Regard Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy with great affection. They were very funny, often hilarious, and likeable with interesting distinct personalities that really shone when the material in their work played to their strengths (which it mostly did). They had a distinctive comedic style and their partnership was deservedly iconic. Much of their films, short and feature, were decent to wonderful, and most of their lesser efforts were still watchable to some degree. Misfires were in comparison to the rest of their filmography were not many.
'The Tree in a Test Tube' is one of their misfires. It is not only very bad Laurel and Hardy that in no way does them justice, it is also far from good on its own. As others have noted, the one notable thing about 'The Tree in a Test Tube' is the historical curiosity value. Aside from being a wartime educational short, it is most notable for being Laurel and Hardy's first and only short film in colour. Another reason to see it perhaps is if you are trying to see every Laurel and Hardy film for completest sake, being very fond of them that was my reason. That it was made very quickly and with not much care is obvious.
Will say that there is the odd very mildly amusing moment, though really just in the gesturing, and a couple of facts do educate.
Laurel and Hardy do try their best with severely wanting material and the music rouses.
However, both Laurel and Hardy are poorly served both individually and as a duo. None of what they are given plays to their strengths, like it was forgotten what made them so great, and they both look tired and bored and like they did it for a favour and money. They look very out of place in the war setting and even their chemistry is tired. One can tell visually that 'The Tree in a Test Tube' was made in a rush, with the garish colour not being kind to the duo and the photography indicating that those involved didn't have the proper time and resources to do it.
Next to nothing is funny here in a short where attempts at humour are far too few, apart from the odd gesturing, as said what made Laurel and Hardy so great seems to have been forgotten about and it is every bit as tired as the duo themselves. Not much is interesting, with things getting dull too early, and very little is educational, was only illuminated a few times while everything left me unsurprised and not very interested. It is also very heavy-handed, a common trap for war-time shorts, and the narration is both unnecessary and patronising.
Concluding, lacklustre at best and a deeply disappointing misfire. 4/10 Bethany Cox
'The Tree in a Test Tube' is one of their misfires. It is not only very bad Laurel and Hardy that in no way does them justice, it is also far from good on its own. As others have noted, the one notable thing about 'The Tree in a Test Tube' is the historical curiosity value. Aside from being a wartime educational short, it is most notable for being Laurel and Hardy's first and only short film in colour. Another reason to see it perhaps is if you are trying to see every Laurel and Hardy film for completest sake, being very fond of them that was my reason. That it was made very quickly and with not much care is obvious.
Will say that there is the odd very mildly amusing moment, though really just in the gesturing, and a couple of facts do educate.
Laurel and Hardy do try their best with severely wanting material and the music rouses.
However, both Laurel and Hardy are poorly served both individually and as a duo. None of what they are given plays to their strengths, like it was forgotten what made them so great, and they both look tired and bored and like they did it for a favour and money. They look very out of place in the war setting and even their chemistry is tired. One can tell visually that 'The Tree in a Test Tube' was made in a rush, with the garish colour not being kind to the duo and the photography indicating that those involved didn't have the proper time and resources to do it.
Next to nothing is funny here in a short where attempts at humour are far too few, apart from the odd gesturing, as said what made Laurel and Hardy so great seems to have been forgotten about and it is every bit as tired as the duo themselves. Not much is interesting, with things getting dull too early, and very little is educational, was only illuminated a few times while everything left me unsurprised and not very interested. It is also very heavy-handed, a common trap for war-time shorts, and the narration is both unnecessary and patronising.
Concluding, lacklustre at best and a deeply disappointing misfire. 4/10 Bethany Cox