Pan dans la lune

Since the release of Buster Keaton's talkies on video, we have a more complete picture of his decline in the 1930's. And although you could argue the merits of his work during his first post-silent period (1930-1933), there is little disagreement regarding the virtues, or rather lack thereof, of his later entries. To make matters worse, many of the movies that Keaton starred in (or otherwise contributed to) in the late-30's/mid-40's were cheaply made nonsensical "lowest common denominator"-type C movies like this one.

And yet... and yet once in a painful while, something shines through the buffoonade and you get a glimpse of what might have been. Is it worth your time? Well, if you have seen - and enjoyed - Buster's brilliant silent movies and are looking for more of the same, then by all means stay away from this abomination. On the other hand, if you have also seen all of his 1930-1933 movies, including the stinkers, and are not afraid of the next step down the same downward spiral, then give it a shot. But don't say I didn't warn you!

Boom in the Moon (1946) has quite the reputation, many claiming it to be the nadir of Buster Keaton's career. It's hard to argue against that claim. It's not only unfunny ninety percent of the time, but it's boring and staid in every department. Keaton sleepwalks through the lengthy dialogue scenes, likely because he did not speak Spanish. He reuses gags from his older films, but as creative as they are, they only work in the context of better, more coherent works than Boom in the Moon. Even Columbia and MGM at its worst gave the master more to work with.

Really not worth the time of anyone who isn't a Keaton completionist and even then, you might want to skip out.