Don't listen to the negative reviews

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Ronald, the Boy (Buster Keaton) has his eyes on one gal only at his high school graduation, Mary (Ann Cornwall). But, alas, she is the girlfriend of the best athlete in the school. Ronald, the top scholar, tries to put down sports in favor of academics, in his valedictorian speech. Wow, does he ruffle a few feathers, even though Mary may take some of his speech to heart. As this young woman and her present beau are going to a nearby college in California, Ronald convinces his mother that he can work his way through school and attend the same school. Once there, though, Ronald is put down for his job as a soda jerk and his lack of athletic prowess. In order to claim Mary's affections and silence the bullies, Ronnie launches a brave attempt to make any and every team available, from baseball to track-n-field. The results are what you might expect. Or are they? This silent classic is a keeper for the ages. Keaton is one truly funny and physical comedian. Just watch him try the discus, where the metal frisbie takes off the wig of a bigwig, or the high jump, where he lands "planted" in the ground and the giggles will flow like the Mississippi. Cornwall and the other cast members are wonderful as well. Then, too, the novelty of reading the screen for cues and listening to the expressive music of the times makes it a must-see. Its surprising, however, how little human nature changes over time, as much of the story will seem to hit home for every viewer. If you are at all interested in the silent movie era, this is a great place to start your journey into the beginnings of the cinematic age. Your appetite and appreciation for the times, and for Keaton, will grow by leaps and bounds.

The consensus seems to be that "College" is good, but it isn't up to the level of Buster Keaton's best other efforts from this era. Having watched it, I can't really disagree with that assessment. There's plenty of good material here and the star, of course but it's difficult not to compare it with Keaton's other work, and somehow it doesn't really feel like a Buster Keaton feature in certain ways.The line of the story is less unified and forceful than in his other films; Buster is a bookworm who goes to college and must pay his way while taking up sports to prove himself to a girl. Instead of the kind of logical sequence of events that drives "The General" or flight of stunningly bizarre imagination that marks "Sherlock Jr," "College" is more of an episodic series of sequences in which Buster tries out various new sports and jobs at his new school.This keeps the story from moving quickly or becoming as involving as it could be, but the upside is that these are mainly handled in a very funny way, with Buster showing off his seemingly innate ability to turn any setting (i.e. a soda jerk's counter) into a treasure chest of natural physical comedy. Probably the highlight of the film is the extended sequence where we get to see Buster have fun generating comedy from his and my favorites sport -- baseball. One can see the enthusiasm as he plays third base in catcher's gear and finds a way to make three outs for his team in one play.One could believe that Buster's character here is a younger version of his sheltered professor from "Speak Easily," and like that later film this one is funny even if it doesn't always make full use of his particular comedy abilities and style. It feels a little more typical than most of his best comedies, and doesn't feature many of the large-scale and involved mechanical gag sequences that he excelled at until the thrill ending in which Keaton gets the girl. Perhaps as a contrast to the more conventional nature of the story and some of the comedy in this feature, Keaton ends the film which a brilliant gag that subverts the typical "Hollywood ending" in just a few utterly logical and hilarious seconds.This is a good comedy and well worth a viewing for the comedy Buster Keaton brings to failure at the various sports and jobs at attempts in it, but as a film it has to be said that it is less than well-structured and dynamic.

College (1927) *** (out of 4) Lesser quality Buster Keaton film has him playing a dorkish book worm who is told by his girlfriend that she doesn't want him unless he becomes an athlete. Once in college Buster goes all out trying to find a sport that he can do. This isn't a masterpiece or even a very good film but it does have plenty of laughs and it's always fun seeing the athletic Keaton dumb it down and not being able to perform all the athletic stuff. I'd say this film was rushed into production after The General tanked at the box office and it's pretty much unlike anything Keaton had done before. You really don't get to see him genius stunts and instead you pretty much just get a one-note joke of a dork trying to be a star athlete. Still, there are plenty of laughs including the best sequence where Keaton, needing a job, gets in blackface only to have it melt off and then he's attacked by the real black folks.

I am a HUGE fan of Buster Keaton and it was because of this I was so greatly disappointed by this film. It is an awfully uninspired film with very few genuine laughs. This is amazing since it came right after THE GENERAL and just before STEAMBOAT BILL, JR.--probably his two of his greatest films (I scored them both 10). But I just couldn't help watch this film and feel terribly disappointed--it paled in comparison. The idea of doing a college movie wasn't bad--after all, Harold Lloyd had just done his college film THE FRESHMAN and HORSEFEATHERS is one of the Marx Brothers' best movies. But the final product looked as if they had the concept but forgot to write the gags. Mostly, it just looked like they turned on the camera and filmed anything with no real plot until it neared the end. For example, a long period in the film consisted of Buster trying out a wide variety of track and field events and screwing each one up terribly. The problem was, doing poorly on a long-jump or high-jump or the hurdles just isn't funny--you say to yourself "so what" because nothing he does during these events is funny--just bad. A real waste of a great talent.If it had been anyone other than Keaton, I might have still enjoyed the film. But, knowing what he was capable of doing really ruined this film--it was simply second-rate Keaton.