everything has been pretty slow. The last third of the movie though, is truly mind boggling! Keaton and a chasing gunman falls down cliffs, flows down rivers and waterfalls, jumps in and out of moving trains and so on while tied to each other with a rope around their waists. It must have been through watching this James Bond learned his action trade. Our Hospitality however, has also got a lot of comedy in its moments of unbelievable action.

Good fun.

Our Hospitality, Buster Keaton's second feature film, marks a great leap forward in his art. It's his first truly plot-driven film (his first feature, Three Ages, was deliberately made as three connected two-reelers, with only the loosest plot to hold the gags together.) It was also the first in which he banished any hint of cartoon-style slapstick and made gags take a back-seat to narrative. The slower pace and subtler comedy show Keaton's confidence that he didn't need to clown non-stop to retain the audience's interest. The grand scale and period authenticity look forward to his masterpiece, The General. Buster had always had a serious side, but this was the first time it dominated a film. Consequently, Our Hospitality is not his funniest work, but it has a unique sweetness and charm, rich with atmosphere and drama. The elegant historical setting and fresh outdoor scenery add to the handsome effect, and Buster's performance is particularly graceful and sensitive. Like the engineer he would portray in his best-known film, The General, his character here is a very polite, deceptively mild-mannered young man who can turn into a heroic athlete without even changing his clothes.

Our Hospitality was inspired by the Hatfield-McCoy feud, and the plot involves Buster, as a sheltered young man raised in New York, stumbling into a Southern blood feud when he returns to his ancestral home to claim an inheritance. The joke of the title is that once he enters the home of the rival family, they can't kill him without violating their code of hospitality—until he steps outside! The melodramatic prologue that opens the film comes as a surprise, but it effectively sets up the tension that runs through the story. It's not overplayed, and it includes a cute turn by Buster's infant son, playing the younger incarnation of his own character, Willie McKay. Grown to manhood in New York, Willie is a gentle, foppish type, introduced riding a ludicrous proto-bicycle (accurately based on historical prints of the Gentleman's Hobbyhorse, the first bicycle.) Informed that he has inherited his family's estate, he boards a train for the South.

Buster's main reason for setting the film in 1830 was so that he could indulge his passion for trains by creating a working model of Stephenson's "Rocket," the first locomotive. The train journey proceeds at a fluid, unhurried pace, blending a string of gags arising from obstacles encountered along the way (donkeys, crafty hillbillies, derailments) with a delicate development of romance between Willie and Virginia Canfield, the young woman sharing his coach. Virginia is played by Natalie Talmadge, Buster's wife at the time. She's pretty and appropriately demure, but it's easy to see why she didn't become a star like her sisters Norma and Constance. She looks nervous and insecure in front of the camera. In addition to featuring Buster's wife, son and father (the lanky, irascible train engineer), Our Hospitality was the swan-song of Big Joe Roberts, who played the "heavy" in almost all of Keaton's early films. Already ill during the making of this film (he died shortly after it was completed), he plays the aged, forgiving patriarch of the Canfield clan.

The sequence set in the Canfield mansion, where Virginia invites Willie to dinner (not knowing he is the last remnant of the rival McKay clan), is very funny, playing the murderous feud against a stately, antebellum gentility. I love the way all the men keep one eye open during the saying of grace; Willie's frantic efforts to avoid leaving the house; and his attempts to court Virginia while dealing with her gun-wielding brothers. Once he flees the house, the film shifts into high gear. The long chase, making full use of the rugged landscape, is exciting and contains much dashing stunt-work on Buster's part: his fall off a cliff while tied to another man, his ride through the river rapids (he almost drowned due to a mishap making this scene—and it's in the movie!), culminating in the famous waterfall climax. I don't want to give away exactly what happens: I'll never forget the thrill of seeing it for first time, unprepared. But even without the element of surprise, the beauty of this stunt, the pendulum arc he describes with his body, always takes my breath away.

One final note: contrary to what someone wrote elsewhere on this page, it was not "standard practice" for silent stars to do all their own stunts. Buster Keaton was unique in never using a double, and probably no star ever took greater risks or endured more physical suffering than he did in the interest of his art. But the supreme achievement is how effortless and understated his performances are; he's not showing off, just attending to the task at hand.

Our Hospitality is truly a work of art from the silent era. Buster Keaton amazed me with his stunts, which I dare say do not pale in comparison with those of Jackie Chan. The story is filled with wit and suspense. At times you laugh, at times you gasp, at times the world trembles as Keaton delivers death-defying stunts. This is one of the first silent movies I watched in its entirety, and I was thoroughly impressed with the film-making quality. While I wouldn't go as far as to prefer silent movies over their contemporary sound counterpart, I like how soundless movies invite you to pay particular attention to the facial expression--it's all there in the actor's face. I personally prefer Our Hospitality to Keaton's acclaimed "The General."

In the Nineteenth Century, there is a feud between the McKay and Canfield families in the country of the United States of America. When John McKay is killed, his wife sends their one years old baby Willie to New York to be raised by her sister. Twenty years later, Willie McKay (Buster Keaton) returns to claim for his family state. Along the train travels, he meets a young lady and they fall in love for each other. However, she is the youngest Canfield and her family has not forgotten the quarrel against the McKays.

"Our Hospitality" is amazing even in the present days. Without use of computer, as the present generation has accustomed to see on the screen, Buster Keaton participates of fantastic timing scenes using his physical capability, such as in the waterfall, or in the train water-tank. Further, there is a very interesting scenario, showing the crossroad between Broadway and Forty-Second Streets in New York based on a 1830 painting. Willie's dog, his bicycle and the funny train are other attractions of this great movie. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Nossa Hospitalidade" ("Our Hospitality")

Keaton throughout his career did most all of his stunts and even suffered serious injury during the shooting of "The General". During a stunt with a watering tower, Keaton fell hard to the track and broke his neck, but did not know it until 13 years later. Also, during one of the final scenes in "Our Hospitality" when Keaton's character is floating down the river, his safety line broke and he almost drowned, but he was a stickler for not cutting until he said so, because he did not want to miss anything with the camera. Also, during the shooting, the love interest of Keatons character was his wife who was pregnant with their second child, and if you watch closely they attempt to hide her stomach on many occasions. Also, the child at the first that plays the baby Willie, is actually Buster Keaton Jr.

"Our Hospitality" is Buster Keaton's first proper feature film. He starred in the dreadful "The Saphead" (1920), but had no input behind the camera, and "Three Ages" (1923) is more of an anthology of three shorts in parody of D. W. Griffith's mammoth "Intolerance" (1916). Thus, this was the first time he had to fully work out how to adapt to the longer format. He had Charlie Chaplin's "The Kid" (1921) and Harold Lloyd's "Grandma's Boy" (1922), and Fatty Arbuckle had already begun on his short-lived feature career, too, to guide him on the insertion of dramatic elements and how to base the gags around the character development, as opposed to the more slapdash, slapstick arrangement of the shorts, as nonetheless hilarious as they could be.

The result would remain one of his best features, although I'm partial to the cinematically-reflexive "Sherlock Jr." (1924). It's aged terrifically well, including an all-time great waterfall climax, but the amusing irony of its historical value is that the film is now nearly 100 years old, made in 1923, and it's fascinated with and mocking of a world from nigh a century before it, of 1830. And, from riding a dandy horse to prefiguring his own "The General" (1927) in ridiculous fashion with a replica train of the so-called "Stephenson's Rocket," so chosen precisely for how ridiculous it looked, Keaton demonstrates his dedication to production values. A lot of comedic mileage is had here of this "iron monster" of the tracks, to boot. I especially love the gag of a man tossing rocks at the conductor so as to collect the firewood he throws back at him in retaliation.

Nominally, the burlesque here is of the Hatfield-McCoy feud that plays out like "Romeo and Juliet" in the Appalachian Mountains. This begins with a cold open played dramatically straight establishing the ongoing feud back in 1910. I'm intrigued by the suggestion made by several others that this opening is like a bad D. W. Griffith drama, especially considering Keaton was no stranger to parodying dramatic filmmakers, including the aforementioned "Three Ages" or his merciless takedown of William S. Hart Westerns and Erich von Stroheim melodramas in "The Frozen North" (1922). Some of this may be seen with the other silent clowns, as well, such as Chaplin's "A Burlesque on Carmen" (1915) being an imitation of Cecil B. DeMille's "Carmen" (1915), and Mack Sennett's Keystone basically got its start by making fun of Griffith's one-reel last-minute rescues of damsels in distress.

So, what if we extrapolate this insinuation that Keaton is imitating Griffith in the opening scene here. Note that Griffith, rather notoriously now, prided himself as a Southern--and what was once considered Western (Kentucky)--gentleman, son of a Confederate soldier. As a young man, he set out on his career by moving to New York City, which is where the movies were made at the time. This set him on a path of cinematically glamorizing his white Southern heritage with disastrous results (namely, resurrecting the Klan). Although he casts an African-American actor in the servant role, Keaton largely sidesteps any racial issues here, but he makes an utter mockery of Southern hospitality, as he comically exploits the Canfields' honor of not killing him while he's a guest in their home to stay alive--and while he's at it, romancing the Canfield daughter, played by Natalie Talmadge, also Keaton's real-life wife (their son and his father also make an appearance). To top it all off, Keaton out does Griffith's river rapids climax from "Way Down East" (1920)--not an easy task by any means, as that, too, is an awesome sequence.

Nobody matched Keaton for taking physical risks for his art, either. Reportedly, he nearly drowned when filming the sequence in an actual river. The breathtaking rope swing, on the other hand, was performed within a constructed set and with miniature scenery, as well as with an apparent and brief dummy substitution for Talmadge, although it looks fantastic and still probably wasn't exactly safe. This is the same guy who broke his neck in another water-based stunt in "Sherlock Jr." The only one who ended up dying from the production, however, was Joe Roberts, the heavy playing the Canfield patriarch, who had a stroke during filming and would subsequently die from another a month after wrapping. In the meantime, he returned to finish filming. For good and bad, they don't make 'em like this anymore.

This is one of the most unusual films of the independent years of Buster Keaton's career. While I loved the film (every minute of it), the film seemed less like a Keaton film and actually reminded me a lot of one of Harold Lloyd's best films, THE KID BROTHER. That's because both were period pieces set in the 19th century and both seemed to place more emphasis on character development than physical humor or gags. While I love the physical humor in his films like STEAMBOAT BILL JUNIOR, I really loved the gentle and sweet nature of this film as well. This film also seemed much more like a work of art--a simply magnificent looking film with exceptional cinematography and costumes. Also, the film focused much more on characterizations than stunts--and it's done in such a marvelous way that you won't be disappointed. In addition, while not a central focus of the film, watching the 1830-style train in the first portion of the film was a real treat.

See this and be amazed that Keaton could make a slightly slower-paced yet terrific film--one of his best yet also one of his most forgotten films. A must-see for lovers of silent cinema. Not just a great comedy but a great film.

It's about 1810. The Canfields and the McKays are feuding clans. John McKay is killed and his wife moves with her infant son Willie to NYC to live with her sister. After his mother's death, Willie (Buster Keaton) is raised by his aunt without any knowledge of the feud. He returns to Rockville to reclaim his inheritance. He meets Virginia Canfield (Natalie Talmadge, Buster's real-life wife) on the train. She invites him over as her family keeps trying to kill him.

The rickety old train is fascinating and extremely cool. The story is fun. The family trying to kill him is pretty funny especially when he figures it out. Keaton being scared is hilarious. There are some good stunts. There are some that seem much more dangerous than exciting. Then there is the waterfall dumping on him. The rock climbing looks scary especially when they're not on a set. There is a terrific waterfall rescue at the end that is more in line with an expert trapeze act. The movie has some fun and lots of stunts which is the hallmark of Keaton.

When Buster Keaton was in his prime, during the silent film period, there was nobody back then, when it came to comedy, more daring in terms of the jaw-dropping stunt-work, or who was able to make deadpan funny and expressive, and actually it is still like that now. Keaton wasn't nicknamed "The Great Stone Face" for nothing, and he took risks with the stunt work and physical comedy and was not afraid to do anything bold. It was a shame though that he didn't transition as well into sound and his films just weren't the same.

Only his second feature film, 'Our Hospitality' is one of Keaton's best in my view. Other favourites being 'The General', 'Steamboat Bill, Jr', 'Sherlock Jr' and 'The Cameraman'. As has been said already, it may have comedy (and brilliant comedy) and the stunt-work is as enormously impressive as one would expect, but there is also a huge heart of gold. One of Keaton's sweetest and most heartfelt and the charm factor is huge. It reminds me of another masterpiece of his 'The Cameraman' in that regard.

It may not quite be the technical achievement that 'The General' and 'Sherlock Jr' were/are, but it still looks great with beautiful and inventive photography that uses the camera and the character's clumsiness very cleverly. The period detail is also charming and remarkably authentic. Similarly, it may not quite have stunts as jaw-dropping, daring or as awe inspiring as for example the climax of 'Steamboat Bill, Jr', but they are still astonishing in their audacity and it is amazing that they are so much fun to watch but be dangerous at the same time. Also amazing is that as always they were all done by Keaton himself. A big example of this is the sequence with the waterfall.

There is still comedy here and while it is subtler than other Keaton films, it is still beautifully timed and very funny. The running gags regarding his trains are hilarious while also affectionate in a way, can be wary of running gags because they can wear thin and get tired too early if not done well but 'Our Hospitality' is one of the best examples in this regard. Seeing Keaton in drag was quite interesting. The story is very sweet and heartfelt and it didn't feel too slow, plus the sentimentality didn't go overboard. The long chase is indeed very exciting.

Yet another Keaton film with a story with brains, heart and logic, treating the audience with respect and there is never any trouble following it, always engaging too. The characters are worth rooting for and don't annoy or bore. The supporting cast are all good but this is Keaton's film.

Keaton as expected gives a pitch perfect performance, one of his best and it embodies all the qualities of why he was so great. Not only is his comic timing on point but he once again provides a character that's endearing and worth rooting for. His physicality and how he copes with the stunts is awe-inspiring and he is one of not many to make deadpan interesting and entertaining because he still makes it very expressive and nuanced.

Summarising, outstanding film. 10/10

I frankly don't think that this film is that good. Granted there are a few great sequences, among them the train sequence, the chase at the end and the joke about the traffic. The rest of the film, though, was incredibly stretched and weary. Even in the train sequence, Keaton repeats the same joke twice; the one about his tall hat not being able to fit on his head because of the low roof (whereupon he dons his famous porkpie hat).

The whole thing simply feels dated; it doesn't have the incredible pace of later Keatons (like Sherlock Jr.) and it doesn't have the great editing of Charlie Chaplin's or Harold Lloyd's films of the same year (Harold Lloyd released both his most famous feature film "Safety Last!" and arguably his funniest, "Why Worry?", in 1923 - if you like silent comedy those are some of the best). I've always found that out of the three great comics of the silent era (Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd), Keaton always had the most trouble telling a story coherently through his medium; I always find myself struggling more to find out what exactly is going on on the screen, who's called what and who's angry at who, etc.

This film gets a 6.5/10 from me; it's really not the brilliance that I was expecting from Keaton... more like a historical curiosity.

P.S. I should as well mention here that the version of Our Hospitality that I saw had a terrible musical score that distracted from the movie and did not complement any of the action (except at the very end). It's the one on the VHS double feature with Our Hospitality/Sherlock jr (Kino Video). If I had seen this movie with a better score, I probably would have enjoyed it more than I had.

A notorious clan / family feud between the Canfield and the McKays has been bubbling away for years with both families swearing to shoot whoever they come across. When Willie McKay (Buster Keaton) travels to Canfield territory to claim his inheritance, he travels and falls in love with Virginia Canfield, the Canfield patriarch's daughter.

Whilst perhaps not amongst Keaton's greatest work - there's rather too much of the characters standing around and staring at each other - this still has a number of typically fine scenes of slapstick and derring do including a hilarious railroad trip, a dam burst and a climax above a giant waterfall and all gloriously free of sentiment.

With a good dose of everything that one expects from Keaton - slapstick, stunts, chases, rich visual detail, and much more - "Our Hospitality" is enjoyable to watch, and it has some especially good sequences. The plot idea, with Keaton as an innocent outsider becoming entangled in an old-fashioned family feud, works pretty well, although it relies on comic details to overcome some rather routine characters.

A short prologue explains the feud in which Buster will soon be involved, and then we see New Yorker Willie McKay (Keaton) called south to claim a family inheritance, which will plunge him into the middle of the feud. One of the movie's highlights is the train ride south, a wonderful sequence that almost upstages the rest of the film. It's a long, leisurely series of comic snippets that works beautifully both as a period piece and as terrifically inventive comedy. There aren't any spectacular gags, but an impressive collection of amusing incidents and carefully done detail, and it's well worth watching over again to catch it all.

The main part of the film features Buster romancing the pretty young woman he met on the train, while trying to avoid her brothers and father, who are trying to kill him. It's pretty good, but except for a few clever shots most of it is not up to the standard of the first part of the movie. It picks up near the end with a very good chase sequence that has some memorable moments and that brings everything to a climax.

Overall, this is a fine film, enjoyable and well worth watching.

One of the best trips and one of the earliest trips too in the most funniest vehicles.

Oh yes, this my most recent film and the second earliest film, I have seen (earliest being 1921 Charlie Chaplin's 'The Kid'). It has a whole range of vehicles from a cart, a cycle, a train, a donkey and a glimpse of Rocket prototype, all are too very funny to notice and our hero John Mckay (Buster Keaton) is even funnier. He is the shortest male character who runs and runs from the villains.

This is not contemporary 1923 film but is set in 1830's and that in itself brought out a humorous production design and art director must have been laughing when did a cycle or a train design.

Everything is out and out funny and the moments just keep coming. His genius is written in most of scenes if not all. When villains are searching for him, a waterfall saves him wow, can something be more creative than that to cover him.

Buster Keaton has an originality that is very pristine that even Chaplin and Welles adored him for the way he carried out a film. That is very well shown in this film, selecting the time period make things look funny intentionally and the characters are so very stereotypical, we will not have sympathy but we will have a word that says, "let him have it". The one scene rather frame in which he expresses love to the heroine is enough to know how funny he was.

Keaton stunts, I must mention are tough for in those days there was noting at hand except physical body which took a lot of strain and he did them all effortlessly (at least that is how it seems) and with a lot of courage, kudos to him in all terms.

This film was remade as "Maryada Ramanna" in telugu which was a very disappointing and serious take for a film that is extremely funny.

All salutations to Buster Keaton.

For this, it's 4/5. Please watch if you haven't coz it may be the funniest trips you have ever done on screen.

Oh no, there is "THE GENERAL" for me which I will review later.

"Our Hospitality" was Keaton's second feature film after he went from making two-reel (20 minute) short films to feature films in 1923. It is a comic take-off on the Hatfield and McCoy feud of the 1880's, but here Keaton takes you back to 1830, primarily so he can introduce the main mechanical gag of the film, - a mechanically-accurate faithful re-creation of the early locomotive - Stephenson's Rocket. The train moves so slowly that Keaton's dog runs alongside the train and has no trouble keeping up.

The jist of the story is that Keaton plays Willie McKay, the surviving McKay after the McKay/Canfield feud of roughly twenty years before. Willie travels to his ancestral home in Appalachia to inspect some property he's inherited, and on the journey there begins to fall for the young lady with whom he is traveling, played by his wife Natalie Talmadge. She turns out to be a Canfield, and when her brothers find out that a McKay is in town they go for their guns. However, the patriarch of the family (Big Joe Roberts) warns his sons that it is against their code of hospitality to shoot someone inside of their house. Willie, who has been invited to dinner, learns of all of this and does his best to not leave the house.

It is interesting to see Keaton and his first wife on screen together. This film was shot during the time that they were actually getting along. Highly recommended.

Buster Keaton's best known outing on a train was "The General", but he had a similar experience a few years earlier. "Our Hospitality" casts him as the son of a family that's been feuding with another family in the early 1800s. The other family had murdered his father, prompting his mother to move with him to New York. Now that he's returning home to reclaim what he assumes is a mansion, the other family is ready to finish him off. But a wrench gets thrown in the works when he falls for the family's daughter (Natalie Talmadge) on the train.

The best part of the movie is the whole sequence on the train. It just goes to show that inventions aren't perfect when tried the first time! (of course, some of the mishaps along the way don't help matters) A few other scenes allow Keaton to show off his physical humor, especially the whole sequence in the river. Seriously, Keaton's timing is perfect. It all goes to show that you don't need words for a movie to be funny. "The Artist" seems to have renewed interest in silent cinema, and I would say that "Our Hospitality" is definitely one that you should check out.

Our Hospitality was a good old comedy from Buster Keaton and i must admit that this is the first film that i saw from him cause im usually Chaplin guy but i must say that Buster also had a good sense of humor and he give me some laughs in this film.Story here was very smartly done and it teached us that we need to respect and love our neighbours cause we never know when we will need their help.Jokes were funny and some stunts looked very good and convincing .Our Hospitality was a good old comedy

Buster Keaton perfectly showcases his ability to twist genres in this all time comedy class, as he turns the premise of a Hitchcockian thriller into a riotous romp that is both clever and silly. Filled with some of Keaton's finest stunts, and some surprisingly intense (but also hilarious) climactic action/chase scenes, "Our Hospitality" is a simple and sweet joyride. It is a film made with love and care, as Keaton shows his passion for filmmaking with some of his breathtaking and memorable stunts. It takes real dedication to write, direct, and star in your own film-on top of doing dangerous stunts that depend entirely on timing. This is why Buster Keaton is one of my idols, he did some much hard work and still managed to make some damn great movies!

This feature sees Buster Keaton as a young man who returns to the old South to claim an estate, only to discover that his family has been one of the participants in a Hatfield-McCoy style feud (here they are the Canfields and McKays), and the other side still wants to kill him. It's a good, solid comedy, and as always showcases a lot of great conceptual comedy and stunts, all performed by the "Great Stone Face" in a way that makes you marvel. It's hard to imagine anyone else quite coming up with the horse with the umbrella that looks like a woman from behind, the daisy-chain falling down the cliff of the two men tied by a rope, or the way the rear cars of the train end up in front of the engine. Often it's the uniqueness of this kind of humour that really makes Keaton's film's stand out.

A lot of the jokes in this film, especially in the earlier parts, revolve around making fun of the past simply for being the past (central Manhattan used to be less developed, &c). As a viewer in 2009 I can't help but think that if I were as indulgent of decades past as this film is, I would probably not be watching it. Still there is a lot of material here and some of it works very well (I love the shifting of the train track itself when the mule won't get out of the way).

The story of the film is a good one, but the humour doesn't seem to flow quite so naturally from it as in other Keaton films, with the notable exception of the sequences in which Buster must stay inside the house in order to protect his life. It actually seems to be funnier on digressions, such as the scene of Buster fishing in the vicinity of a soon-to-be-demolished dam.

So while the laughs aren't one-hundred-per-cent wall-to-wall here, it's certainly, a funny, satisfying, well-made film, with the impressively perilous action-comedy sequences being a highlight for me.

"Our Hospitality" displays the skill of Buster Keaton very admirably. After a somewhat slow start in the Prologue and beginning of the Story, the pace picks up and continues to become more and more interesting.

One appreciates the great care Keaton takes in setting up his compositions, noted for their clean lines and balanced geometric planes and forms. Images are nicely stuctured, and one gets a feeling of classically executed set designs, with room to breathe. The lines of the Keaton poems are not extended to the end; rather, room is left for the viewer to fill in phrase endings with personal responses.

This 1923 silent classic holds up quite well, and one notes the remarkable physical stunts Keaton pulls off, in the standard silent era custom of not using a double. The actual comedy comes off best with an audience: the phenemena of group laughter can be infectious, and this film can really take off in a full theater.

The post-added music on the sound track is adequate, while not inspired. To compare Chaplin's supervised score to "Modern Times" with this shows how superior is the Chaplin work.

"Our Hospitality" is a worthy tribute to that enormously creative talent who well earned his legendary status-- Keaton.

This is the first Buster Keaton film I've seen, and I enjoyed it. The premise isn't very deep or elaborate, nor does it try to be; rather, it focuses its efforts on creating light-hearted comedy. When I watch these kinds of comedies, I'm a little afraid that it will turn into silly humor, but this one isn't like that. Although the situations that produce the humor are somewhat artificial, that is, contrived, in this one you hardly feel it as exaggerated, but rather the way they are produced causes genuine laughter. As a minor detail but one I'd like to mention, most of the scenes take place in very few locations, and yet at no point does it feel heavy or tedious. Therefore, it's easily recommendable. Although the situations that produce the humor are somewhat artificial, that is, contrived, in this one you hardly feel it as exaggerated, but rather the way they are produced causes genuine laughter. Therefore, it's easily recommendable.

A parody of a real-life feud between two families in the 19th century, Buster Keaton's Our Hospitality may not be as memorable as Sherlock Jr. or The General but it nonetheless works as yet another accomplished piece of technical filmmaking from "The Great Stone Face" and packs in a few genuinely hilarious situations over the course of its runtime but there are also numerous stretches of nothingness in between that never lets it off the ground.

The story of Our Hospitality covers the feud between two families that has been ongoing for so long that no one remembers who or what started it in the first place. The plot follows a young man who, while en route to his hometown, meets a girl on the train and they soon become acquainted. Invited to supper at her place, he ultimately learns that she belongs to the rival family and he's going to be executed by her kins as soon as he departs, following which he keeps finding ways to not leave the house.

Directed by Buster Keaton, Our Hospitality is part serious family drama & part comedy and while both these elements are blended nicely, there are still a few overstretched dramatic moments in between that could've been further trimmed. The situation comedy however is expertly handled and Keaton's deadpan expressions only help in making it all the more effective. From a technical standpoint, there isn't really much to complain about as the set pieces, black-n-white photography & other elements are brilliantly executed.

On an overall scale, Our Hospitality once again presents Buster Keaton in control of his craft, but its desired effect does feel diminished by time. There are moments that make you wonder how Keaton pulled it off, like the famous waterfall rescue scene, but there is quite a bit of plodding to sit through if all you are looking for is some good old-fashioned laughs. I do appreciate the technical mastery presented here and its contribution to its genre cannot be downplayed but I did expect more from what this silent classic eventually had in store. Still, worth your time & money and a definite must for Keaton fanatics.