Having heard for years how bad this film is, I must concur with the previous reviewer, who said "not that bad." This was the last of the three films where Keaton was teamed with Jimmy Durante, and while this is not as good a film overall as SPEAK EASILY, it IS better than THE PASSIONATE PLUMBER (although PP includes some great individual scenes), and also it is the only film of the three where Keaton and Durante work together as an actual comedy team. Much has been written about Keaton's alcohol abuse during the shooting of this film (in fact, Keaton was fired from MGM for that, even though WHAT NO BEER was a smash hit at the box office!), but since the Elmer character he is playing is basically a stoic, introverted guy, it's not too evident...and anyway, a pro like Keaton could deliver this uninspired dialogue in his sleep. The plot--involving Durante and Keaton starting a brewery near the end of prohibition and facing the wrath of both the police and the bootlegging underworld--allows for a number of good comic set-ups, the scene with Keaton explaining his business practices to the gangsters is particularly funny. Keaton's US career would revive a few years later when he began making his much-underrated comedy shorts at Educational Pictures, but WHAT NO BEER is the last film of his initial sound period at MGM, and as such it is a historic film. Also, it's an entertaining comedy with Keaton still in OK form.
19 Reviews
As good as any of Keaton's other MGM sound films...
AlsExGal20 January 2013
... but I have to admit that Jimmy Durante is doing much of the heavy lifting, particularly in the first half. The plot revolves around a misunderstanding that Jimmy (Jimmy Durante) and Elmer (Buster Keaton) have about the nationwide vote on repealing prohibition. They think that because repeal passes at the polls that Prohibition is automatically repealed, when in fact the law is still completely in force. Thus, the next day, Jimmy has Elmer take out his life savings of ten thousand dollars as a down payment on an old repossessed brewery. The two enlist a trio of unemployed men sleeping in the brewery to help them make beer and they hang a sign outside of the brewery advertising that they are selling beer. Instead of being stampeded by the public though, it is the police that are at the door. The only thing that saves the pair from ten years in Leavenworth is that they are incompetent brewers - their beer has a head but no kick - there's not a drop of alcohol in any of it.
So now when the original trio of unemployed guys sleeping in the brewery dig up a long out-of-work master brewer Jimmy has a brainstorm. The cops already think that he and Elmer are just making "near beer" - an old Prohibition era concoction with the taste of beer minus the alcohol, so there will be no second raid. Jimmy decides to use the brewer to make real beer and real money so Elmer doesn't lose his life savings on the brewery which they have heavily mortgaged. Jimmy lies to Elmer about all of this because he knows Elmer is too honest a fellow to have anything to do with bootlegging. But it isn't long before local gangsters - real bootleggers with real guns - notice there's a down-turn in their business caused by Jimmy and Elmer's beer. A further complication - Elmer is in love from afar with the head gangster's girl.
How will all of this work out? Watch and find out.
This film moved along briskly with several very clever comic twists and turns, and although in this film Durante is Keaton's equal in the comic participation, I really couldn't say that Keaton seemed inebriated, although he did seem to have extra heavy make-up on perhaps to cover up his condition. Durante just seems to be handling the verbal end of the comedy and Keaton stays where he is most comfortable - in the physical and pantomime end of comedy. There's even a repeat of the Seven Chances avalanche at one point, with Keaton and everybody else for that matter, running for their lives not from boulders but from beer barrels.
This is far better than the tiresome "Sidewalks of New York" from two years before, and from what I've read this film did very good business at the box office. With Keaton and Durante having finally gotten comfortable in their comic partnership I'm surprised Louis B. Mayer would have fired Keaton. But then Louis B. always was a sentimental fellow - he never let profit get in the way of his animosity.
So now when the original trio of unemployed guys sleeping in the brewery dig up a long out-of-work master brewer Jimmy has a brainstorm. The cops already think that he and Elmer are just making "near beer" - an old Prohibition era concoction with the taste of beer minus the alcohol, so there will be no second raid. Jimmy decides to use the brewer to make real beer and real money so Elmer doesn't lose his life savings on the brewery which they have heavily mortgaged. Jimmy lies to Elmer about all of this because he knows Elmer is too honest a fellow to have anything to do with bootlegging. But it isn't long before local gangsters - real bootleggers with real guns - notice there's a down-turn in their business caused by Jimmy and Elmer's beer. A further complication - Elmer is in love from afar with the head gangster's girl.
How will all of this work out? Watch and find out.
This film moved along briskly with several very clever comic twists and turns, and although in this film Durante is Keaton's equal in the comic participation, I really couldn't say that Keaton seemed inebriated, although he did seem to have extra heavy make-up on perhaps to cover up his condition. Durante just seems to be handling the verbal end of the comedy and Keaton stays where he is most comfortable - in the physical and pantomime end of comedy. There's even a repeat of the Seven Chances avalanche at one point, with Keaton and everybody else for that matter, running for their lives not from boulders but from beer barrels.
This is far better than the tiresome "Sidewalks of New York" from two years before, and from what I've read this film did very good business at the box office. With Keaton and Durante having finally gotten comfortable in their comic partnership I'm surprised Louis B. Mayer would have fired Keaton. But then Louis B. always was a sentimental fellow - he never let profit get in the way of his animosity.
Better than I expected--a decent time-passer
planktonrules28 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Buster Keaton and Jimmy Durante were possibly the strangest pairing in movie history (aside from Randolph Scott and Kate Smith). MGM insisted on saddling Keaton with Durante--a comic whose style is diametrically opposed to Keaton's in every way. Keaton was the master at physical comedy and pathos--playing very likable losers. In contrast, Durante was all talk, abrasive and pretty unlikable. Why the MGM big-wigs thought this pairing made any sense is beyond me. Yet, even more oddly, they co-starred in three films--three films that represent the absolute nadir in Keaton's feature-length film career. They weren't 100% bad--but they were a shadow of his earlier brilliant work. Not surprisingly, Keaton soon was released by MGM--though much of the blame for the films dropping in quality was the studio's. If you are to blame Keaton, it's for being foolish enough to sell himself to MGM in the late 1920s instead of maintaining the independence that made his earlier films great.
This film came out at the same time Prohibition was being repealed and seen today some folks might have no idea what it's all about since this experiment occurred many decades ago. It had been illegal to produce and sell alcoholic beverages since 1919, so folks in the US were anxious to celebrate the end to almost a decade and a half of forced sobriety. "What! No Beer?" is intended to take advantage of this very timely moment in American history.
While seeing Durante making beer is believable enough, for the type guy Keaton had been playing in films since the late 1910s, it was an odd departure. I just had a hard time imagining him making or consuming alcohol (ironically, in real life, Keaton was a problem drinker) as his characters always seemed rather sweet and innocent.
While Prohibition is repealed in the film, it won't take effect immediately. So, to be ready for the anticipated demand, the pair buy a defunct brewery and start making beer--though they have no idea what they are doing. The whole thing ends up being a HUGE mess and the police are not too happy, as it's still before the official repeal--yet these morons start advertising and selling beer! Fortunately, their beer turns out to only be near-beer and the police end up releasing them. The boys decide the best thing to do is keep making this fake beer--and the money starts rolling their way.
At the same time, Buster has been infatuated with a lady he doesn't even know. When they do meet, he's very sweet but also a bit daffy--he's so completely infatuated that he hasn't an ounce of common sense. Can the pair manage to make it? And, can the film still manage to be funny despite having the deck stacked against it?! Overall, the film is fairly entertaining--just not all that funny. But, at least it's better than the team's previous efforts. For non-fans, it's very skippable--there are MANY better Keaton films out there. For Keaton-philes, however, it's a passably entertaining flick. Not great but also not terrible at least.
By the way, in one scene, it's obviously a takeoff on Keaton's earlier film "Seven Chances"--with Buster jumping barrels instead of very round rocks.
This film came out at the same time Prohibition was being repealed and seen today some folks might have no idea what it's all about since this experiment occurred many decades ago. It had been illegal to produce and sell alcoholic beverages since 1919, so folks in the US were anxious to celebrate the end to almost a decade and a half of forced sobriety. "What! No Beer?" is intended to take advantage of this very timely moment in American history.
While seeing Durante making beer is believable enough, for the type guy Keaton had been playing in films since the late 1910s, it was an odd departure. I just had a hard time imagining him making or consuming alcohol (ironically, in real life, Keaton was a problem drinker) as his characters always seemed rather sweet and innocent.
While Prohibition is repealed in the film, it won't take effect immediately. So, to be ready for the anticipated demand, the pair buy a defunct brewery and start making beer--though they have no idea what they are doing. The whole thing ends up being a HUGE mess and the police are not too happy, as it's still before the official repeal--yet these morons start advertising and selling beer! Fortunately, their beer turns out to only be near-beer and the police end up releasing them. The boys decide the best thing to do is keep making this fake beer--and the money starts rolling their way.
At the same time, Buster has been infatuated with a lady he doesn't even know. When they do meet, he's very sweet but also a bit daffy--he's so completely infatuated that he hasn't an ounce of common sense. Can the pair manage to make it? And, can the film still manage to be funny despite having the deck stacked against it?! Overall, the film is fairly entertaining--just not all that funny. But, at least it's better than the team's previous efforts. For non-fans, it's very skippable--there are MANY better Keaton films out there. For Keaton-philes, however, it's a passably entertaining flick. Not great but also not terrible at least.
By the way, in one scene, it's obviously a takeoff on Keaton's earlier film "Seven Chances"--with Buster jumping barrels instead of very round rocks.
Not that bad
lzf028 November 2001
This film has a reputation of being an unfunny horror. It is just not so. Buster does seem to be a little intoxicated throughout the film, but it is really very funny. This is the only film where Buster and Durante are really teamed. They appeared together in two previous films, but they worked independently. Sure, it's a period piece about the repeal of Prohibition, but there are some pretty funny set pieces throughout the film. For those people who have an aversion to musical numbers thrown into slapstick comedies, have no fear. There are no musical numbers. (This is a shame, since both Buster and Durante handle musical material very well!) This was Buster's last American studio starring feature film. Following this, he stars in a French film, a British film, and a Mexican film. MGM was never a great studio for broad comedians. They really didn't know how to handle Buster. But he's not alone. The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, and Red Skelton were also done in by MGM's inept handling of slapstick comedy. This film is worth a view. It's still young Keaton and it proves that Buster could handle himself very nicely with sound.
You'll laugh yourself silly, even if you're sober!
mark.waltz7 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The best way to get men working during the depression is to have them do something illegal, which is what happens in this late prohibition comedy about a small beer company that makes good thanks to the incompetence of two zanies (Buster Keaton and Jimmy Durante). "Neer Beer" has been legalized and the two nitwits make a bundle, unaware that they are selling the real kit and caboodle. Keaton and Durante turn the factory upside down, hysterically doing everything wrong with the exception of creating suds. Keaton's chased by empty beer barrels down a steep slope, shyly crawls from underneath the passed-out femme fatal, and is tossed around like a rag doll.
While its short running time suggests it being a second feature, the result is a fast moving farce that may have been the last of this team's brief pairings, but holds up well. I appreciated this more upon this viewing of it (having seen it 2 or 3 times years ago) by looking at it as if it were a Wheeler and Woolsey comedy. Even stuttering Roscoe Ates manages to be funny in this little gem. At the end, you almost expect Elliott Ness to show up and grab a glass of beer in honor of the end of prohibition.
While its short running time suggests it being a second feature, the result is a fast moving farce that may have been the last of this team's brief pairings, but holds up well. I appreciated this more upon this viewing of it (having seen it 2 or 3 times years ago) by looking at it as if it were a Wheeler and Woolsey comedy. Even stuttering Roscoe Ates manages to be funny in this little gem. At the end, you almost expect Elliott Ness to show up and grab a glass of beer in honor of the end of prohibition.
Buster's last with MGM
gbill-7487724 May 2023
Certainly not great, but not awful either. It's topical with the end of Prohibition, and the film's treatment of this is a celebration, with some wonderful moments towards the end. Unfortunately, Buster Keaton, already depressed and drinking heavily, was fired afterwards, marking an even sadder inflection point in his career, as bad as the MGM years were. These things tugging the emotions in opposite directions make it worth seeing.
The film leans on Durante, who delivers his malapropisms and "ha cha cha" shtick with zeal. "Say, it's so dark here, I can't see the nose before my face," Buster says. "I don't have that trouble," Durante replies, in perfect deadpan. Contemplating Buster being with the woman he's fallen for, he quips "Can you imagine? At a time like this. Elmer's in the park - spoonin'. Why, it's enough to give a man 'varicoose' brains!" There are many others, not uproarious, but delivered energy and charisma.
As for Buster, it's always sweet to see him lovelorn (the object of his affection played by Phyllis Barry), but the only moment truly worth the price of admission is him running down a hill away from a bunch of beer barrels bounding along after him. It ain't Seven Chances (1925) with the rocks, but it ain't bad. Buster also reprises the overflowing yeast gag from My Wife's Relations (1922), but the slapstick from Durante and the workers who are like 3 stooges-lite isn't all that funny.
There was a clever bit of innuendo at the polling place, when Durante's character says his name is "Potts - and no crack!" When Buster steps up next he reports his name is "Elmer J. Butts," and the silent "and no crack" can be felt. Buster also gets in a funny line when a swarm of townspeople descend upon the brewery to "drink up all the evidence." The best moment is saved for Durante, however, who while breaking the fourth wall blows the suds off a stein of beer and says "It's your turn next, folks! It won't be long now! Ha cha!" While FDR had been elected, it would be another 10 months before this was true.
The film leans on Durante, who delivers his malapropisms and "ha cha cha" shtick with zeal. "Say, it's so dark here, I can't see the nose before my face," Buster says. "I don't have that trouble," Durante replies, in perfect deadpan. Contemplating Buster being with the woman he's fallen for, he quips "Can you imagine? At a time like this. Elmer's in the park - spoonin'. Why, it's enough to give a man 'varicoose' brains!" There are many others, not uproarious, but delivered energy and charisma.
As for Buster, it's always sweet to see him lovelorn (the object of his affection played by Phyllis Barry), but the only moment truly worth the price of admission is him running down a hill away from a bunch of beer barrels bounding along after him. It ain't Seven Chances (1925) with the rocks, but it ain't bad. Buster also reprises the overflowing yeast gag from My Wife's Relations (1922), but the slapstick from Durante and the workers who are like 3 stooges-lite isn't all that funny.
There was a clever bit of innuendo at the polling place, when Durante's character says his name is "Potts - and no crack!" When Buster steps up next he reports his name is "Elmer J. Butts," and the silent "and no crack" can be felt. Buster also gets in a funny line when a swarm of townspeople descend upon the brewery to "drink up all the evidence." The best moment is saved for Durante, however, who while breaking the fourth wall blows the suds off a stein of beer and says "It's your turn next, folks! It won't be long now! Ha cha!" While FDR had been elected, it would be another 10 months before this was true.
Money from Foam with Elmer J. Butts
lugonian15 December 2013
WHAT! NO BEER? (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1933), directed by Edward Sedgwick, is a prohibition-era comedy that marked the closing point to Buster Keaton's career as a star comedian for MGM. Having come a long way since becoming the studio's contract player starting with THE CAMERAMAN (1928), WHAT! NO BEER? far from being prime Keaton, ranges from disappointing to enjoyable. Of the Keaton talkies, WHAT, NO BEER? appears to be his better known movie title, particularly by beer drinkers, naturally. It also pairs Keaton once again with Jimmy Durante for the third and final time, here sharing equal billing above the title, being more of a showcase for Durante rather than Keaton himself.
The story introduces Elmer J. Butts (Buster Keaton), a taxidermist, closing shop to attend a political rally as campaigners march down the street holding a sign reading, "Vote for Horace Frisby, the People's Choice." While in attendance, Elmer is smitten by the presence of Hortence (Phyllis Barry), a companion of mob boss and bootlegger, Butch Lorado (John Miljan). Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante), a neighborhood barber and Elmer's best pal since babies in a cradle, returning home from a fishing trip, comes upon a get-rich-quick scheme of being the first to open a brewery and sell beer once Prohibition is repealed. Elmer finances Jimmy $10,000 to open up an abandoned brewery where the two go to work manufacturing beer with the assistance of three homeless men (Roscoe Ates, Henry Armetta and Charles Dunbar) they've found flopping about inside the building. As the election voters put an end to Prohibition, it's still not yet outlawed, causing Elmer and Jimmy to encounter further problems with authorities and rival gangsters, Lorando and Spike Moran (Edward Brophy) the latter with the intent of cutting in on their business, creating a gang war in the process.
Considering the numerous times Keaton acquired the "Elmer" name during his MGM years (1928-1933), this would be the only time he assumed the exact same name from another movie, FREE AND EASY (1930). Whether Keaton's character name of Elmer J. Butts from WHAT, NO BEER! is the same one from FREE AND EASY is uncertain. It might very well be two different characters bearing the exact same name played by the very same actor since there's really no evidence of this being a sequel. In FREE AND EASY, Keaton's Elmer is a garage owner who happens in Hollywood where he unintentionally becomes a comedy actor. In WHAT, NO BEER! he's now a taxidermist who keeps portions of his fortune inside stuffed animals. Yet, on the surface, this appears to be the same Elmer J. Butts three years later. His lovesick "Elmer" character could very much be Elmer from DOUGHBOYS (1930) or Homer in SIDEWALKS OF NEW YORK (1931). In Keaton tradition, there's a series of pratfalls to get a few laughs. Though many consider Durante a mismatch for Keaton, somehow they work favorably together here, even though Durante gets most of the attention with both his schnozzola with constant catch phase of "hotchichacha!"
With gag material few and far between, the most notable sequence turns out to be the rolling of the barrels down the hilly street, a scene reminiscent of rolling boulders from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES (Metro, 1925). The boulders from the silent classic is classic Keaton. The re-enactment here makes more sense, though this new sequence, quite short, works much better in silent comedy than in sound comedy. Other minor highlights consist of Keaton and Durante's struggle at the voting booth; Keaton's day in the park with Hortense, and occasional amusing Durante one-liners. Hotchichacha!
The editing and pacing are tightly done, with certain scenes ending in sudden blackouts or gag material in abbreviated form. Released at 66 minutes, it leaves indication WHAT! NO BEER? to have been initially longer. In release form, however, it plays like an extended comedy short. Take notice that the aerial view of office workers used in one scene is one lifted from director King Vidor' THE CROWD (MGM, 1928).
Not revived in many years, WHAT! NO BEER? saw its rediscovery where this, and other classic movie titles from the MGM library, aired on Turner Network Television starting in 1988. As classic film titles slowly phased out from TNT in favor of more contemporary ones by 1991, WHAT! NO BEER? turned out to be one of its longer surviving oldies, ending its run by 1993 before becoming part of the Turner Classic Movies line-up which began in 1994. Distributed to home video, it's currently found in the DVD format. Next time it turns up on TCM, have some beer, sit back and watch the movie, compliments of Keaton and Durante. If beverage is unavailable, simply say, "What! No Beer?" (**1/2)
The story introduces Elmer J. Butts (Buster Keaton), a taxidermist, closing shop to attend a political rally as campaigners march down the street holding a sign reading, "Vote for Horace Frisby, the People's Choice." While in attendance, Elmer is smitten by the presence of Hortence (Phyllis Barry), a companion of mob boss and bootlegger, Butch Lorado (John Miljan). Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante), a neighborhood barber and Elmer's best pal since babies in a cradle, returning home from a fishing trip, comes upon a get-rich-quick scheme of being the first to open a brewery and sell beer once Prohibition is repealed. Elmer finances Jimmy $10,000 to open up an abandoned brewery where the two go to work manufacturing beer with the assistance of three homeless men (Roscoe Ates, Henry Armetta and Charles Dunbar) they've found flopping about inside the building. As the election voters put an end to Prohibition, it's still not yet outlawed, causing Elmer and Jimmy to encounter further problems with authorities and rival gangsters, Lorando and Spike Moran (Edward Brophy) the latter with the intent of cutting in on their business, creating a gang war in the process.
Considering the numerous times Keaton acquired the "Elmer" name during his MGM years (1928-1933), this would be the only time he assumed the exact same name from another movie, FREE AND EASY (1930). Whether Keaton's character name of Elmer J. Butts from WHAT, NO BEER! is the same one from FREE AND EASY is uncertain. It might very well be two different characters bearing the exact same name played by the very same actor since there's really no evidence of this being a sequel. In FREE AND EASY, Keaton's Elmer is a garage owner who happens in Hollywood where he unintentionally becomes a comedy actor. In WHAT, NO BEER! he's now a taxidermist who keeps portions of his fortune inside stuffed animals. Yet, on the surface, this appears to be the same Elmer J. Butts three years later. His lovesick "Elmer" character could very much be Elmer from DOUGHBOYS (1930) or Homer in SIDEWALKS OF NEW YORK (1931). In Keaton tradition, there's a series of pratfalls to get a few laughs. Though many consider Durante a mismatch for Keaton, somehow they work favorably together here, even though Durante gets most of the attention with both his schnozzola with constant catch phase of "hotchichacha!"
With gag material few and far between, the most notable sequence turns out to be the rolling of the barrels down the hilly street, a scene reminiscent of rolling boulders from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES (Metro, 1925). The boulders from the silent classic is classic Keaton. The re-enactment here makes more sense, though this new sequence, quite short, works much better in silent comedy than in sound comedy. Other minor highlights consist of Keaton and Durante's struggle at the voting booth; Keaton's day in the park with Hortense, and occasional amusing Durante one-liners. Hotchichacha!
The editing and pacing are tightly done, with certain scenes ending in sudden blackouts or gag material in abbreviated form. Released at 66 minutes, it leaves indication WHAT! NO BEER? to have been initially longer. In release form, however, it plays like an extended comedy short. Take notice that the aerial view of office workers used in one scene is one lifted from director King Vidor' THE CROWD (MGM, 1928).
Not revived in many years, WHAT! NO BEER? saw its rediscovery where this, and other classic movie titles from the MGM library, aired on Turner Network Television starting in 1988. As classic film titles slowly phased out from TNT in favor of more contemporary ones by 1991, WHAT! NO BEER? turned out to be one of its longer surviving oldies, ending its run by 1993 before becoming part of the Turner Classic Movies line-up which began in 1994. Distributed to home video, it's currently found in the DVD format. Next time it turns up on TCM, have some beer, sit back and watch the movie, compliments of Keaton and Durante. If beverage is unavailable, simply say, "What! No Beer?" (**1/2)
Buster Keaton's Final Lead in a Hollywood Feature Film
springfieldrental10 January 2023
The repeal of the twelve-year dry period known as Prohibition on alcohol was looking like it would happen as the year 1933 began. Franklin D. Roosevelt had promised during his presidential campaign earlier in the fall to end the ban, in part to collect for the government much needed tax revenue on beer, wine and spirits. Once FDR won in a landslide, MGM predicted the end of bootlegging suds when it released in February 1933 its Buster Keaton comedy, "What? No Beer!"
The movie is about two enterprising guys anticipating the quick repeal of Prohibition. They end up buying a shuttered beer brewery and are ready to go into business, only to see Congress delaying its action towards repeal. Elmer Butts (Buster Keaton), who lays down the money to finance the brewery's purchase, and Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante), the man with the beer-making idea, get into quite a jam because of the delay. "What? No Beer!" was the third and last film MGM teamed Keaton and Durante together. The importance of the movie not only serves as a window showing the historic transformation about to take place in the liquor industry, but it was also the final feature film in the United States Keaton would appear in as the lead. It's the last picture he made for MGM, a frustrating experience for the prior-independent actor/director/writer.
Keaton's personal fortunes were sinking fast since his acrimonious divorce to his first wife, Natalie Talmadge, in 1932. His bad drinking habits created a ton of problems for him. MGM docked his salary 20% to pay for expenses it rang up when he inexcusably took time off in the middle of filming his last movie, 1932's "Speak Easily." The studio didn't renew his contract after "What! No Beer?", and other Hollywood film companies ignored him. His reputation, especially after the publicized trip to Mexico where he married his personal nurse, Mae Scriven, in a drunken stupor, caused quite a commotion. Keaton claimed he had no recollection of the trip nor the wedding to his nurse whose primary responsibility was to make sure he didn't get drunk.
Keaton's roles during his MGM days, though mostly money makers, saw his on-screen persona drift downwards from playing rock solid confident characters to becoming sheepish, jittery and clueless nobodies for others to sock him. Writes Danny Reid of Buster's part in "What? No Beer!", "Keaton's Butts never rises above the level of morose punching bag." On screen, it was obvious he was showing a level of wear and tear from the toll from drinking purportedly one bottle of whisky a day. His voice is horse, his baggy eyes belie his relatively youthful age of 38, and his energy level is low. The movie, despite a nice profit, failed to convince MGM's president Louis B. Mayer to renew his contract.
Keaton's only offers for his acting services were overseas, where he played in French and British films. He later returned to the states to be in low-budget Education Pictures and Columbia Pictures in a series of shorts. His nurse wife divorced him in 1935, and with therapy, Keaton stopped drinking for five years. In 1940 he met and married Eleanor Norris, 23 years his junior. She turned out to be a staunch supporter of his, turning both his life and career around by getting him the Columbia contract and other part-time gigs. The marriage lasted until his death in 1966 at the age of 71.
"What? No Beer!" was lambasted by film critics, although they did admit the movie had a couple of delightful scenes. In one, paralleling a sequence in his 1925 classic "Seven Chances," which had Keaton running down a hill dodging a number of boulders, here he's being chased by wooden beer barrels that he was hauling up the hill in his truck. Towards the film's conclusion, the movie has Keaton's character opening his Butt's Beer Garden the first day of legalized beer. As soon as FDR took office in March, Congress passed the act legalizing the sale of 3.2 percentage beer. The President signed the law on March 22, 1933, a month after the release of "What? No Beer!" As MGM predicted, Jimmy Durante holds a brimming glass of freshly poured beer to the camera and says, "It's your turn next, folks. It won't be long now!"
The movie is about two enterprising guys anticipating the quick repeal of Prohibition. They end up buying a shuttered beer brewery and are ready to go into business, only to see Congress delaying its action towards repeal. Elmer Butts (Buster Keaton), who lays down the money to finance the brewery's purchase, and Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante), the man with the beer-making idea, get into quite a jam because of the delay. "What? No Beer!" was the third and last film MGM teamed Keaton and Durante together. The importance of the movie not only serves as a window showing the historic transformation about to take place in the liquor industry, but it was also the final feature film in the United States Keaton would appear in as the lead. It's the last picture he made for MGM, a frustrating experience for the prior-independent actor/director/writer.
Keaton's personal fortunes were sinking fast since his acrimonious divorce to his first wife, Natalie Talmadge, in 1932. His bad drinking habits created a ton of problems for him. MGM docked his salary 20% to pay for expenses it rang up when he inexcusably took time off in the middle of filming his last movie, 1932's "Speak Easily." The studio didn't renew his contract after "What! No Beer?", and other Hollywood film companies ignored him. His reputation, especially after the publicized trip to Mexico where he married his personal nurse, Mae Scriven, in a drunken stupor, caused quite a commotion. Keaton claimed he had no recollection of the trip nor the wedding to his nurse whose primary responsibility was to make sure he didn't get drunk.
Keaton's roles during his MGM days, though mostly money makers, saw his on-screen persona drift downwards from playing rock solid confident characters to becoming sheepish, jittery and clueless nobodies for others to sock him. Writes Danny Reid of Buster's part in "What? No Beer!", "Keaton's Butts never rises above the level of morose punching bag." On screen, it was obvious he was showing a level of wear and tear from the toll from drinking purportedly one bottle of whisky a day. His voice is horse, his baggy eyes belie his relatively youthful age of 38, and his energy level is low. The movie, despite a nice profit, failed to convince MGM's president Louis B. Mayer to renew his contract.
Keaton's only offers for his acting services were overseas, where he played in French and British films. He later returned to the states to be in low-budget Education Pictures and Columbia Pictures in a series of shorts. His nurse wife divorced him in 1935, and with therapy, Keaton stopped drinking for five years. In 1940 he met and married Eleanor Norris, 23 years his junior. She turned out to be a staunch supporter of his, turning both his life and career around by getting him the Columbia contract and other part-time gigs. The marriage lasted until his death in 1966 at the age of 71.
"What? No Beer!" was lambasted by film critics, although they did admit the movie had a couple of delightful scenes. In one, paralleling a sequence in his 1925 classic "Seven Chances," which had Keaton running down a hill dodging a number of boulders, here he's being chased by wooden beer barrels that he was hauling up the hill in his truck. Towards the film's conclusion, the movie has Keaton's character opening his Butt's Beer Garden the first day of legalized beer. As soon as FDR took office in March, Congress passed the act legalizing the sale of 3.2 percentage beer. The President signed the law on March 22, 1933, a month after the release of "What? No Beer!" As MGM predicted, Jimmy Durante holds a brimming glass of freshly poured beer to the camera and says, "It's your turn next, folks. It won't be long now!"
Presence of body, absence of mind
Igenlode Wordsmith28 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes, the Emperor really does have those new clothes...
This reputedly bad film went down with a live audience like a lead balloon; you could see the places on-screen where the laughs were expected to come, and the atmosphere just sagged, a little further. I'm all in favour of revaluing vilified cinema -- as my advocacy for the 1970s "King Kong" or Keaton's own "Passionate Plumber" will testify -- but this picture was never anything more than a tie-in comedy aimed at cashing in on the issue of the moment, and it has worn as badly over the years as any other item of disposable topical appeal.
Jimmy Durante mugs shamelessly throughout, never stops talking (although the actual content of his disquisition is not always easy to understand), and finally addresses the audience directly in a piece of toe-curlingly cynical studio manipulation -- "Happy Days Are Here Again", declaims the soundtrack, in an unsubtle hint. But one cannot blame Durante for playing twice as large as life, since he is desperately trying to carry a double-act singlehanded. Buster Keaton, nominally top-billed, walks through the film like a zombie: he does not so much give the (entirely understandable) impression of wishing to be elsewhere as of actually being there, in mind if not in body. But it is less the semblance of a man lost in dream than of one trapped in nightmare.
There are long sections of the film as scripted during which Keaton scarcely gets a word in edgeways; when he does speak, slurred and dragging, the rationale behind the decision to cut him out starts to look less like would-be-comic effect than studio desperation. In "Doughboys", the choice to play Keaton's eloquent silence against the sergeant's constant backing harangue is effective, filling the soundtrack while the star's alert visual counterpoint steals the foreground. Here, the silence is no longer eloquent but numbed, the words a soused mumble and the alert demeanour long since gone. In "The Passionate Plumber", Durante's scenes of non-stop chatter are infrequent and typically trumped by a telling laconic retort, as Keaton comes up with all the ideas -- here, Durante is again scripted to proclaim his partner a genius, but the other man's performance no longer renders this remotely believable. "Speak Easily" was an undemanding comedy that suffered chiefly from Keaton's miscasting; but "What! No Beer?" is nothing more than a cheap rip-off in which Keaton's wreck is, sadly, a visible liability to what little merit the picture ever had.
And there is little enough of that. This is comedy at its very broadest and lowest. Audience are clearly expected to be in fits at the mounting hilarity of the scenes in which the entire cast gets squirted, knock-about fashion, with a high-pressure hose, or disappears beneath a set-swamping mass of yeasty froth. The romance is tasteless -- the girl appears to be influenced wholly by money -- and arbitrary, presumably due to the impossibility of making it plausible. The love scenes are a ghostly, if not ghastly, parody of earlier, heartbreaking, occasions, as are the various scenes in which Buster falls over, dodges obstacles, or is dragged out. There are jokes that revolve around the odour of skunks and fish, and a plot which conversely depends on the topical minutiae of Prohibition repeal: with the result that I was quite as bewildered as Jimmy by the beer-makers' sudden arrest, since it wasn't made plain until twenty minutes later that the vote shown at the start of the film had not actually changed the law! As for the absence of beer proving innocence, when said absence has been achieved by the very public manufacture and serving of illegal beverages to every citizen in town, plus the characters' unexplained acquisition of a fortune in the finale, I am still at a loss.
I, personally, remember laughing twice: once at the rain-on-the-window gag, doubtless old but unexpected, and once when Jimmy comes in to find the office in chaos and his partner in an unresponsive curl of bliss and concludes, logically enough, "My God -- they got him!" Other people in the cinema laughed now and then at other points; what was all too noticeable was the utter dearth of general audience response during the big action scenes or quickfire dialogue routines that were so very obviously intended to be funny. There is nothing more dreary than comedy that falls flat.
On the plus side, I didn't actually think Keaton's physical condition looked as bad as had been alleged. Set against his anaesthetised demeanour and the hollowed-out echoes of great roles, however, it isn't much of a plus.
"What! No Beer?" still strikes me as better than "Free and Easy", partly because of the appalling early-talkie dialogue and pacing of the latter, and partly due to Durante's frantic, if unbalancing, attempts to keep this film alive and moving. But for a Buster Keaton fan, it can be an experience akin to necrophilia. My principal emotion at the appearance of the final screen was relief: relief that the film was over, relief that the MGM period was over.
Buster might never take the lead in another big-budget production, but he'd never have to go through this again, either.
This reputedly bad film went down with a live audience like a lead balloon; you could see the places on-screen where the laughs were expected to come, and the atmosphere just sagged, a little further. I'm all in favour of revaluing vilified cinema -- as my advocacy for the 1970s "King Kong" or Keaton's own "Passionate Plumber" will testify -- but this picture was never anything more than a tie-in comedy aimed at cashing in on the issue of the moment, and it has worn as badly over the years as any other item of disposable topical appeal.
Jimmy Durante mugs shamelessly throughout, never stops talking (although the actual content of his disquisition is not always easy to understand), and finally addresses the audience directly in a piece of toe-curlingly cynical studio manipulation -- "Happy Days Are Here Again", declaims the soundtrack, in an unsubtle hint. But one cannot blame Durante for playing twice as large as life, since he is desperately trying to carry a double-act singlehanded. Buster Keaton, nominally top-billed, walks through the film like a zombie: he does not so much give the (entirely understandable) impression of wishing to be elsewhere as of actually being there, in mind if not in body. But it is less the semblance of a man lost in dream than of one trapped in nightmare.
There are long sections of the film as scripted during which Keaton scarcely gets a word in edgeways; when he does speak, slurred and dragging, the rationale behind the decision to cut him out starts to look less like would-be-comic effect than studio desperation. In "Doughboys", the choice to play Keaton's eloquent silence against the sergeant's constant backing harangue is effective, filling the soundtrack while the star's alert visual counterpoint steals the foreground. Here, the silence is no longer eloquent but numbed, the words a soused mumble and the alert demeanour long since gone. In "The Passionate Plumber", Durante's scenes of non-stop chatter are infrequent and typically trumped by a telling laconic retort, as Keaton comes up with all the ideas -- here, Durante is again scripted to proclaim his partner a genius, but the other man's performance no longer renders this remotely believable. "Speak Easily" was an undemanding comedy that suffered chiefly from Keaton's miscasting; but "What! No Beer?" is nothing more than a cheap rip-off in which Keaton's wreck is, sadly, a visible liability to what little merit the picture ever had.
And there is little enough of that. This is comedy at its very broadest and lowest. Audience are clearly expected to be in fits at the mounting hilarity of the scenes in which the entire cast gets squirted, knock-about fashion, with a high-pressure hose, or disappears beneath a set-swamping mass of yeasty froth. The romance is tasteless -- the girl appears to be influenced wholly by money -- and arbitrary, presumably due to the impossibility of making it plausible. The love scenes are a ghostly, if not ghastly, parody of earlier, heartbreaking, occasions, as are the various scenes in which Buster falls over, dodges obstacles, or is dragged out. There are jokes that revolve around the odour of skunks and fish, and a plot which conversely depends on the topical minutiae of Prohibition repeal: with the result that I was quite as bewildered as Jimmy by the beer-makers' sudden arrest, since it wasn't made plain until twenty minutes later that the vote shown at the start of the film had not actually changed the law! As for the absence of beer proving innocence, when said absence has been achieved by the very public manufacture and serving of illegal beverages to every citizen in town, plus the characters' unexplained acquisition of a fortune in the finale, I am still at a loss.
I, personally, remember laughing twice: once at the rain-on-the-window gag, doubtless old but unexpected, and once when Jimmy comes in to find the office in chaos and his partner in an unresponsive curl of bliss and concludes, logically enough, "My God -- they got him!" Other people in the cinema laughed now and then at other points; what was all too noticeable was the utter dearth of general audience response during the big action scenes or quickfire dialogue routines that were so very obviously intended to be funny. There is nothing more dreary than comedy that falls flat.
On the plus side, I didn't actually think Keaton's physical condition looked as bad as had been alleged. Set against his anaesthetised demeanour and the hollowed-out echoes of great roles, however, it isn't much of a plus.
"What! No Beer?" still strikes me as better than "Free and Easy", partly because of the appalling early-talkie dialogue and pacing of the latter, and partly due to Durante's frantic, if unbalancing, attempts to keep this film alive and moving. But for a Buster Keaton fan, it can be an experience akin to necrophilia. My principal emotion at the appearance of the final screen was relief: relief that the film was over, relief that the MGM period was over.
Buster might never take the lead in another big-budget production, but he'd never have to go through this again, either.
Phyllis Barry MAKES this one!
gmzewski28 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Keaton and Durante worked very well together, but since they were still trying to put stage acting to film, comes across as flat, and not funny at all. Prime example: Bela Lugosi's acting in Dracula (1931) along with the rest of the cast of that one, was stiff and wooden, not entertaining at all, just boring. BUT: Phyllis Barry carries this clunker to an acme of overt sexual innuendo with her undressing scene in front of Keaton, who seemingly didn't know how to handle this aspect of acting (it could have been his drinking) and he just plays it stupid and flat! But although it's on the cutting edge of soft porn, it stays clean enough to remain mildly amusing, without getting dirty! The plot line is silly, but it's worth watching for its overtly suggestive sexual scenes. All in all, a very interesting piece!
Forgettable, but that's the worst you can say about it
MissSimonetta27 January 2012
"What! No Beer?" is often given a bad reputation due to the fact that it proved to be the final American film in which silent comedian Buster Keaton was given a starring role. As it is with his other MGM talkies, he plays a dull-witted character whose intelligence level ranges from absent-minded to borderline stupid, and the fact that he's obviously drunk in several scenes doesn't help any. For the third time in his MGM career, he's the straight man to the loud, fast-talking Jimmy Durante, a comedy team which baffles the mind to this day. The hit-and-miss jokes and incompatible comedy styles of the leading actors don't make for a good film by any means, however, it's not the travesty so many Keatonphiles make it out to be.
For one thing, it's miles ahead of Keaton's first MGM vehicle, "Free and Easy", a farce so unfunny it's painful to watch. Whenever Durante isn't in the frame shouting, there are a few touches of good visual humor and slapstick. And even Durante gets some funny lines in there. The set-up is solid and love interest Phyllis Barry shows off some glamorous Depression era costume.
Is it great? No. Is it all that memorable? Not really. But if you love Keaton or Durante, then you might like to see it if you've got nothing to do. Just don't expect a desire to revisit it anytime soon.
For one thing, it's miles ahead of Keaton's first MGM vehicle, "Free and Easy", a farce so unfunny it's painful to watch. Whenever Durante isn't in the frame shouting, there are a few touches of good visual humor and slapstick. And even Durante gets some funny lines in there. The set-up is solid and love interest Phyllis Barry shows off some glamorous Depression era costume.
Is it great? No. Is it all that memorable? Not really. But if you love Keaton or Durante, then you might like to see it if you've got nothing to do. Just don't expect a desire to revisit it anytime soon.
two comedy legends
SnoopyStyle17 May 2023
It's the eve of election to overturn prohibition. Elmer J. Butts (Buster Keaton) follows Hortense into a Dry rally. He is desperate to impress her with riches. His barber friend Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante) has an idea of opening a brewery before prohibition ends. They are too early and get busted by the cops.
These two comedy legends are paired in this pre-Code comedy. Durante has his loud and undeniable voice. On the other hand, sound is not Buster Keaton's friend. He really should play a mute character. It's his last MGM feature. His decline has more to do with personal issues. He is still doing good comedic stunt work. He just doesn't have the same presence in talkies.
These two comedy legends are paired in this pre-Code comedy. Durante has his loud and undeniable voice. On the other hand, sound is not Buster Keaton's friend. He really should play a mute character. It's his last MGM feature. His decline has more to do with personal issues. He is still doing good comedic stunt work. He just doesn't have the same presence in talkies.
What! No Laughs?
slokes21 July 2014
Buster Keaton's last starring Hollywood feature is all about the joy of unrestricted boozing, but leaves a sour aftertaste.
Taxidermist Elmer J. Butts (Buster) decides to invest his life savings on what pal Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante) calls "the idea of a century...a bonzana," namely brewing beer to satisfy the public's appetite after voting down Prohibition. "A hundred and twenty cracked lips are straining at the leash," Jimmy says. The problem is Prohibition is not yet officially repealed, putting Elmer and Jimmy in the gunsights of both gangsters and the police.
Durante and Keaton had already made two comedies together, and while at least one of them, "Speak Easily" (despite the title, not about Prohibition or drinking) is modestly amusing, "What! No Beer?" is a painful demonstration of their lack of chemistry, and Keaton's poor condition as divorce and drink took their toll. Keaton is almost inanimate for much of the movie, while Durante overcompensates with his signature malaprops and heavy body English.
In one scene, Elmer and Jimmy try to make beer in an abandoned brewery with the help of some hobos. By now, Buster's screen persona had been reduced to fey simpleton. Told to add a can of malt extract to their mixture, he throws the entire can into the tub. Later, he tries to cap bottles with a hammer, crushing them into shards. There's also a fire hose that gets everyone wet.
Later on, Elmer and Jimmy face some angry cops about to put them away for their illicit brewing. While Jimmy rants up a storm, Buster struggles silently to keep his balance, handcuffed to his friend. It's supposed to be funny because Buster falls down a lot, but it hurts to watch him so badly used as a prop.
Was Buster drunk through the entire film? One suspects he was at best hung over, as his facial reactions are frequently slow and unsteady. Facing the steamroller that was Durante, he seems resigned to his sad fate most of the way. One scene, where Jimmy explains he is only making fake "St. Louis Beer," exposes Buster in clearly soused condition. He is in no shape here to make the kind of comedy Keaton was a master of, even when the subject is alcohol. Potts is the one character in this film we are supposed to think is not a drinker.
Durante's material is little better. Apparently, the creative team just let him rip with his "hot-cha-chas" and hoped audiences would be forgiving. Told by Elmer that one of the stuffed animals is a kangaroo, "a native of Australia," Jimmy smacks his forehead and exclaims: "My sister married one of them!"
However weak the joke, someone at M-G-M must have liked it, as it gets three callbacks later in the movie.
Director Edward Sedgwick was the credited helmer of "The Cameraman," Buster's great comedy made just five years before. It's hard to believe Sedgwick could do no better for his old star than recycle quality gags from "Seven Chances" and "Spite Marriage" in diluted form. But that's what happens here.
I enjoyed one line of Durante's, when he tells Elmer that they don't have to come up with real money to buy their brewery: "This is high finance. You don't have to pay cash." Phyllis Barry reminds me of Kay Francis and delivers some sexy presence late in the film, but she did no better than Buster as her Hollywood career sank after this.
In the end, there's a big build-up that comes out of left field to save our heroes, followed by a rare bit of political commentary from M-G-M when Durante proclaims Prohibition's coming end. It's one valid moment in a painfully contorted affair; Buster's sad fate here offers ample evidence how Prohibition only worsened the condition of problem drinkers.
Taxidermist Elmer J. Butts (Buster) decides to invest his life savings on what pal Jimmy Potts (Jimmy Durante) calls "the idea of a century...a bonzana," namely brewing beer to satisfy the public's appetite after voting down Prohibition. "A hundred and twenty cracked lips are straining at the leash," Jimmy says. The problem is Prohibition is not yet officially repealed, putting Elmer and Jimmy in the gunsights of both gangsters and the police.
Durante and Keaton had already made two comedies together, and while at least one of them, "Speak Easily" (despite the title, not about Prohibition or drinking) is modestly amusing, "What! No Beer?" is a painful demonstration of their lack of chemistry, and Keaton's poor condition as divorce and drink took their toll. Keaton is almost inanimate for much of the movie, while Durante overcompensates with his signature malaprops and heavy body English.
In one scene, Elmer and Jimmy try to make beer in an abandoned brewery with the help of some hobos. By now, Buster's screen persona had been reduced to fey simpleton. Told to add a can of malt extract to their mixture, he throws the entire can into the tub. Later, he tries to cap bottles with a hammer, crushing them into shards. There's also a fire hose that gets everyone wet.
Later on, Elmer and Jimmy face some angry cops about to put them away for their illicit brewing. While Jimmy rants up a storm, Buster struggles silently to keep his balance, handcuffed to his friend. It's supposed to be funny because Buster falls down a lot, but it hurts to watch him so badly used as a prop.
Was Buster drunk through the entire film? One suspects he was at best hung over, as his facial reactions are frequently slow and unsteady. Facing the steamroller that was Durante, he seems resigned to his sad fate most of the way. One scene, where Jimmy explains he is only making fake "St. Louis Beer," exposes Buster in clearly soused condition. He is in no shape here to make the kind of comedy Keaton was a master of, even when the subject is alcohol. Potts is the one character in this film we are supposed to think is not a drinker.
Durante's material is little better. Apparently, the creative team just let him rip with his "hot-cha-chas" and hoped audiences would be forgiving. Told by Elmer that one of the stuffed animals is a kangaroo, "a native of Australia," Jimmy smacks his forehead and exclaims: "My sister married one of them!"
However weak the joke, someone at M-G-M must have liked it, as it gets three callbacks later in the movie.
Director Edward Sedgwick was the credited helmer of "The Cameraman," Buster's great comedy made just five years before. It's hard to believe Sedgwick could do no better for his old star than recycle quality gags from "Seven Chances" and "Spite Marriage" in diluted form. But that's what happens here.
I enjoyed one line of Durante's, when he tells Elmer that they don't have to come up with real money to buy their brewery: "This is high finance. You don't have to pay cash." Phyllis Barry reminds me of Kay Francis and delivers some sexy presence late in the film, but she did no better than Buster as her Hollywood career sank after this.
In the end, there's a big build-up that comes out of left field to save our heroes, followed by a rare bit of political commentary from M-G-M when Durante proclaims Prohibition's coming end. It's one valid moment in a painfully contorted affair; Buster's sad fate here offers ample evidence how Prohibition only worsened the condition of problem drinkers.
Slap Dash Slap Stick
dogwater-131 October 2011
Keaton followers know his decision to go to MGM was a disaster artistically and the smothering of his talent is apparent in this film. In some scenes he looks like he hasn't slept in days. Stick with it though, as with any chance to glimpse comic genius, you can spot the sparks. Durante, also a unique performer, and Keaton don't make a good team. Keaton was a cool presence, far more subtle and with much more depth of characterization than other comedians of the era. Durante was a hot performer, more verbal, but with a manic physicality. At times, you worry that he's actually hurting Keaton with his constant shoving, grabbing, poking and slapping. There is a rather sexy performance from Phyllis Barry as Keaton's amour and one wonders why she didn't go on to become, as they say. Everybody works very hard which usually kills farce, but there are moments of pure zaniness usually involving barrels, and some good lines satirizing the standard gangster picture. Anyone who loves these two men, as I do, should see this, if only in giggling tribute.
Odd Comedy Team
sambase-3877311 September 2023
Or should I say The Odd Comedy Team. I like both Keaton and Durante individually, but having them co-star together is a bit strange to the eyes and ears. It was so strange that I couldn't stop watching. It was kind of mesmerizing in an odd sort of way.
I'm not even sure what the story was. It was probably something stupid. Something about beer and people trying to make beer. I didn't even really pay attention to the story. I just kept watching Keaton and Durante. So I'm afraid I can't give you a complete rundown of the plot because I don't know what the plot was.
I guess all I can really say is if you enjoy Durante and Keaton like I do and want to see them together then go ahead and watch this movie. It is kind of fun and wacky. Sorry, if this review is not helpful, but I don't know what else to say about it.
I'm not even sure what the story was. It was probably something stupid. Something about beer and people trying to make beer. I didn't even really pay attention to the story. I just kept watching Keaton and Durante. So I'm afraid I can't give you a complete rundown of the plot because I don't know what the plot was.
I guess all I can really say is if you enjoy Durante and Keaton like I do and want to see them together then go ahead and watch this movie. It is kind of fun and wacky. Sorry, if this review is not helpful, but I don't know what else to say about it.
Doesn't translate well to the modern era
HotToastyRag13 January 2019
As is his usual motivation, Buster Keaton falls in love and has to prove himself worthy of the girl in question. This time, in What - No Beer?, it's Phyllis Barry who captures his heart in a five-second closeup. He wants to make a million dollars, and his pal Jimmy Durante comes up with a plan to make and operate a brewery to celebrate the end of Prohibition and make a fortune. As usual, Buster's lovesick face is incredibly endearing, and whenever Phyllis even breathes in his direction, he thinks he's the happiest man in the world. "You're so strong," she marvels when he lifts her into his arms. Immediately, he falls to his knees, overwhelmed by her compliment.
This movie certainly isn't the best Buster Keaton movie out there, and it isn't even the best of his talkies. It's a little too silly for my taste, with a ten-minute segment of everyone trying to stop the foaming beer vat from overflowing. The subject matter might not translate well to modern audiences, since no one nowadays can understand the longing for alcohol during Prohibition.
However, there are some funny jokes if you do decide to watch it. Buster's slapstick and pratfalls aren't lost even though most of the comedy is verbal. Other characters refer to the two leads as "frozen faced" and "schnozzle", and when Phyllis asks Buster, "Will you rub it for me?" he doesn't immediately know she's talking about her sprained ankle. If you're looking for a better Buster-Jimmy movie, check out The Passionate Plumber instead.
This movie certainly isn't the best Buster Keaton movie out there, and it isn't even the best of his talkies. It's a little too silly for my taste, with a ten-minute segment of everyone trying to stop the foaming beer vat from overflowing. The subject matter might not translate well to modern audiences, since no one nowadays can understand the longing for alcohol during Prohibition.
However, there are some funny jokes if you do decide to watch it. Buster's slapstick and pratfalls aren't lost even though most of the comedy is verbal. Other characters refer to the two leads as "frozen faced" and "schnozzle", and when Phyllis asks Buster, "Will you rub it for me?" he doesn't immediately know she's talking about her sprained ankle. If you're looking for a better Buster-Jimmy movie, check out The Passionate Plumber instead.
Not a Classic But It's Worth Watching
Michael_Elliott11 March 2012
What - No Beer? (1933)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Pleasant time-killer features Buster Keaton and Jimmy Durante in a low-rent but entertaining film. Keaton wants to marry a woman his fixated on but needs a million dollars to impress her so Durante talks him into buying a brewery just as Prohibition is about to end. The two plan on making some easy cash but soon a couple gangsters are wanting to know who's cutting in on their sales. WHAT - NO BEER? isn't going to be mistaken for a classic but if you've got 65-minutes to kill then it's worth sitting through at least once. I think the material is certain "B" level and it's a real shame the studio didn't try to do more with the screenplay because with Keaton and Durante they probably could have gotten a classic comedy had they tried. Both actors are in very good form here and the two are clearly playing off one another at ease with this being their third movie together. Keaton gets to showcase a couple good stunts and as usual Durante has no problem running around being loud and causing a scene. The big highlight in the film happens when the two finally get their brewery and start trying to make beer when neither one of them know what they're doing. The "too much yeast" sequence is full of nice gags and perfect timing by those involved. The supporting cast includes Roscoe Ates (FREAKS) doing his famous stuttering act. Fans of Keaton will notice that the film rips off a couple earlier gags from SEVEN CHANCES and SPITE MARRIAGE but they work well here. WHAT - NO BEER? certainly isn't the place to start if you're new to Keaton as it would be wise to begin with his silent masterpieces. With that said, if you do want to get to know Keaton in the sound era then this would be a good place to start.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Pleasant time-killer features Buster Keaton and Jimmy Durante in a low-rent but entertaining film. Keaton wants to marry a woman his fixated on but needs a million dollars to impress her so Durante talks him into buying a brewery just as Prohibition is about to end. The two plan on making some easy cash but soon a couple gangsters are wanting to know who's cutting in on their sales. WHAT - NO BEER? isn't going to be mistaken for a classic but if you've got 65-minutes to kill then it's worth sitting through at least once. I think the material is certain "B" level and it's a real shame the studio didn't try to do more with the screenplay because with Keaton and Durante they probably could have gotten a classic comedy had they tried. Both actors are in very good form here and the two are clearly playing off one another at ease with this being their third movie together. Keaton gets to showcase a couple good stunts and as usual Durante has no problem running around being loud and causing a scene. The big highlight in the film happens when the two finally get their brewery and start trying to make beer when neither one of them know what they're doing. The "too much yeast" sequence is full of nice gags and perfect timing by those involved. The supporting cast includes Roscoe Ates (FREAKS) doing his famous stuttering act. Fans of Keaton will notice that the film rips off a couple earlier gags from SEVEN CHANCES and SPITE MARRIAGE but they work well here. WHAT - NO BEER? certainly isn't the place to start if you're new to Keaton as it would be wise to begin with his silent masterpieces. With that said, if you do want to get to know Keaton in the sound era then this would be a good place to start.
Excellent slapstick
SoftKitten806 December 2004
I found this movie to be highly entertaining. Durante and Keaton are marvelous together. It is a shame more people don't know about this little gem. Keaton especially is so endearing and so believable. The gowns and furs on the leading lady were outstanding, the height of art deco elegance. Unrealistic for a gangster's moll, but extremely elegant. The cut of one of the dresses was just amazing. The movie moves along at a quick pace, and is just the right length. It is reminiscent of The Lavender Hill Mob, a group of endearing, comedic men trying to pull off a caper. It could also be viewed as a piece of history as it was filmed right around prohibition time.
Surely something all beer lovers would enjoy, the enthusiasm of all that beer.
Surely something all beer lovers would enjoy, the enthusiasm of all that beer.
Train Wreck on Film
SamHardy28 October 2011
I love Keaton, but there is nothing here that resembles Buster Keaton. That any could find this a good film is totally beyond me. It is sad and painful to watch.
It is hard to imagine a worst partner for Buster then Jimmy Durante. Durante spends most of the movie yelling and waving his arms frantically. All poor Buster can do is stand around displaying his deadpan face. The attempts to inject physical humor into this are about as artless and unfunny as it gets.
If you like watching train wrecks, go for it. For me I will watch The General again. I would much prefer to remember him in that.
It is hard to imagine a worst partner for Buster then Jimmy Durante. Durante spends most of the movie yelling and waving his arms frantically. All poor Buster can do is stand around displaying his deadpan face. The attempts to inject physical humor into this are about as artless and unfunny as it gets.
If you like watching train wrecks, go for it. For me I will watch The General again. I would much prefer to remember him in that.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
