User Reviews

Everyone knows that Laurel & Hardy did their best work together in the '20's and '30's but this one is also an enjoyable Laurel & Hardy movie, that differs from their early work but is entertaining and fun in different ways.

It's not the sort of Laurel & Hardy movie with lots of slapstick in it, at least not the classic kind of. It's more the sort of comedy that relies on its writing and the comical situations and of course on the way Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy execute it all. They still haven't lost their touch in this movie and it provides the movie with a couple of great and fun moments. Nothing too classic or fancy, just some good old fashioned harmless clean entertainment that still serves its purpose very well.

Of course the story isn't much special and at times its also distracting from Laurel & Hardy's antics and it felt it was even holding them down at points but at least the movie has a good enough story, which can't be said about many other Laurel & Hardy flicks from the '40's.

The movie made me laugh more than the usual kind of comedy, for that reason alone already I must rate it higher than average.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

All the great movie comics made poor comedies in comparison to their best ones. For every THE BANK DICK and IT'S A GIFT, W.C.Fields did a MRS. WIGGS OF CABBAGE PATCH or ALICE IN WONDERLAND. For every DUCK SOUP and A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, the Marx Brothers did a LOVE HAPPY or a STORY OF MANKIND. Chaplin's MODERN TIMES and MONSIEUR VERDOUX is "balanced" by A KING IN NEW YORK and A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. Keaton's THE GENERAL and SHERLOCK JR. have the negatives of WHAT, NO BEER or BOOM IN THE MOON. For all of Abbott and Costello's THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES or BUCK PRIVATES, one has to look at DANCE WITH ME HENRY.

The same with Laurel & Hardy. Their last ten films, for M.G.M. and 20th Century Fox are dismissed. I think the reason is that these films lack the atmosphere built up by Hal Roach and his production staff. But what is forgotten is how often Roach and Laurel (the real creative half of the team) failed to agree on film production. SWISS MISS appears to have been butchered, in part, by Roach. There are probably other examples, particularly as Laurel wanted more expensive budgets on his films (such as the nightclub in OUR RELATIONS) while Roach constantly tried to clamp down on expenses.

When they joined MGM Laurel & Hardy were still quite popular, but the leading comic team of that moment (1941) was Universal's Abbott & Costello. Though similar in physical juxtaposition (thin Stan and Bud v. fat Ollie and Lou) the personalities were widely different. Stan was not a wise guy like Bud Abbott, and Ollie had more misplaced self-confidence than timid Lou Costello). But the films that were given to them were somewhat like those of Abbott & Costello. The latter's BUCK PRIVATES is mirrored in L & H's GREAT GUNS. It was like the MGM studio did not really know what to do with them - and probably that is true. Don't forget how Louis B. Mayer had little sympathy with comedians - witness his actions against the Marx Brothers and Buster Keaton. Why should Laurel & Hardy get any better treatment? The last ten films then have to be judged by this background of neglect. As such, one looks for whatever is positive in them. Sometimes it is surprising.

SPOILERS COMING UP The best moments in NOTHING BUT TROUBLE deal with Stan and Ollie trying to cook and serve their employers (Henry O'Neill and Mary Boland), and the conclusion with Philip Merivale's poisoning plot against his nephew. The business with Stan offering a saw to cut the piece of purloined steak is wonderful. But the business with Merivale is quite unique.

It is similar to the situation in the Marx Brothers' THE BIG STORE, where in the concluding chase in the store Douglas Dumbrille, the film's villain, starts taking over the comic punctuation of the sequence, and carries them off quite well (in fact, he takes over the film). Here Merivale does, in particular when the poisoned canapé is mixed up so thoroughly by the boys that Merivale does not know which important social/political/financial figure at the party is going to eat the poisoned piece. Momentarily he thinks it is Mary Boland, but it just appears she swallowed the wrong way. But Merivale goes through the tortures of the damned until the end of the sequence. And, as it turns out, there is a neat wrap up to the matter just before the film concludes.

It is sort of symptomatic to the trouble of Mayer's lack of concern approach with his pure humorist - he so did not care about the actual finished product, that he was willing to let the film's villains take over the comedy. It makes one appreciate Merrivale more, just like THE BIG STORE makes one regard Dumbrille more highly. But it really does not add much luster to L & H anymore than the other added to the reputations of the Marx Brothers.

Some very good comedy films have been made about butlers and maids. One of the all-time funniest is "Standing Room Only" of 1944, in which Fred MacMurray and Paulette Goddard have to take such jobs in wartime Washington, D. C. - just in order to have a place to sleep at night. Well, this Laurel and Hardy film picks up on that shortage of labor that existed during World War II, especially for domestic help in the nation's capital.

Stan is a butler and Ollie is a chef who specializes in Steak a' la Hardy. Of course, this is after the boys have tried their hand before the war at working in the restaurants of Europe. They have been summarily tossed out in several countries. There's always something said in whatever language it is, that's an unmistakable reference to Steak a' la Hardy.

Well, it's wartime when the boys are back home and in desperation go to the unemployment office. After some preliminary comedy that insults their future employers, the boys wind up working for Mrs. Elvira Hawkley. Mary Boland reinforces the Laurel and Hardy comedy in her role. A sub-plot with a young king displaced from a small European country during the war takes some of the time, and only adds a little humor toward then end.

Although this is in the later years of the duo, Stan and Ollie still have what it takes to make people laugh. It's not among their funniest, but still a good comedy. The long scene with people trying to cut into Ollie's masterpiece steak is a riot. It's harder than rubber. And, of course, Stan causes various mishaps at the table.

The boys clearly did their part during the war, with some comedy films to give people a laugh during a somber time. After the war they would make only one more film together as both ended their movie careers.

NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1944), directed by Sam Taylor, stars the comedy team of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in a movie title that best described their style of comedy - nothing but trouble. For their final feature for MGM, and on loan from their current home base of 20th Century-Fox, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE may not come close to the style of comedies the team did best while under Hal Roach/MGM in the 1930s, but at least it is a slight improvement over their recent disappointing comedies they were doing at that time. Compare to the Chevy Chase 1991 edition to NOTHING BUT TROUBLE, this Laurel and Hardy edition is a comedy masterpiece.

Combining two stories that would eventually come together as one, the opening starts with Laurel and Hardy with a prologue set during the Depression era of 1932 "when jobs were as hard to find as a girdle on a welder." Stanley and Oliver come to the Lorrison Employee Agency where they wait on long lines looking for employment as chef and butler. Without any luck, they come to the decision of going elsewhere, overseas as to France, Italy and Japan where Oliver attempts to showcase his steak a la Oliver, but with no success. Twelve years later, 1944, "where jobs were as easy to find as a girdle on a welder," Stan and Ollie return to the United States where their wait among the crowds at the Lorrison Employee Agency is no different as it was in 1932. They do, however, get hired by Mrs. Elvira Hawkley (Mary Boland), a society woman looking for a cook and a butler to help prepare dinner for a visiting king and his uncle. The second story focuses on Christopher (David Leland), a teenage boy king from Orlandra accompanied by his uncle, Prince Saul (Philip Merivale) visiting the United States. Chris, who would like nothing more than to be like any other boy his age by going out freely and playing football. He is unaware that his uncle is arranging to have him accidently killed off so to place the blame on his political opponent. While walking in the park with his secretary, Roentz (John Warburton), who is in on the assassination attempt, Chris unwittingly disappears to play football with the other boys. Because the team needs referees, Chris talks Laurel and Hardy, returning home with groceries, to assist in the game. Because Oliver forgot to buy the main course meal of steak, Chris helps the twosome obtain a great piece from a lion's cage at the zoo. Upon their return to the mansion where Oliver prepares his steak a la Oliver, he and Stan find Chris hiding in the kitchen. Following the dinner where Mrs. Harkley and her husband (Henry O'Neill) entertain Chris's uncle, Prince Saul, Mrs. Harkley discovers Chris running from under the table, mistaking him for a street urchin. Laurel and Hardy get fired when Mrs. Harkley find the boy associated with them. Further trouble lies ahead when Stan and Ollie are accused and arrested for Chris's abduction, and more trouble when they learn what Chris's uncle intends to do with the boy.

Others in the cast include: Matthew Boulton (Prince Prentiloff); Connie Gilchrist (Mrs. Flanagan); Robert Emmett O'Connor, Paul Porcasi, Robert E. Homans, Chester Clute and Joe Yule. Surprisingly, David Leland, in his only major role as the teenage boy king, and few movie roles to his credit, had died at the age of 16 in 1948. One wonders had he lived, would he had been MGM's answer to popular European imports as the British Freddie Bartholomew of the 1930s or 20th Century-Fox's Roddy McDowall of the 1940s.

Not quite up to the current comedies by Abbott and Costello, who make Laurel and Hardy seem to be a comedy team of the past, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is a typical mix of sentiment and humor in the MGM mode. NOTHING BUT TROUBLE includes some amusing bits such as Oliver's attempt in cutting the steak at the dinner table. The climatic window ledge sequence which comes reminiscent to the Harold Lloyd comedies of the 1920s, should have been a height of hilarity, but comes off forced and silly. Mary Boland is amusing as always, but one cannot help but wonder how that same role might have been pulled off had the deadpan Margaret Dumont, a popular foil in Marx Brothers comedies, been handled. For its 70 minutes, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is often accepted as one of Stan and Ollie's finer comedies of the 1940s, especially by devotees of their work. (** steaks)

Nothing But Trouble (1944)

** (out of 4)

Laurel and Hardy meet a young boy and soon they discover that he's really a King. The duo must protect the boy from a few people trying to kill him. Once again, I had heard this was a pretty bad film but while it's miles from Hal Roach material, the film contains a few laughs and has a little charm to it. It's too bad Warner isn't including this in their upcoming set but my recording from TCM, which seemed to be remastered, will do just fine. The best moment takes place in a zoo where L&H must try and steal a streak away from a lion. Another nice moment is when Laurel is trying to ref a football game. Most of the gags are lazy and fall on their face but the film is a decent time killer.

It's 1932 and everybody is looking for a job. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy come from a long line of performers. They can't find a job and head to Europe. It's 1944 and they head back to America. Now, jobs are everywhere and there's no one to fill them. They get hired by wealthy socialite Mrs. Hawkley. She is hosting a dinner for the young ruler of Orlandia, Christopher, who only wishes to try American football.

Laurel and Hardy have a few good laughs like cutting the meat. It spends too much time with the boy. I'd rather spend that time with Laurel and Hardy. For example, they should have more fun in jail. The movie simply needs more jokes and more of the legendary comedy duo.

Nothing But Trouble, one of Laurel&Hardy's last comedies relies more on the well known characters they've created as opposed to Hal Roach like gags. It's not a bad film, but I fear disappointing to their fans then and now.

Even in wartime America Stan and Ollie just can't find work. But a desperate Mary Boland in a typical rich empty headed dowager hires the two of them as cook and butler. Needless to say they're not real good at these jobs like all the others they've tried over the years in short subject and feature length movies. Boland and her husband Henry O'Neill regret it before the film is over.

But the boys also meet young David Leland who is an exiled king from some Ruritanian Balkan country that Mr. Hitler has overrun. Even in exile the young king has enemies.

Best part of the film is when the boys try to serve Ollie's favorite specialty Beef Oliver as he names it. It's quite a slab of meat and most under cooked. They bring in a cross cut saw to try and slice it up.

I wish there were more moments like these.

On my nineteenth birthday I went to the movies to see BENCHWARMERS, which was decent but I feel that it had too many gross out moments. It is interesting to see that when a comedian is in decline they turn towards the children audience that's what happen with David Spade and Rob Schneider and also Abbott & Costello. This goes the same with Laurel and Hardy. I taped this movie off of TCM and I watched it later on and I found this was a lot more funny and lot more heart than say, BIG DADDY. To me they are the only comedians to have been so cuddley they could've been dolls. The movie is a mix of THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER and THE KID. The boys are hired as chefs for a social woman who is planning a dinner for a king. The king is a boy who dreams to be a football player and runs off to pretend he's ordinary and he runs into Stan and Ollie. His uncle wants him dispose and hires Stan and Ollie to put them on a murder rap for the king. This is very funny movie highlights include the boys referring a boys football game and Stan stealing a steak from a lion. The sentiment of the film works best for them because it makes you feel more close to them then ever. Most L&H fans dislike the movie but since I don't have a chance to see all their films are out of availibility, I think its their best work.

Icons that Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were, their works often represented a lighter, gentler variety of the same gags, physical humor, situational comedy, and clever dialogue as contemporaries like Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, or The Three Stooges. Not all their films were necessarily equal, but in the very least a viewer can generally be assured of getting warm smiles if not hearty laughs. 'Nothing but trouble,' a title from the latter days of the duo's cinematic stardom, definitely falls on the softer side of the spectrum. It's amusing, but only much more infrequently does it elicit the desired reactions; there are also times when tinges of an unfavorable mean streak rear their head. It remains an enjoyable classic, though compared to the likes of 'Saps at sea' or 'Pack up your troubles' simply doesn't stand as tall.

Be it a question of the writing or, more likely, Sam Taylor's direction, there are also instances when the pacing and comedic timing is slightly too lax. Between that and how comparatively few the laughs are, I wonder if at times the humor doesn't come off as altogether forced. Still, the heart of the pair's movies was in the chemistry that Laurel and Hardy shared, and even at their weakest moments the dynamics between the two are a reliable constant. At its best this is still wonderfully fun, with the greatest strength coming in the second half, and one just wishes that the material itself boasted more vitality.

In this instance I don't think the supporting cast stands out as much, though by all means they do their job to help bring the picture to life. Those behind the scenes still turned in fine work, including the sets and costume design not least. Overall the feature remains better than not, and worth checking out - but I don't think there's much arguing that it's a lesser creation from the legends, and one that's less noteworthy among their oeuvre. Leave this as something light to watch on a quiet day, and that may be the best means of appreciating the less robust entertainment it offers. Don't go out of your way for 'Nothing but trouble,' and there are other titles from Laurel and Hardy that you should prioritize, but one way or another this is duly deserving.

Nothing But Trouble, like most of the films Laurel and Hardy made for MGM and Fox at the end of their career, is really sad to watch. For fans familiar with their earlier work, it is depressing to see them half-heartedly reworking their earlier material. It is unfortunate that these weak films from the end of their career are among their most frequently found video titles. Younger people picking up Nothing But Trouble off the video rack may never realize what they are missing.

This was the second of the M-G-M-produced films that Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy starred in and their last. Coming from a long line of servants, they struggle to find jobs in 1932 in America so they then go to other countries with no success before returning in 1944 and suddenly finding lots of openings. Eventually, dowager Mary Boland desperately hires them as butler and cook. If you're familiar with those two, you know that can't go well. Anyway, after buying their food, they encounter a young teen boy (David Leland) who, unbeknownst to them, is a king from another country who wants desperately to play football with other boys so they agree to referee the game for a short while. I'll stop there and just say that while some lines and gags aren't totally suitable for the boys, they perform them well enough for some good chuckles throughout. My favorite sequence was a mixed food sequence that recalled their mixed hats one from other films of theirs, this time with one of those having some kind of poison. Their scenes with Ms. Boland are amusing enough and Leland provides some good warmth between him, Stan, and Ollie. The director was Sam Taylor who previously worked with Harold Lloyd which would explain why the climatic high rise sequence works well for both thrills and comedy. In summary, Nothing But Trouble isn't a great comedy but is pretty good much of the time. So now that I just reviewed L & H's second M-G-M film, I'll next review Abbott & Costello's second for that same studio, Lost in a Harem.

The ten films Laurel and Hardy made after parting company with Hal Roach have an atrocious reputation, though this is probably better than most. It's never very funny, but it at least feels like a Stan and Ollie picture on occasion.

Yet it's amazing how undignified some of the scenes are for the boys. Seeing Stan and Ollie degrading themselves by getting stomped on by children, or Ollie on all fours impersonating a lion, is excruciating to watch. Also of note in the two MGM movies is how Americanised Stan's speech is. Did Cumbrian-born Stan always utter things like "gee", "swell" and "ain't"?

What also puzzles is how the post-Roach pictures not only misunderstood what made Laurel and Hardy funny, but also their basic nature. I've always thought of the duo as humanitarians, yet here they turn away a young boy who tells them that he's being beaten by his uncle. Okay, they later rescind on the decision and go completely the opposite way into pure sentimentality, but it still worries.

The plot (which overshadows Stan and Ollie's involvement at times) is unusually macabre; a tale of intended infanticide for political gain. However, David Leland does bring a lot of enthusiasm to his role as the boy king, and the scene where Stan argues unknowingly over poisoned food is amusing.

On the negative side, the back projection used in the film betrays its budget, and some of the dialogue – "Stanley, at times you're most trying" "Well you can't blame me for trying" – seems a self-conscious, For Love Or Mummy-style attempt to emulate past glories. Yet even though the movie is proficiently made but not very funny, I did crack up at the suicide scene. Okay, so Harold Lloyd could have sued (It turns out director Sam Taylor worked on eight Lloyd movies, including the obviously sampled Safety Last), but this one bit of nonsense did work for me, and almost brings the film's standing up to a level of mediocrity. Almost.

always had a fondness for this picture..not sure why. this time the lovable but confused pair protect a young boy (boy King, well played by David Leland).

they are moderately successful cook and server this time, managing to get a good gig with a rich couple, who not only welcome the boys but the boy.

on the way to the first big meal Stan and Ollie coach some young footballers, one an add-on, the boy king, absolutely obsessed with American football. then they successfully grab a steak away from a lion at a zoo. pleasant stuff, well done. (not so for the steak...). on a roll, they sneak the kid in to the mansion.

then..can U believe it, some funny business ensues! check it out! so far so (pretty) good...but quickly the film slips. a lot of unpleasant, inappropriate, nightmarish junk about an Uncle's attempt to kill the child.

their most sentimental film has a way of getting to you. but it's the kind of L & H you have to be in the mood for. 99% of their career is good for any time of day.

This latter-day Laurel & Hardy vehicle finds the legendary comedy duo in fine form, as Stan & Ollie play guys who desire employment as a butler & chef (respectively). They make the acquaintance of a boy (David Leland) who is actually the youthful ruler of a fictional country, although his big dream is to play football for Notre Dame. Stan, Ollie, and the boy king all find themselves in peril due to the machinations of the kings' scheming uncle (Philip Merivale).

"Nothing But Trouble" concentrates more on farcical situations rather than slapstick, and it's overall nothing that delivers true belly laughs. But the stars still make it engaging and enjoyably silly, especially in scenes like the one where Ollie is trying to cut through a persistently tough "Steak a la Oliver", has no luck...and Stan gets him a saw!

Directed by Sam Taylor ("Safety Last!"), this drags a little in scenes not featuring the stars, but it generates enough good-natured chuckles to make it a good time. It also leads to a hair-raising climax with a long drop in front of our heroes. And the supporting cast (Leland, Merivale, Mary Boland, Henry O'Neill, and John Warburton) serves Stan & Ollie well.

My favorite bit: Stan having to be prodded to practice proper serving etiquette.

Six out of 10.

This film is not even on par with any of the films they did for Hal Roach that were considered "not too good" such as "Swiss Miss" or "Pick A Star". Consider the times and the studio the boys were working at. First, this was made during the heyday of such comics as Abbott & Costello and the Hope/Crosby road pictures, where practically everything was based upon snappy dialog and wisecracks, not premise and development of a single gag or joke. Laurel & Hardy's method was to be methodical in their approach to humor and not just "whizz bang" type of running around, which in the long run is actually totally forgettable. Secondly, as the Marx Brothers had already realized early on after the untimely death of Irving Thalberg, their only support at MGM, Louis B. Mayer had absolutely no sense of humor and certainly didn't appreciate great comedians. Hence one of the main reasons Buster Keaton ended his days at MGM working as a "gag writer" for $200 a week and why the Our Gang series became a venue for maudlin "morality" plays. What else could anyone expect when Laurel & Hardy would have to work in such a comedic stifling environment? It's a wonder that they were able to get anything accomplished with a bunch of deadheads checking their every word and action in a script that was hopeless to begin with. It certainly answers the question as to why very early on Chaplin maintained absolute sole control over his own career. "Nothing But Trouble" has its moments but they are too few and far between. There isn't even the usual background music used as in their early shorts for Roach, which emphasizes the action taking place. Fow example at the end where our heroes are dangling on the ledge of a building ala Harlod Lloyd, there's only dead silence where appropriate music could have really added to the comedy and tension of the scene. My advice? Watch this one first then go back about ten years and watch something like the boy's "Sons of the Desert" from 1933 and really start laughing at the real Laurel & Hardy. Nothing beats a vintage L&H film.

The second and last of Laurel & Hardy's MGM wartime comedies,NOTHING BUT TROUBLE sadly suffers from the similar faults that plagued AIR RAID WARDENS a year earlier.There are elements of the plot which are perhaps unconsciously reworked from far superior Hal Roach efforts,such as PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES (Stan and Ollie shielding a child) and A CHUMP AT OXFORD (swanky dinner parties),but this is often sabotaged by sluggish pacing and some overly excessive pathos which seems totally alien to the L & H style of humour.Like the previous AIR RAID WARDENS,Stan and Ollie again come out with some uncharacteristic,self-pitying dialogue accusing themselves of being 'failures',attiudes which would have never seen the light of day in their Roach films.The all-round comic genius of Stan Laurel was ignored as all their post-1940 features and prevented from improving a script which most certainly would have needed his personal embellishment.Stan himself looks pretty unhappy and dispirited in the film as a result,as does Babe Hardy.

The production does not look as glossy as the previous AIR RAID WARDENS,but it's pleasing to see one or two characteristic L & H moments abound (Ollie even says 'Here's another nice mess...' to Stan at one point),but they are somewhat fleeting.Mary Boland,an actress who specialised in fluttery society matrons,actually provides the most amusement in the film's most assured performance,but Sam Taylor,a capable comedy writer/director,struggles with the uninspired, hackneyed material on offer,like stealing steak from a lion's cage and a rowdy football game.The aforementioned scene seems a partial reworking in material from THE FRESHMAN,a silent classic starring Harold Lloyd,a performer Taylor frequently collaborated with.It doesn't work especially well (with the ageing,unathletic L & H looking rather uncomfortable),as does the high-rise building climax which seems a borrowing from another Lloyd classic,SAFETY LAST,made somewhat obvious by background projection.A rather glum sub-plot of an evil royal uncle trying to kill off his young nephew king further reduces opportunities for fun,and this takes up far too much footage.The black comedy elements in L & H films worked very well when executed in an appropriate context;it doesn't work here because of the weak storyline and material.One last point;Eddie Dunn,an occasional foil for the comedians at Roach,appears as a cop in the flophouse sequence,but this is all too brief and only very slightly,like the whole film,recalls their glory days at Hal Roach Studios.

This was one of Laurel and Hardy's last films. And, while it is not an unpleasant movie, it is so unlike their earlier films and so unlike the traditional formula that it is a very sad movie to watch. Dunderheads at 20th Century Fox and MGM insisted on messing with the Hal Roach approach to filming the guys and the result just aren't very funny or engaging in their post-Hal Roach Studio films. In this film, you see two tired, sickly and unfunny old men instead of comic geniuses. For most fans of the duo, they would have preferred the boys just retired after Saps at Sea, as it was all WAY downhill from there. It's just sad--very very painful and sad to watch Stan and Ollie playing nursemaid to a runaway Prince. Plus, with not a single effective gag, it's pretty tedious and ineffectual as a comedy. Fortunately, their next film, THE BULLFIGHTERS, was a bit better.

By the way, this isn't the team's worst 1940s outing--that would definitely be THE BIG NOISE. However, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE certainly is pretty close as is THE DANCING MASTERS. MGM should have been ashamed of themselves for this turkey.

I first saw this Laurel and Hardy misfire some 10 years back. It stank then, and it still did now in a recent fresh viewing. Here, Stan and Ollie are looking for work as an unemployed butler and cook. They wind up being hired by a rich woman where Hardy cooks his famous "steak a la Oliver" (the name of that delicacy is the funniest thing about this) and nothing much happens in the bargain. The pair also get involved with a King who happens to be a young boy who is hell bent on breaking free of the confines of royalty by playing football with street kids and also tagging along with L&H (reminded me of the rich kid from Our Gang's "Honkey Donkey" short). There's also a plot to murder the boy (ha ha ha).

This is mostly quite a painfully unfunny film save for one or two quickly forgettable moments, and the worst reason it rates low for me is because it's way too wholesome and sweetened, with Stan and Ollie's characters really speaking and acting nothing like their classic screen persona's as they try to be guardians to the young King. The worst case here is poor Stan Laurel who comes off normal and not at all like his typical dimwitted or childlike character throughout most of this movie. Also hurting this "comedy" is that too much time is spent on the boy instead of the comedians. Fans are always talking about how bad Laurel & Hardy's 1940's movies are, and having seen them all now I can disagree strongly in favor of the 6 Fox films, and maybe even MGM's AIR RAID WARDENS. But there's no doubt for me that NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is pretty bad, and it takes the crown as what I'd call "worst Laurel and Hardy film". I even thought UTOPIA (their final movie) had more laughs. *1/2 out of ****

Most of the infamous, studio-controlled, 1940s output of Laurel and Hardy has been raked over the coals with some regularity and for very good reason. While some laughs can be found in some of those weaker films, "Nothing But Trouble" (even above "A Haunting We Will Go",in my humble opinion)seems to be almost completely devoid of laughs and for this Laurel and Hardy fan, amounts to the nadir of that depressing era for the team. This film actually becomes truly depressing as it slogs along. It is just awful, even as a curiosity.

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