Although not the first "Official" L & H film,this was the first time the boys wore their celebrated bowler hats,an essential part of detectives' garb at the time.A bit frantic in places,DO DETECTIVES THINK? nevertheless presents us with the embryos that were to develop into the greatest comedy team in cinema history.Often mechanical,the film has lively supporting performances from James Finlayson and Noah Young,and still has very funny scenes,especially when Ollie(playing a character named Sherlock Pinkham!)is given two black eyes.Stan has the equally absurd character name of Ferdinand Finkleberry! Not their best short by a long short,but historically interesting.6 out of 10.
20 Reviews
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged.
rmax30482318 January 2013
This is one of their faster shorts. Finlayson is a judge who sentences a murderer to death. The murderer promises to escape and murder the judge. He escapes forthwith. In a panic, Finlayson calls the police and begs them to send their two smartest detectives. Laurel and Hardy show up, but not before the killer has managed to enter the house and pose as the butler.
Some of the gags were later used by other writers -- Finlayson hiding by lowering himself beneath the bathwater only to accidentally pull the plug with his toe. If it was, in fact, copped from this short, it's because it's pretty funny.
The straight narrative is interrupted by a graveyard scene that's as amusing as anything else.
Some of the gags were later used by other writers -- Finlayson hiding by lowering himself beneath the bathwater only to accidentally pull the plug with his toe. If it was, in fact, copped from this short, it's because it's pretty funny.
The straight narrative is interrupted by a graveyard scene that's as amusing as anything else.
Guarding the judge
TheLittleSongbird8 August 2018
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were comedic geniuses, individually and together, and their partnership was deservedly iconic and one of the best there was. They left behind a large body of work, a vast majority of it being entertaining to classic comedy, at their best they were hilarious and their best efforts were great examples of how to do comedy without being juvenile or distasteful.
'Do Detectives Think?' is nowhere near classic Laurel and Hardy, later films, short and feature, had stronger chemistry when fully formed and used their considerable talents better. At this point, Laurel was much funnier and more interesting while Hardy in most of the previous outings had too little to do. 'Do Detectives Think?' is still worth watching though and is an improvement on some of their previous short films, along with 'Duck Soup', 'While Girls Love Sailors', 'Sailors, Beware!' and 'The Second Hundred Years' it was up there as among Laurel and Hardy's best up to this point.
Personally would have liked more sly wit that made their later entries better, though the slapstick does entertain and is timed well if a bit too far on the simplicity.
The story is a bit busy at times and both slight and formulaic.
Laurel however is very funny, and sometimes hilarious, like as was said for a few of his previous outings 'Do Detectives Think?' is worth seeing for him alone. Hardy is at least not wasted, and he does give one of his funniest and most interesting appearances of his pairings with Laurel up to this point despite his persona being not as fully formed as Laurel's. The chemistry is much more here than in previous outings of theirs if still evolving. Support is nice, especially from James Finlayson.
A good deal of the humour is well timed, hugely energetic and very funny, with everything going at a lively pace, and there is a lot of charm and good nature to keep one going. 'Do Detectives Think?' looks quite good and is more visually experimental than their previous efforts.
To conclude, decent. 7/10 Bethany Cox
'Do Detectives Think?' is nowhere near classic Laurel and Hardy, later films, short and feature, had stronger chemistry when fully formed and used their considerable talents better. At this point, Laurel was much funnier and more interesting while Hardy in most of the previous outings had too little to do. 'Do Detectives Think?' is still worth watching though and is an improvement on some of their previous short films, along with 'Duck Soup', 'While Girls Love Sailors', 'Sailors, Beware!' and 'The Second Hundred Years' it was up there as among Laurel and Hardy's best up to this point.
Personally would have liked more sly wit that made their later entries better, though the slapstick does entertain and is timed well if a bit too far on the simplicity.
The story is a bit busy at times and both slight and formulaic.
Laurel however is very funny, and sometimes hilarious, like as was said for a few of his previous outings 'Do Detectives Think?' is worth seeing for him alone. Hardy is at least not wasted, and he does give one of his funniest and most interesting appearances of his pairings with Laurel up to this point despite his persona being not as fully formed as Laurel's. The chemistry is much more here than in previous outings of theirs if still evolving. Support is nice, especially from James Finlayson.
A good deal of the humour is well timed, hugely energetic and very funny, with everything going at a lively pace, and there is a lot of charm and good nature to keep one going. 'Do Detectives Think?' looks quite good and is more visually experimental than their previous efforts.
To conclude, decent. 7/10 Bethany Cox
L&H's most experimental
TheFerryman25 March 2004
Perhaps Laurel and Hardy's most visual experimental work. I know, the story is uninteresting, the gags are basic, the mood is dated, and the duo's personalities are far from fully development. Still "Do Detectives Think?" is worth remembering for its nocturnal, expressionistic scenes around the graveyard, where a goat's shadow suggest a scary demon; also for its moving camera, a rare James Finnlayson's close-up underwater, a keyhole's point of view, mirror reflections and some other few technical devices not very frequent at the time that provides this little film an unusual freshness and a sense of unlimited creative freedom.
One of Laurel & Hardy's earliest attempts is an enjoyable one.
Boba_Fett11381 October 2006
Although by no means a comedy must-see, "Do Detectives Think?" is a worthy movie from Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, who in 1927 just began working together as a comedy team, for the Hal Roach studio's.
It's a movie that is good thanks to its little comical moments. It's not the sort of movie that is hilarious constantly but it has some great original and funny moments in it that are good for a couple of laughs. It's certainly not the most consistent Laurel & Hardy silent comedy short around but it's an enjoyable one nevertheless, which is also thanks to its fun simple story. It makes "Do Detectives Think?" an above average early Laurel & Hardy movie.
Problem of the movie really is that the comical moments in it are rather stretched out. If only the movie was about halve its running time shorter, perhaps the movie than would had been a better and even more enjoyable one. The movie its flow would at least had been better if that had been the case.
The cast is good. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (who was looking quite thin by the way) already seem to be in their element as the famous comical duo. Also really good was James Finlayson in a great comical role. He steals the show in most of his sequences. Just his looks alone and some small actions is enough to provide the movie with some great laughs and comical moments. Also Noah Young is well cast, as a psychotic killer who tries to kill the judge (the James Finlayson character) who convicted him. The boys play two detectives, with odd names, who are send by their agency to protect the judge but of course everything goes wrong and the boys really mess things up again.
Of course everything about the movie is predictable but it's a well made and originally directed movie. The timing is nice and the movie is well edited which makes most of the comical moments work out really well.
A good enough enjoyable early Laurel & Hardy comedy short, that uses a bit too many stretched out comical moments to prevent this movie from being one of their best works.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's a movie that is good thanks to its little comical moments. It's not the sort of movie that is hilarious constantly but it has some great original and funny moments in it that are good for a couple of laughs. It's certainly not the most consistent Laurel & Hardy silent comedy short around but it's an enjoyable one nevertheless, which is also thanks to its fun simple story. It makes "Do Detectives Think?" an above average early Laurel & Hardy movie.
Problem of the movie really is that the comical moments in it are rather stretched out. If only the movie was about halve its running time shorter, perhaps the movie than would had been a better and even more enjoyable one. The movie its flow would at least had been better if that had been the case.
The cast is good. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (who was looking quite thin by the way) already seem to be in their element as the famous comical duo. Also really good was James Finlayson in a great comical role. He steals the show in most of his sequences. Just his looks alone and some small actions is enough to provide the movie with some great laughs and comical moments. Also Noah Young is well cast, as a psychotic killer who tries to kill the judge (the James Finlayson character) who convicted him. The boys play two detectives, with odd names, who are send by their agency to protect the judge but of course everything goes wrong and the boys really mess things up again.
Of course everything about the movie is predictable but it's a well made and originally directed movie. The timing is nice and the movie is well edited which makes most of the comical moments work out really well.
A good enough enjoyable early Laurel & Hardy comedy short, that uses a bit too many stretched out comical moments to prevent this movie from being one of their best works.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Not the funniest Laurel and Hardy, but hilarious James Finlayson
audiemurph8 November 2011
To paraphrase the fellow, "even not very good Laurel and Hardy is still better than almost everything else". This early L&H silent is one of the first to show the boys as a team, that is, as pals in the same general situation, on the same side, rather than working against each other. Their personalities can be seen developing nicely: Ollie the bully, Stan in his shadow, with his instant crying; however, here Stan still maintains a bit more independence and aggressiveness and willingness to defy or even abandon Ollie than we will be used to seeing later on. The gags are too simplistic and predictable, so the film is not going to be a memorable one; however, it is always a joy to see the boys on the screen, no matter what they are doing.
To be honest, the funniest moments are enjoyed by James Finlayson; I laughed loudest when, in a sudden cut, Finlayson is seen sitting in his bathtub, his body and entire head completely covered with soap bubbles, with only his face showing through. And the water he is bathing in is, in certain shots, completely filthy and black. Very bizarre!
A quick note about Hardy's character's name, Sherlock Pinkham; while "Sherlock" is obvious, the name "Pinkham" seems more obscure. I assume this is meant to spoof the famous "Pinkerton" detectives of Civil War and post-Civil War fame.
Let us recognize this is L&H at the beginning of a process, one that would lead to a partnership that they themselves could never have imagined would captivate the world. Then we can enjoy this film for what it is, without being disappointed.
To be honest, the funniest moments are enjoyed by James Finlayson; I laughed loudest when, in a sudden cut, Finlayson is seen sitting in his bathtub, his body and entire head completely covered with soap bubbles, with only his face showing through. And the water he is bathing in is, in certain shots, completely filthy and black. Very bizarre!
A quick note about Hardy's character's name, Sherlock Pinkham; while "Sherlock" is obvious, the name "Pinkham" seems more obscure. I assume this is meant to spoof the famous "Pinkerton" detectives of Civil War and post-Civil War fame.
Let us recognize this is L&H at the beginning of a process, one that would lead to a partnership that they themselves could never have imagined would captivate the world. Then we can enjoy this film for what it is, without being disappointed.
Pretty good, but a step below average for the team
planktonrules6 May 2008
The film begins with a judge (played by perennial Laurel and Hardy supporting player, James Finlayson) sentencing a mad killer to death. However, the maniac escapes and vows revenge on the judge. Wisely, the judge hires some private detectives to protect him--but unfortunately it's Stan and Ollie! They spend much of the film trying to nab the killer or running to avoid his enormous knife.
1927 was a very busy year for Laurel and Hardy--having made about a dozen films together. Up until the end of 1927, they were still not officially a team and their roles and chemistry seem very odd in these films compared to later Laurel and Hardy films. While DO DETECTIVES THINK? is much closer to the Stan and Ollie style than the previous films, the boys still aren't what many might expect. First, Stan is the smarter of the two, and second, the film is much more like a traditional slapstick film. Instead of friendship binding them, Ollie shoves and slaps Stan again and again as the film tries harder to get cheap laughs than to build chemistry. As a result, when the going gets tough, it's "every man for himself"--an attitude that you wouldn't have seen so strongly in later films. Still, it is very watchable and funny--too bad it lacks the chemistry that later made them so lovable. A good but not great early effort.
1927 was a very busy year for Laurel and Hardy--having made about a dozen films together. Up until the end of 1927, they were still not officially a team and their roles and chemistry seem very odd in these films compared to later Laurel and Hardy films. While DO DETECTIVES THINK? is much closer to the Stan and Ollie style than the previous films, the boys still aren't what many might expect. First, Stan is the smarter of the two, and second, the film is much more like a traditional slapstick film. Instead of friendship binding them, Ollie shoves and slaps Stan again and again as the film tries harder to get cheap laughs than to build chemistry. As a result, when the going gets tough, it's "every man for himself"--an attitude that you wouldn't have seen so strongly in later films. Still, it is very watchable and funny--too bad it lacks the chemistry that later made them so lovable. A good but not great early effort.
"We find the prisoner guilty - Bump him!"
classicsoncall16 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Kind of an odd title, don't you think? Well even though Laurel and Hardy were just beginning to perform as a comedy team in 1927, their comic timing already seemed to be pretty good as evidenced by the hat gag performed outside the Whitechapel Graveyard. Both work the sleight of hand gimmick well enough that you have to keep an eye on those hats to recall which one is which.
We've all heard the expression 'afraid of one's shadow' but I believe this is the first time I've ever seen it actually demonstrated. And speaking of shadows, I thought the goat provided an interesting version of a devil on the graveyard wall. That was pretty clever.
If you think about what's going on in the story it can be pretty gruesome, as an escaped convict called The Tipton Slasher (Noah Young) intends to carry out a promise he made in court when found guilty by Judge Foozle (James Finlayson). Utilizing tools of the trade, the Slasher uses a large knife and sword in his attempt to ward off Stan and Ollie's detective characters on his way to do away with the Judge. The Slasher must have had a serious impact on him, if you watch closely, the soap bubbles in the bath water as the Judge tries to avoid the convict disappear from one scene to the next.
We've all heard the expression 'afraid of one's shadow' but I believe this is the first time I've ever seen it actually demonstrated. And speaking of shadows, I thought the goat provided an interesting version of a devil on the graveyard wall. That was pretty clever.
If you think about what's going on in the story it can be pretty gruesome, as an escaped convict called The Tipton Slasher (Noah Young) intends to carry out a promise he made in court when found guilty by Judge Foozle (James Finlayson). Utilizing tools of the trade, the Slasher uses a large knife and sword in his attempt to ward off Stan and Ollie's detective characters on his way to do away with the Judge. The Slasher must have had a serious impact on him, if you watch closely, the soap bubbles in the bath water as the Judge tries to avoid the convict disappear from one scene to the next.
Just another Laurel & Hardy
rbverhoef24 January 2004
In this Laurel & Hardy short we see the two as the worst detectives in the world. They have to protect a judge who put a man in prison. The man has escaped and he has sworn to kill the judge.
If you like Laurel & Hardy there is no reason not to like this one, but if you need their movies to be a little interesting to like them then I should watch another Laurel & Hardy short. It is not bad, but there are no real great laughs. There is one sequence with Laurel on a cemetery that is pretty good. Still, they have done a lot better.
If you like Laurel & Hardy there is no reason not to like this one, but if you need their movies to be a little interesting to like them then I should watch another Laurel & Hardy short. It is not bad, but there are no real great laughs. There is one sequence with Laurel on a cemetery that is pretty good. Still, they have done a lot better.
Not These
boblipton7 December 2020
Judge Jimmy Finlayson sentences maniacal slasher Noah Young to be hanged by the neck until dead, "And I hope you choke!" This so enrages Young that he escapes to kill Finn. The police assign two detectives to guard him: Laurel and Hardy.
It's astonishing how fast these two old hands came together as a team. Here's where they picked up their derbies. Of course! it was the featured headwear for metropolitan plain clothes men in the era. They do their wrong hat gag for a minute or two.
I've seen this one a dozen times or more over the years and laugh like a maniac every time.
It's astonishing how fast these two old hands came together as a team. Here's where they picked up their derbies. Of course! it was the featured headwear for metropolitan plain clothes men in the era. They do their wrong hat gag for a minute or two.
I've seen this one a dozen times or more over the years and laugh like a maniac every time.
Quite entertaining
Horst_In_Translation24 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Do Detectives Think?" is a 23-minute black-and-white silent short film from almost 90 years ago. It stars Laurel and Hardy, two of the biggest stars from that era, in one of their early movies. But this is also one of their best. i have seen some of their well-received works that I did not like too much, but this one here was funny and actually a bit scary and dramatic, at least for 1920s' standards. An escaped convict plans to kill the judge that put him behind bars and our two heroes are the police detectives in charge of protecting the judge. No surprise that, in the end, it is the judge himself who manages to get the criminal, even if it was just lucky really with his costume. Enjoyable little movie, writers and director have worked with Stan and Ollie on many other occasions. Go watch this one. Thumbs up and it is always nice to see such a quantity of intertitles in these old films. Really helped me in understanding the contents in this one.
The (Pleasant) End Result of Unintended Consequences
redryan6423 May 2015
HAVING BEEN PAIRED quite by accident, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were rapidly becoming fused together; both in the minds of the 1920's movie going public, as well as in the future plans of the production team at Hal Roach Studios. Their meshing together, proving them to be a natural, became more and more obvious with every appearance that they did together.
BEING THAT THEY were two layers that were called THE HAL ROACH ALL-STARS, the future funny man team shared billing and screen time with the likes of James Finlayson, Anita Garvin, Noah Young, William Gillespie, Charley Hall, Sam Lufkin and others. Breaking out and getting to the "front of the class" was a great accomplishment; requiring great effort and (intended or not) a great deal of competition.
AS FOR THIS film which we have just screened for the first time on this very day, it is a great example of just how this celluloid evolution and metamorphosis was progressing. Both Stan and Ollie are billed at the top of the cast listing; however, they are not yet "LAUREL & HARDY. officially or otherwise. They have donned their trademark bowlers (that's 'derbies' to you, Schultz) and they exhibit a seemingly natural to work together.
BUT THINGS WERE still in a sort of embryonic stage and finding the way was still the order of the day. The product of the Roach lot was still refining its image and trademark. We found that this film and other Hal Roach comedies of this vintage and prior bore much more of a resemblance to those of Roach rival (and close friend) in Mac Sennett's KEYSTONE COMEDIES.
AS AN EXAMPLE of what we mean, DO DETECTIVES THINK? relies more on humor generated by the title cards; which are usually sort of a sidebar and independent comment on the action of the on screen happenings.*
THERE IS ALSO a great reliance on the names given to the characters in a picture. Rather than using their own names, which would soon be the custom, silly and absurd sounding names are substituted (a Sennett/Keystone trademark). In this case we have: Ferdinand Finkleberry (Laurel), Sherlock Pinkham (Hardy) and Judge Foozle (Finlayson).
THE PLOT CONCERNS a tried and true old regular of having the defendant in the trial 'the Tipton Slasher' (Noah Young) swearing to take vengeance on the Judge after he passes sentence. From there, the action shifts to the detective agency and to L & H's efforts to protect the Judge.
ANOTHER NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE of the 1927 product with that of a year or two later is the pacing. While the film doesn't proceed in that breakneck pace of a Keystone Kop Comedy, it's still not the slow, meticulous working out of the gags as would be the Laurel & Hardy legacy.
BUT ALL OF that would soon be changing; thanks to the influence of Supervising Director Leo Mc Carey and Stan Laurel, himself.
NOTE: * The well written titles in Hal Roach silent pictures were the work of one H.M. Walker. He also continued with the Studio into the Sound era; writing those great opening titles as well as tailor making dialogue for "the Boys."
BEING THAT THEY were two layers that were called THE HAL ROACH ALL-STARS, the future funny man team shared billing and screen time with the likes of James Finlayson, Anita Garvin, Noah Young, William Gillespie, Charley Hall, Sam Lufkin and others. Breaking out and getting to the "front of the class" was a great accomplishment; requiring great effort and (intended or not) a great deal of competition.
AS FOR THIS film which we have just screened for the first time on this very day, it is a great example of just how this celluloid evolution and metamorphosis was progressing. Both Stan and Ollie are billed at the top of the cast listing; however, they are not yet "LAUREL & HARDY. officially or otherwise. They have donned their trademark bowlers (that's 'derbies' to you, Schultz) and they exhibit a seemingly natural to work together.
BUT THINGS WERE still in a sort of embryonic stage and finding the way was still the order of the day. The product of the Roach lot was still refining its image and trademark. We found that this film and other Hal Roach comedies of this vintage and prior bore much more of a resemblance to those of Roach rival (and close friend) in Mac Sennett's KEYSTONE COMEDIES.
AS AN EXAMPLE of what we mean, DO DETECTIVES THINK? relies more on humor generated by the title cards; which are usually sort of a sidebar and independent comment on the action of the on screen happenings.*
THERE IS ALSO a great reliance on the names given to the characters in a picture. Rather than using their own names, which would soon be the custom, silly and absurd sounding names are substituted (a Sennett/Keystone trademark). In this case we have: Ferdinand Finkleberry (Laurel), Sherlock Pinkham (Hardy) and Judge Foozle (Finlayson).
THE PLOT CONCERNS a tried and true old regular of having the defendant in the trial 'the Tipton Slasher' (Noah Young) swearing to take vengeance on the Judge after he passes sentence. From there, the action shifts to the detective agency and to L & H's efforts to protect the Judge.
ANOTHER NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE of the 1927 product with that of a year or two later is the pacing. While the film doesn't proceed in that breakneck pace of a Keystone Kop Comedy, it's still not the slow, meticulous working out of the gags as would be the Laurel & Hardy legacy.
BUT ALL OF that would soon be changing; thanks to the influence of Supervising Director Leo Mc Carey and Stan Laurel, himself.
NOTE: * The well written titles in Hal Roach silent pictures were the work of one H.M. Walker. He also continued with the Studio into the Sound era; writing those great opening titles as well as tailor making dialogue for "the Boys."
Killer Plots Revenge on Judge Who Sentence Him
DKosty12314 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Produced at Hal Roach studios, this one is typical for when it was made. It starts in court with a killer getting sentenced and then threatening the judge. Then he is sent away.
The convict escapes and then tries to find the judge. The Judge (James Finlayson) finds out the convict has escaped jail and then calls the police because he needs bodyguards.
The head of the police, looking for a place to put his most bumbling detectives on the job. There are some haunting scenes where the boys nearly lose their hats in a graveyard, but eventually they get past being scared and try to do this job.
Protection in a Haunted hose i not as easy as you'd think. All goes well as the boys accidentally stop the killer and do some funny physical stuff along the way.
The convict escapes and then tries to find the judge. The Judge (James Finlayson) finds out the convict has escaped jail and then calls the police because he needs bodyguards.
The head of the police, looking for a place to put his most bumbling detectives on the job. There are some haunting scenes where the boys nearly lose their hats in a graveyard, but eventually they get past being scared and try to do this job.
Protection in a Haunted hose i not as easy as you'd think. All goes well as the boys accidentally stop the killer and do some funny physical stuff along the way.
Do Detectives Think?
jboothmillard26 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. In the courtroom, the jury have found The Tipton Slasher (Noah Young) guilty and he has been sentenced by Judge Foozle (James Finlayson), and the convict says he will escape and kill the Judge. At home with his Mrs. Foozle (Viola Richard) sees on the newspaper that the convict has indeed escaped, in fact he is waiting just outside his house with a pal (Will Stanton). The Judge rings the detective agency to send their bravest detectives they've got to help him, and they send 2nd worst in the world Ferdinand Finkleberry (Stan) and the worst Sherlock Pinkham (Ollie). While the killer has got into the house stealing the clothes of the new butler, the boys are approaching the house just beyond the Whitechapel Graveyard, and are slowed down by their hats being blown by the wind into this spooky place. After scaring himself with his own shadow, and running scared with a goat clanging some cans and showing its shadow, the boys dash to the Judge's house. The killer tries to cut the Judge's throat, but gets interrupted by the arrival of the boys, and Sherlock proves he is a good shot, by missing the apple on Ferdinand's head. Settling in the beds for the night, the boys recognise a face on the newspaper, and after hearing the wife scream seeing the butler holding a big knife, they recognise the killer coming in their room again. The Judge spots the killer through the bathroom key hole and hides under his soapy bath water, and is almost caught accidentally pulling the chain when the killer is interrupted by an accidental gun fire. The killer right behind Ferdinand is stopped by Sherlock missing with a gun shot, the three squabble on the floor, and Ferdinand manages to stick the handcuffs on Sherlock instead of the killer. The convict chases the boys round the table, with Ferdinand at one point looking like his head's been cut off, and being smashed out a large vase with the swing of the killer's big sword. The wife is looking for her husband, and makes him tumble down the stairs with a gun shot, and wearing a white sheet and a scary on the back of his head, the Judge scares the killer thinking he is looking at a ghost. Ferdinand sticks a gun under his coat to the criminal and puts him in the closet, which is where Sherlock is hiding from him, and the police arrive to handcuff and take away the killer. Sherlock come out with two black eyes, and quickly nipping out the front door he gives Ferdinand the same, and after the Judge and his wife thank them, the boys leave wearing each other's hats. Also starring Frank Brownlee as Detective Agency Boss. Filled with good slapstick and all classic comedy you want from a black and white silent film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Worth watching!
Pretty Good Comedy
Snow Leopard14 November 2002
When Laurel and Hardy are on the case, you don't expect Sherlock Holmes-quality deductions, but you know there will be some laughs. This comedy is a bit uneven, but pretty good overall. Stanley and Oliver are detectives who are hired to protect a judge whose life has been threatened, and they get some reasonable mileage out of this simple situation. They are helped out by frequent supporting player James Finlayson as the judge, and by Noah Young, who is suitably menacing as an escaped convict. It's not among their best comedies, but it has some good moments, and is certainly worth watching for any fan of Laurel and Hardy.
Future adversarial relationship
bkoganbing13 March 2016
Judge James Finlayson's life has been threatened and indeed why would it not be threatened as he's a hardnosed law and order type who has just handed out a life sentence to some tough criminals. That gang hires the Slasher played by a creepy Noah Young to take vengeance on Finlayson.
This film may have been responsible for the adversarial relationship that Stan and Ollie enjoyed with Finlayson. The boys are the detectives that are sent by the local police to guard the life of the good judge.
The pattern of the characters of Stan and Ollie that we would get to know so well is forming here. Stan is the simpleton and he knows it, Ollie is the man who thinks he's a genius, but always falls way short. One thing Ollie is not is a marksman, a fact he proves by frightening everyone in the house with his shooting.
Future frenemies are formed here.
This film may have been responsible for the adversarial relationship that Stan and Ollie enjoyed with Finlayson. The boys are the detectives that are sent by the local police to guard the life of the good judge.
The pattern of the characters of Stan and Ollie that we would get to know so well is forming here. Stan is the simpleton and he knows it, Ollie is the man who thinks he's a genius, but always falls way short. One thing Ollie is not is a marksman, a fact he proves by frightening everyone in the house with his shooting.
Future frenemies are formed here.
An exceptional comedy short - so funny!!
alexanderdavies-993823 August 2017
Laurel and Hardy really hit their stride with "Do Detectives Think?" It was released in 1927 and contains some classic visual comedy. Stan and Ollie play two detectives who are assigned to protect a judge who has been threatened by an escaped convict. James Finlayson and Noah Young are on top form as the judge and convict. The latter is positively creepy as he stalks his victim in the judge's home. Laurel and Hardy show they are just as frightened of the convict as everyone else!! After they both lose and retrieve their bowler hats in hilarious fashion by a graveyard, Stan and Ollie head to Judge Finlayson's house where Young is in disguise as the new butler. I can't stop laughing every time I see Laurel and Hardy seek out the convict and trying to look tough! The comedy is brilliantly done, as is the timing.
Everyone in the cast is totally dumb.
FlushingCaps24 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This Laurel & Hardy silent 20-minute film title asks a question that, based on what we saw, generates the answer, "No."
It opens in a courtroom where the jury has already found a large man, played by Noah Young, who has about a scruffy beard and a rather large and evil-looking face, guilty of murder. He is called "The Tipton Slasher." Judge Foozle (James Finlayson) sentences him to hang. The Slasher vows to escape and kill the judge.
We next see the judge at home with his wife, where a newspaper she's reading an inside page of, bears the front page headline-you guessed it-that the Tipton Slasher has escaped. On hearing the news, the judge did two spit takes-spitting out the coffee he had just begun to drink. She phones for protection, asking for the best detectives they have. Of course, they send our heroes, who title cards tell us are the two worst detectives in the world.
Outside the judge's house, at night, the Slasher meets a man about to enter. He asks if this is the judge's house. How he would be right outside and NOT know is a puzzler. The man says it is and that he is the new butler. I didn't think too many butlers arrived for work after dark. The Slasher steals his suit and sends him running away in his Union suit. The fact that the Slasher was about 4 inches taller did not prevent the suit from fitting the big man. He gains easy admission from the Foozles because he was unrecognizable since he had shaved.
Stan and Ollie are delayed in getting to the judge's because there was a wind outside the cemetery they had to walk past and it blew their hats off, into the cemetery. It so happened that Stan had removed his hat just as they passed the open gate, so only Ollie's blew away. But when we looked inside, there were two hats side-by-side on the ground. On his return trip as Ollie called to him, Stan's hat blew into the cemetery. We never saw a third hat.
It took several minutes to retrieve them because Ollie wouldn't enter himself, and Stan kept trying but was afraid, literally, of his own shadow cast upon a wall and kept running back outside to Ollie. Finally he retrieves the hats and they each don the other's hat. Then it took them four tries to switch hats. They kept taking them off, handing one to the other man, then switching them again and putting the same miss-sized ones back on their heads. It was repetitive like a bad skit from Saturday Night Live. I mean the kind where the general idea may have been a bit funny to begin with, then they do it over and over until the viewer is exhausted. Now the Marx Brothers might have had Chico switching hats, in fact, I think they did have a similar scene in some movie, but Chico was purposely switching the hats to retain the one he wanted to keep. That was funny. Here, it seems impossible the pair could have tried to switch and four times done it the opposite of what they desired.
On meeting the Foozles, Mrs. F asks, "Are you men good shooters?" Ollie proceeds to do the William Tell bit only using his revolver to shoot an apple off the head of his chum. Standing about 8 feet away from Stan, he so nervously jostles the gun that he misses him by a good 7 feet, destroying a bust.
Once they arrive at the house, they do nothing to actually protect the judge-they aren't staying in the same room with him and aren't guarding the doors or anything. The Slasher is about to slash the judge's throat from behind with a large knife he pulled out from inside his jacket-must have been a large pocket inside that butler's coat-but the wife came into the room, so he put the knife back inside the jacket.
Later, he is seen by the wife entering a bedroom with the large knife held in front of him so it could be seen first when he entered. She screamed but didn't seem to go to the aid of her husband. He was soaking in his bathtub, heard the scream, but did nothing but enjoy his soak.
When the wife screams a second time, the judge was lying in his bathtub, bathing, when he heard it. He got out and peeked through the keyhole and saw the Slasher, this time figuring out who it was. What did he do? Almost like a 3-year-old, he attempted to hide under the water in his own bath. The Slasher entered the room was standing no more than three feet from the judge in the tub, but never looked toward it. He spent his time looking toward the camera, with the tub to his right, as if to say, "Gee, I wonder where that judge went." He lingers there while the judge accidentally kicks the plug out with his foot and all the water drains. He is now lying in the empty tub and the Slasher is still standing three feet away, never even noticed the tub was draining. It would have been impossible for him at that distance to have glanced toward the tub and not seen the judge-with the tub full of water or not.
Meanwhile, in the bedroom, Ollie, Stan, and the missus are doing almost nothing. Stan checks his revolver just like he did at the detective office before they started this mission. Just like in there, as he snapped it back together, it fired a shot by accident. Both Mrs. Foozle and Stan panic and try to climb onto Ollie.
This is when I knew I had to write a review. This is where the stupidity level just sank too far below the surface for me to stomach. A man who sees an obvious shadow of himself and is scared-a few times, not just for an instant-that's one. Ollie unable to get his hat back, when he could just take it off Stan's head and put it on while Stan is holding his own hat-that's two. The judge thinking the killer won't see him under the water in a bathtub-that's three AND four it's so dumb! But the killer standing just three feet from the tub and not looking into it-Check, please!
We go on with more nonsense, including Stan putting handcuffs on Ollie while he was wrestling with the Slasher, and later locking the Slasher inside a closet without noticing Ollie is hiding in that closet, but the killer is finally subdued.
I really do like many of Laurel & Hardy's films, and much enjoy many other silent stars, most notably Buster Keaton. But this one was so utterly stupid from beginning to end that I just couldn't stomach it. I see others have written that they enjoyed it. Good for those that could. To me, it cannot be scored higher than a one out of ten.
It opens in a courtroom where the jury has already found a large man, played by Noah Young, who has about a scruffy beard and a rather large and evil-looking face, guilty of murder. He is called "The Tipton Slasher." Judge Foozle (James Finlayson) sentences him to hang. The Slasher vows to escape and kill the judge.
We next see the judge at home with his wife, where a newspaper she's reading an inside page of, bears the front page headline-you guessed it-that the Tipton Slasher has escaped. On hearing the news, the judge did two spit takes-spitting out the coffee he had just begun to drink. She phones for protection, asking for the best detectives they have. Of course, they send our heroes, who title cards tell us are the two worst detectives in the world.
Outside the judge's house, at night, the Slasher meets a man about to enter. He asks if this is the judge's house. How he would be right outside and NOT know is a puzzler. The man says it is and that he is the new butler. I didn't think too many butlers arrived for work after dark. The Slasher steals his suit and sends him running away in his Union suit. The fact that the Slasher was about 4 inches taller did not prevent the suit from fitting the big man. He gains easy admission from the Foozles because he was unrecognizable since he had shaved.
Stan and Ollie are delayed in getting to the judge's because there was a wind outside the cemetery they had to walk past and it blew their hats off, into the cemetery. It so happened that Stan had removed his hat just as they passed the open gate, so only Ollie's blew away. But when we looked inside, there were two hats side-by-side on the ground. On his return trip as Ollie called to him, Stan's hat blew into the cemetery. We never saw a third hat.
It took several minutes to retrieve them because Ollie wouldn't enter himself, and Stan kept trying but was afraid, literally, of his own shadow cast upon a wall and kept running back outside to Ollie. Finally he retrieves the hats and they each don the other's hat. Then it took them four tries to switch hats. They kept taking them off, handing one to the other man, then switching them again and putting the same miss-sized ones back on their heads. It was repetitive like a bad skit from Saturday Night Live. I mean the kind where the general idea may have been a bit funny to begin with, then they do it over and over until the viewer is exhausted. Now the Marx Brothers might have had Chico switching hats, in fact, I think they did have a similar scene in some movie, but Chico was purposely switching the hats to retain the one he wanted to keep. That was funny. Here, it seems impossible the pair could have tried to switch and four times done it the opposite of what they desired.
On meeting the Foozles, Mrs. F asks, "Are you men good shooters?" Ollie proceeds to do the William Tell bit only using his revolver to shoot an apple off the head of his chum. Standing about 8 feet away from Stan, he so nervously jostles the gun that he misses him by a good 7 feet, destroying a bust.
Once they arrive at the house, they do nothing to actually protect the judge-they aren't staying in the same room with him and aren't guarding the doors or anything. The Slasher is about to slash the judge's throat from behind with a large knife he pulled out from inside his jacket-must have been a large pocket inside that butler's coat-but the wife came into the room, so he put the knife back inside the jacket.
Later, he is seen by the wife entering a bedroom with the large knife held in front of him so it could be seen first when he entered. She screamed but didn't seem to go to the aid of her husband. He was soaking in his bathtub, heard the scream, but did nothing but enjoy his soak.
When the wife screams a second time, the judge was lying in his bathtub, bathing, when he heard it. He got out and peeked through the keyhole and saw the Slasher, this time figuring out who it was. What did he do? Almost like a 3-year-old, he attempted to hide under the water in his own bath. The Slasher entered the room was standing no more than three feet from the judge in the tub, but never looked toward it. He spent his time looking toward the camera, with the tub to his right, as if to say, "Gee, I wonder where that judge went." He lingers there while the judge accidentally kicks the plug out with his foot and all the water drains. He is now lying in the empty tub and the Slasher is still standing three feet away, never even noticed the tub was draining. It would have been impossible for him at that distance to have glanced toward the tub and not seen the judge-with the tub full of water or not.
Meanwhile, in the bedroom, Ollie, Stan, and the missus are doing almost nothing. Stan checks his revolver just like he did at the detective office before they started this mission. Just like in there, as he snapped it back together, it fired a shot by accident. Both Mrs. Foozle and Stan panic and try to climb onto Ollie.
This is when I knew I had to write a review. This is where the stupidity level just sank too far below the surface for me to stomach. A man who sees an obvious shadow of himself and is scared-a few times, not just for an instant-that's one. Ollie unable to get his hat back, when he could just take it off Stan's head and put it on while Stan is holding his own hat-that's two. The judge thinking the killer won't see him under the water in a bathtub-that's three AND four it's so dumb! But the killer standing just three feet from the tub and not looking into it-Check, please!
We go on with more nonsense, including Stan putting handcuffs on Ollie while he was wrestling with the Slasher, and later locking the Slasher inside a closet without noticing Ollie is hiding in that closet, but the killer is finally subdued.
I really do like many of Laurel & Hardy's films, and much enjoy many other silent stars, most notably Buster Keaton. But this one was so utterly stupid from beginning to end that I just couldn't stomach it. I see others have written that they enjoyed it. Good for those that could. To me, it cannot be scored higher than a one out of ten.
Decent Laurel and Hardy Short
Michael_Elliott18 April 2016
Do Detectives Think? (1927)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
A judge (James Finlayson) sentences a man to prison and the psycho swears vengeance on him. Soon afterwards the man escapes from prison so the judge hires two detectives (Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy) to protect him.
DO DETECTIVES THINK? isn't going to be mistaken for a classic or even one of the better Laurel and Hardy films but fans of the duo will find enough laughs here to make the film worth viewing. The biggest problem with this two-reeler is that there are several scenes that get dragged out and there just aren't any laughs there. One such example is a scene where Laurel and Hardy keep getting their hats mixed up. The gag doesn't work the first time and it works even less the fifth time. With that said, there are some funny moments scattered throughout including the boys walking to the judge's house and constantly finding something to scare them. Findlayson is also very good as the judge and easily steals the film.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
A judge (James Finlayson) sentences a man to prison and the psycho swears vengeance on him. Soon afterwards the man escapes from prison so the judge hires two detectives (Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy) to protect him.
DO DETECTIVES THINK? isn't going to be mistaken for a classic or even one of the better Laurel and Hardy films but fans of the duo will find enough laughs here to make the film worth viewing. The biggest problem with this two-reeler is that there are several scenes that get dragged out and there just aren't any laughs there. One such example is a scene where Laurel and Hardy keep getting their hats mixed up. The gag doesn't work the first time and it works even less the fifth time. With that said, there are some funny moments scattered throughout including the boys walking to the judge's house and constantly finding something to scare them. Findlayson is also very good as the judge and easily steals the film.
Do Detectives Think?
Prismark1017 August 2021
Jimmy Finlayson is the Judge who sentences a psychotic killer to be hanged. However he escapes and comes looking for the Judge in his home, dressed as the new butler.
Laurel and Hardy are the detectives assigned to protect the Judge. Unfortunately they are two worse detectives in the world with Stan being the smarter one.
It is a shock to see just how less rotund Oliver Hardy is in this silent short. Regarded as the short that saw the famous duo forming their identity in their familiar hats and clothing.
The inept detectives are well served by James Finlayson and Noah Young as the murderer.
It is a combination of witty and clever sight gags, some technical filmmaking with silly fun and slapstick.
It is a good example of their early silent work as they develop their more familiar act.
Laurel and Hardy are the detectives assigned to protect the Judge. Unfortunately they are two worse detectives in the world with Stan being the smarter one.
It is a shock to see just how less rotund Oliver Hardy is in this silent short. Regarded as the short that saw the famous duo forming their identity in their familiar hats and clothing.
The inept detectives are well served by James Finlayson and Noah Young as the murderer.
It is a combination of witty and clever sight gags, some technical filmmaking with silly fun and slapstick.
It is a good example of their early silent work as they develop their more familiar act.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
