As often as I dismay that our high-schools and colleges are churning out people who cannot read and write, I am regularly heartened by the pro level of writing in so many online reviews. In this set, I found "The beginning of the end" by Jim Griffin, a particularly thoughtful and well-written mini-essay, and I agree with all of his specific observations. On the other hand, as accurate as I find all objections to the way this movie was made, the negatives still do not outweigh the positives. "Great Guns" is very entertaining, mostly briskly edited and funny enough to make me laugh out loud.
Granted, I felt a sort of cognitive dissonance while watching. It was embarrassing to watch L&H play-acting through the dopey one-liners, saying things they would never say in their own world, and the forced emotional responses dictated by the script; then right after a poor moment I would be charmed their perfect timing and naturalness with a bit of physical comedy or some of their own dialogue. So all the way through I was about to cover my eyes, and then I'd have to laugh. For me, the most irritating characteristic of the script is it demands that L&H continue to (maddeningly) coddle the Nelson character, whereas I wanted to see them become sympathetic allies early on, and use their special brand of clown-resourcefulness help him have a little healthy adventure and romance. Dang; could've been a good script...
Folks, Great Guns is not a Hal Roach L&H movie. Forget about it. This is a 1941 Military Service movie with Laurel & Hardy. Accept it that way and you'll enjoy it. "Swiss Miss" and "Chump at Oxford" weren't much better.
Imagine that someone asked two inveterate clowns to take leading roles in an army film, and they agreed to do it. Stanley still gets a few magical moments, like clipping the grass with tiny wire cutters and a bird on his shoulder, and trying to shave with a (lit) light bulb in his mouth. Oliver shows off his physical deftness dancing with a crow, and he can still begin to run without getting anywhere. And he's not so fat! See how incredibly dapper he looks in a tailored suit, about 49 minutes into the film.
Both comedians look in excellent health; a little older now, for sure, but age happens. If Stan played the same otherworldly empty-headed character of the Hal Roach years, he would seem retarded; here he seems a little more like a normal guy who's been a little too- -well, sheltered in life, and has a number of interesting eccentric mannerisms. A bit like a prototype Ed Norton. If L&H are more paternal than usual, I think it's a logical attempt at developing their personas to fit their age. It is regretful they did not get the chance to really work out the appropriate alterations to their characters as time altered their appearance.
The last 20 minutes or so are a little slow, but L&H make it worthwhile with all their engaging little gesticulations and their excellent partner-timing. Only the last 7 minutes becomes boring with too much stock footage of war games. Cute ending though.
To misquote another viewer's comment, it's not a bad movie, just not real L&H movie. It's a little like L&H agreed to impersonate themselves, and if you don't mind that for 75 minutes, the movie is a good 7 out of 10: that is, a pleasant and better-than-average diversion for a Sunday afternoon. For comparison, I suppose I would rate the Hal Roach "Swiss Miss" 6-ish out of 10...although it is more "pure" L&H, it has the same romantic sub-plot problem as Great Guns, plus dull unnecessary musical numbers.
Granted, I felt a sort of cognitive dissonance while watching. It was embarrassing to watch L&H play-acting through the dopey one-liners, saying things they would never say in their own world, and the forced emotional responses dictated by the script; then right after a poor moment I would be charmed their perfect timing and naturalness with a bit of physical comedy or some of their own dialogue. So all the way through I was about to cover my eyes, and then I'd have to laugh. For me, the most irritating characteristic of the script is it demands that L&H continue to (maddeningly) coddle the Nelson character, whereas I wanted to see them become sympathetic allies early on, and use their special brand of clown-resourcefulness help him have a little healthy adventure and romance. Dang; could've been a good script...
Folks, Great Guns is not a Hal Roach L&H movie. Forget about it. This is a 1941 Military Service movie with Laurel & Hardy. Accept it that way and you'll enjoy it. "Swiss Miss" and "Chump at Oxford" weren't much better.
Imagine that someone asked two inveterate clowns to take leading roles in an army film, and they agreed to do it. Stanley still gets a few magical moments, like clipping the grass with tiny wire cutters and a bird on his shoulder, and trying to shave with a (lit) light bulb in his mouth. Oliver shows off his physical deftness dancing with a crow, and he can still begin to run without getting anywhere. And he's not so fat! See how incredibly dapper he looks in a tailored suit, about 49 minutes into the film.
Both comedians look in excellent health; a little older now, for sure, but age happens. If Stan played the same otherworldly empty-headed character of the Hal Roach years, he would seem retarded; here he seems a little more like a normal guy who's been a little too- -well, sheltered in life, and has a number of interesting eccentric mannerisms. A bit like a prototype Ed Norton. If L&H are more paternal than usual, I think it's a logical attempt at developing their personas to fit their age. It is regretful they did not get the chance to really work out the appropriate alterations to their characters as time altered their appearance.
The last 20 minutes or so are a little slow, but L&H make it worthwhile with all their engaging little gesticulations and their excellent partner-timing. Only the last 7 minutes becomes boring with too much stock footage of war games. Cute ending though.
To misquote another viewer's comment, it's not a bad movie, just not real L&H movie. It's a little like L&H agreed to impersonate themselves, and if you don't mind that for 75 minutes, the movie is a good 7 out of 10: that is, a pleasant and better-than-average diversion for a Sunday afternoon. For comparison, I suppose I would rate the Hal Roach "Swiss Miss" 6-ish out of 10...although it is more "pure" L&H, it has the same romantic sub-plot problem as Great Guns, plus dull unnecessary musical numbers.