What-No Beer? is a bit of a mess, but a Buster Keaton mess

Is it worth your time?

Honestly, only if you are a completionist for Keaton or just really love that frantic, pre-code era energy. If you are looking for the geometric genius of High and Dizzy, stay away. This is not that. It is a loud, scrappy, and kind of desperate comedy that feels like it was put together on a lunch break. But if you have a soft spot for Durante’s yelling, you might find some charm buried in the foam.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What-No Beer? (1933) through its definitive frames.

The plot is as thin as the beer they are selling. Keaton and Durante stumble into a brewery deal, and everything that can go wrong pretty much does. It’s mostly just an excuse to let Durante shout at things and let Keaton look confused and sad. I mean, nobody does 'confused and sad' like Buster, right? 🍺

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What-No Beer? (1933) through its definitive frames.

There is this one scene where they are trying to manage the brewing process, and the sheer chaos of the equipment just made me think of the machinery in White Zombie—only, you know, with less existential dread and more spilled yeast. It’s not great filmmaking. It’s barely even 'filmmaking' at points. It’s just people running around a set while the camera tries to keep up.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What-No Beer? (1933) through its definitive frames.

The Keaton Factor

You can tell when Buster is actually trying and when he’s just showing up for a paycheck. In this, he’s definitely in 'paycheck' mode. But even bored Buster Keaton is better than most actors on their best day. His physical timing is still there, even if the script is trying its hardest to bury it under bad dialogue.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What-No Beer? (1933) through its definitive frames.

Durante, on the other hand, is at 110% volume the entire time. It gets grating, sure. But there’s a weird rhythm to the way they interact. It’s like watching a silent movie star try to survive a hurricane. 🌪️

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What-No Beer? (1933) through its definitive frames.

• The beer-making montage? Feels like it goes on for three days.
• The sound quality is definitely from 1933. You might need subtitles, even if you’re a native English speaker.
• Buster’s hat game is weak in this one. A tragedy, really.

I found myself wondering if they had any actual beer on set. Maybe that would have helped the pacing. It’s a movie that feels like it’s waiting for a punchline that never quite arrives. It reminds me of the vibe in Nothing Doing—that feeling of watching people work very hard to be funny, and succeeding only about half the time.

Is it a classic? Absolutely not. Is it a fun way to kill an afternoon if you have low expectations and a cold drink? Maybe. Just don't go looking for high art. You’ll only be disappointed.