One can totally understand Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy's appeal, with distinctive comic timing and easy to remember personalities. It is also very easy to see why the chemistry was, and still is, considered legendary. Their best material, both verbal and particularly physically, was amusing to hilarious, with quite a fair share of classics.
It is unfortunate that Laurel and Hardy had a big decline in the 1940s (know that a few of the late 30s films were less than great but not to this extent). A period when Laurel and Hardy in some became underused, they and their material on the most part were tired, they were put in settings that they didn't gel in, the films seemed to forget what made Laurel and Hardy's prime period as great as it was, a lot of the verbal humour was dumb and trite, the supporting casts were variable and a few were too plot-heavy and the plots were far from great. Found 'Nothing But Trouble' to be one of the misfires from this period and for Laurel and Hardy overall, one can do with far worse but for Laurel and Hardy this really does not do them justice.
'Nothing But Trouble' does have a few amusing moments and lines, the stealing the steak from a lion being the highlight. Laurel and Hardy, who at least feel like leads, have some nice moments, ones that are fleeting in-character, where one can see their great chemistry and unique comic timing.
David Leland adds a good deal as the boy, both amusing and likeable. Some of the photography is nice.
However, 'Nothing But Trouble' really doesn't do either of the boys justice. Both look tired and don't have enough of the energy and enthusiasm that they displayed so wonderfully in their prime, Laurel especially, as well as being out of character in a dumbed down and over sweetened way. Their chemistry doesn't sparkle and neither does enough of the comedy. There is too much reliance on the verbal comedy, a vast majority of it quite weak in an embarrassing way, making the two speak uncharacteristically and nowhere near tight enough in timing. When there is physical comedy, it fares a little bit better because there are fleeting flashes of in-character moments, but again most feels like rehashed material executed to fatigued effect.
The story, which feels like a strung along series of comedy scenes, lacks energy and takes itself too seriously, with too much emphasis on excessive sentimentality. Some of it is rather mean-spirited too, which must have been quite dispiriting for the duo, plus some near-nightmarish parts that felt very out of place. At least it's easy to follow, unlike the one for 'The Dancing Masters' but there is nowhere near enough to sustain the length. The rest of the supporting cast don't stand out while crude editing and obvious back projection makes the film generally look cheap.
All in all, a lacklustre misfire with moments. 4/10 Bethany Cox
It is unfortunate that Laurel and Hardy had a big decline in the 1940s (know that a few of the late 30s films were less than great but not to this extent). A period when Laurel and Hardy in some became underused, they and their material on the most part were tired, they were put in settings that they didn't gel in, the films seemed to forget what made Laurel and Hardy's prime period as great as it was, a lot of the verbal humour was dumb and trite, the supporting casts were variable and a few were too plot-heavy and the plots were far from great. Found 'Nothing But Trouble' to be one of the misfires from this period and for Laurel and Hardy overall, one can do with far worse but for Laurel and Hardy this really does not do them justice.
'Nothing But Trouble' does have a few amusing moments and lines, the stealing the steak from a lion being the highlight. Laurel and Hardy, who at least feel like leads, have some nice moments, ones that are fleeting in-character, where one can see their great chemistry and unique comic timing.
David Leland adds a good deal as the boy, both amusing and likeable. Some of the photography is nice.
However, 'Nothing But Trouble' really doesn't do either of the boys justice. Both look tired and don't have enough of the energy and enthusiasm that they displayed so wonderfully in their prime, Laurel especially, as well as being out of character in a dumbed down and over sweetened way. Their chemistry doesn't sparkle and neither does enough of the comedy. There is too much reliance on the verbal comedy, a vast majority of it quite weak in an embarrassing way, making the two speak uncharacteristically and nowhere near tight enough in timing. When there is physical comedy, it fares a little bit better because there are fleeting flashes of in-character moments, but again most feels like rehashed material executed to fatigued effect.
The story, which feels like a strung along series of comedy scenes, lacks energy and takes itself too seriously, with too much emphasis on excessive sentimentality. Some of it is rather mean-spirited too, which must have been quite dispiriting for the duo, plus some near-nightmarish parts that felt very out of place. At least it's easy to follow, unlike the one for 'The Dancing Masters' but there is nowhere near enough to sustain the length. The rest of the supporting cast don't stand out while crude editing and obvious back projection makes the film generally look cheap.
All in all, a lacklustre misfire with moments. 4/10 Bethany Cox