4/10
Certainly not typical L&H but "watchable".
27 December 2005
I say "watchable" as if telling someone that when the dentist pulls their tooth, it'll only hurt a little while. Not a great recommendation for a film. This was it for the boys. Hollywood had essentially "forgotten" them and didn't appreciate their type of humor any more. This film is merely a stitched together series of some of the old gags used in their earlier shorts and features but without any direction or cause and effect. W. Scott Darling certainly was not a good choice at all for doing the writing considering his background in writing for the Sherlock Holmes series or the screenplay of "Ghost of Frankenstein". How did they figure that he would be adept at writing comedy for such a great team? It would be like John Huston writing something for Abbott & Costello immediately after he finished "The Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". NON SEQUITOR. Stan & Ollie really should have realized how much things had changed in Hollywood by the early forties and just quit while they were ahead with their "Saps At Sea" or "A Chump At Oxford", both from 1940. This film is only interesting from the viewpoint of watching what the "big studios" could do to a person's career. Sort of a "post mortem" effect.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed