Mixed Nuts (1922) Poster

(1922)

User Reviews

Review this title
3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Mixed films
hte-trasme7 September 2009
Stan Laurel may have been a great comedian, but even he doesn't come off as very funny when his material is cut out of context and shuffled together into an incomprehensible short film. I'm not sure I even want to consider this a film in its own right, as it is composed mainly of outtakes from other Stan Laurel films with bridging shots and new title cards designed to fool the audience into thinking they are seeing something new. It doesn't come off well. The extent of Stan's character is: "He's crazy. He does things that don't make any sense." Therefore non of the comedy comes off. Most of the film he spends apparently convinced that he is Napoleon because he's been hit on the head with a ball. Apparently this causes him to do Napoleon-like things such as try to eat a lunch he can't pay for in a cafeteria, keep changing in and out of a boater hat, and try various unusual methods of cracking a nut. A good percentage of the jokes consist of "Stan falls down."

I don't really blame Stan Laurel for the ineffectiveness of this short. Even when his solo films are not his best work, they are much more cohesive and funny than this. Don't take this as representative of Stan Laurel as a solo act. Watch "Dr Jekyll and Mr. Pryde" instead. Stan will be better served and you will laugh more.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
As bad as you can find for Stan Laurel
planktonrules3 August 2007
While not all of the blame for this horrid little comedy(?) should be put on Stan Laurel, it does rank as one of his worst existing films. Part of the reason the film is so bad is that some film producers took scenes and outtakes from two other older films to make this incomprehensible mess. The same thing happened to Chaplin when he worked for Essenay Studios--after he left and went to Mutual, Essenay took outtakes and old shorts and spliced them together to make "new" Chaplin films--ones that really stank, by the way.

However, even without the unscrupulous editing, this film just isn't funny. The main premise seems to be that Stan is a bit daft and obsessed with Napoleon. When he then gets hit on the head, he thinks he's Napoleon--though little of what he does seems to convey this. Mostly it conveys terrible overacting on Stan's part and no coherence as a story. Please don't watch this film. It will make you think Stan Laurel's solo career was a bust, but he did make some wonderful shorts before eventually being teamed with Oliver Hardy. Try watching Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde and you'll see what I mean.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not enough pistachios in 'Mixed Nuts'.
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre6 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was not surprised to discover that 'Mixed Nuts' was recut from footage in two other shorts: this film's storyline is incoherent. Also (in the print I viewed, at least) the photography in some scenes is so dark that I could barely follow the action.

Stan Laurel, pre-Hardy, plays a lunatic who thinks he's Napoleon. By the way, is there even one documented case in authentic medical literature of a mental case who thought he was Napoleon? The funniest gags here are in the intertitles, when someone comments of Laurel: 'He thinks Waterloo is a swimming pool.' (That gag would never have played in Laurel's native Britain, where there are plenty of jokes conflating Waterloo the battlefield and Waterloo the railway station.) Also in this film, we have coal dust identified as 'Pittsburgh talcum'. I was surprised when a wisecrack in the intertitles referred to Laurel -- his face blackened by coal -- as 'Al Jolson' ... because at this point (1922) Jolson was still exclusively a stage performer, and I didn't expect 1922 movie audiences to get that gag. However, I viewed a print with most of the original intertitles replaced by later ones: the Jolson jape may have been inserted at some point after 'The Jazz Singer'.

Eventually, Laurel commandeers a steamroller and uses it as a tank ... a surprising gambit for a man who allegedly thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte. I can't recall Napoleon ever using tank warfare.

At one point in this movie, some boys play a game cried 'shinny-on-your-side'. I've asked several American friends if they've ever encountered this term. So far, nothing.

'Mixed Nuts' contains some plot business that (with my British cultural references) I didn't understand, but which an American friend explained to me. I had often heard the phrase 'meal ticket' as a slang term, but was unaware of its literal meaning. In 'Mixed Nuts', there's some business with an actual meal ticket: in some old-time diners, the charges were totted up progressively, with the customer paying at the end. Modern American audiences probably won't understand this any more than I did.

'Mixed Nuts' is mostly interesting as a glimpse of Stan Laurel still fighting to find a screen character in his own right, getting away from his stint as Chaplin's understudy (in the Fred Karno troupe) and as Chaplin's outright imitator (in 'The Keystone Trio' of American vaudeville). Max Asher, quite funny in some Hal Roach films, is given nothing to do here. As an alleged comedy, this movie falls flat. I'll rate it just one point out of 10.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed