I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

"In films that combined comedy with extraordinary physical risks, Buster Keaton played a brave spirit who took the universe on its own terms, and gave no quarter" (Roger Ebert) Among many silent movies which we are lucky to see these days (and which have not been lost after all), COLLEGE by James W. Horne and Buster Keaton was a real surprise for the audiences in my town's movie theater. Seeing silent comedies on the big screen exceptionally proves to be an uncommon experience. I think that there are hardly any viewers who may leave the cinema disappointed. Simply because the humor of COLLEGE seems to have stood a test of time combining comedy features with some notions of what a good movie entertainment is all about. What is it about? It is to amuse us, to bring relief, to educate a bit being at the same time not too tense. Roger Ebert, in the quotations that marks the beginning of my review, nicely observes that Keaton was able to execute tremendous physical abilities, which makes his films interesting even today. That is particularly noticeable in COLLEGE and calls our attention throughout. His character of young Ronald who does anything to make himself attractive to Mary (Anne Cornwall), the girl he loves, executes much of timeless humor. Combined with wit, the effect is outstanding: awe and laughter go in pairs and substitute each other. Who can forget the hilarious scenes on the sports field? How can you remain indifferent to his efforts? A lot of such moments when he moves like a true athlete do not allow you to concentrate elsewhere. That makes COLLEGE vibrant and surprising.Keaton's character is quite different than Charlie Chaplin's roles. He is quite a flamboyant young man who makes us laugh but ALSO makes us identify with his dilemma. Just to note what there is at the heart of his efforts: to win the heart of his 'sweetheart.' Consider the scenes with his mother (Florence Turner) when the humor is somehow directed towards his umbrella but also supplied with a clue of such a young man's personality, his dealing with the world and his dealing with simple situations. When he is in the arms of his Mary at last (the moment that he reaches thanks to extraordinary pains taken), it is a truly genuine moment, a moment of a dream fulfilled...expressed in the face of a performer.Among the supporting cast, Snitz Edwards is fabulously funny as the Dean, the old bachelor who only claims to be indifferent to a woman's love. To draw a humorous conclusion, COLLEGE is a light hearted entertainment which, though it is silent, does not let you resort to silence. Having seen it, you still feel a desire to share your thoughts with other people. A gem of its time!

While this may seem a rather lightweight effort considering it came in the same year that produced 'The General (1927),' 'College' is an excellent little film in which Buster Keaton exploits the endless slapstick possibilities offered by sporting activities. Keaton plays Ronald, an unpopular bookworm whose public condemnation of athletics leads his girlfriend (Anne Cornwall) to dump him in favour of a more physically-capable jock (Harold Goodwin). In an attempt to win back the love of his life, Ronald enrolls himself in college and tries his hands at every sport in sight, with hilarious consequences. The two preceding sentences pretty much summarise the entire film. However, this inkling of a narrative is more than enough to open up a vast range of entertaining gags, and Keaton snatches a laugh at every opportunity.How do I begin to list my favourite moments from 'College?' Though some have complained of the repetitiveness of the sequence in which Keaton tries every athletics activity in the book, I thought it was the highlight of the film. The scenes follow a very strict comedic routine: first we see how it is supposed to be done, then we see Ronald's absurdly inept attempt. Wash, rinse, repeat; this time with a completely different sport. Of course the routine becomes somewhat predictable, but Buster Keaton is always the uncertain variable. We don't know how his next effort is going to fail, but we know it is, and that it's going to be a spectacular failure. Ronald is a hopeless case, but you can't deny that he's got heart. Whether he is being out-sprinted by a pair of young children, falling short of the long-jump sandpit, snapping a pole-vaulting stick in half or planting his face two feet underground after clearing the high-jump bar, he is always courageous enough to get up, brush himself off and try again.I've read that Harold Lloyd explored similar territory two years earlier with 'The Freshman (1925),' a film I haven't seen yet, so that one's probably a good film to look up if you, like me, enjoyed this one. It is also believed that there was originally a sequence showing Ronald's attempts to play American football, though this was ulimately cut to avoid comparisons with Lloyd's movie. Additionally, I was interested to read that Ronald's pole-vault through the window was one of the few times in Keaton's career that he didn't perform his own stunts. I'm certain that the danger-level was definitely not the problem {anybody who's seen 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928)' will attest to that}, but pole-vaulting must have been one activity that he simply couldn't pull off. I don't blame him.

Bookish Buster Keaton goes to college with the intention of excelling in athletics to impress his girlfriend in this somewhat lackluster late silent film. While I found the film amusing in places, I don't think it stacks up well against his other more inventive features. Many other reviewers have compared this film unfavorably to one of Harold Lloyd's better features "The Freshman." The comparison is apt -- although sadly I wish Keaton would have followed Lloyd's lead and ended the film with a big football finish. It would have been interesting to compare Keaton's take on the sport against Lloyd's approach, or that of the Marx Brothers or even "M*A*S*H" and "The Longest Yard." The film is also hurt by Keaton's muscular build. Keaton has the body of an athlete, so his utter ineptness isn't very convincing. Also, Keaton looks a little long in the tooth to be a college freshman. (But that might actually be accurate. People often had to work for years to raise the money for college, so student bodies tended to be older.) Still, despite this quibbling, no Keaton silent feature is without its merits. The way he makes his character achieve all of the tasks in real life that he failed to achieve in the sports arena was inventive and amusing. I also really enjoyed the odd coda that quickly stepped through Buster and Anne's life (and beyond) after the joyous moment of their marriage. This film isn't the best place to start a study of Keaton, but it is still worth a look.

Let's take a look at the racism in the "coloured waiter" scene. Keaton is merely exploiting the shorthand comedic racial material of his time, imitating a black person's walk, getting in the middle of a love triangle back in the kitchen, on and on. But don't we today make fun, in stand-up comedy, of racial differences? Plenty, and nobody says boo. So why are we so judgmental?The final outcome of the episode is what counts, however: Keaton is run out of the restaurant by the coloured folk, who obviously have the power to do so. I think most people could show the scene to their young children, and, with a little explanation to accompany it, it will do little harm, and in fact may be a valuable learning experience."College" gets an "8" from me only because I'm not fond of comedians manipulating their audience into empathetic discomfort, as Keaton tends to do throughout the movie. And, no, the gags aren't all that great. Still, Keaton on auto-pilot is, well, Keaton after all.