Topic: Great Guns (1941) - Laurel and Hardy

[metaldams]

http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_244.html
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/greatguns.html

      Before the review proper, there is a YouTube link above that’s over two hours.  My DVD copy is 83 minutes, so I have no clue what’s padded in the video above.  Anyway, the Fox films are all on DVD and I believe Blu-Ray and while entertainment wise they are not better than the Roach films, restoration wise, this is as pristine as you will ever see Laurel and Hardy look plus they come with good audio commentaries.  Now onto the review.
     
      Penelope, I don’t think we’re at Roach anymore.  Welcome to the Fox years and the first feature, GREAT GUNS.  OK, so bottom line, it’s true, this film is weaker than even the weakest Roach era feature.  The comic highlights include a slight running gag where one comedian holds a drink, the other asks for the time, and the comedian holding the drink spills said drink while looking at his watch.  There is a pretty cool Stan gag with a light bulb turning it on and off at will no matter where it’s plugged.  This gives an exasperated Ollie a good chance to emote to the audience and fits into the same genre of gag as the window shade/shadow gag in BLOCK-HEADS.  Finally, three times later in the film, there is a variation of Stan carrying a long board across the screen and appearing at both ends of the board like in THE FINISHING TOUCH.  All fine middle of the road gags worthy of a good Roach feature, but pretty sad when they serve as the comic peaks.

      Earlier in the film, Stan gets a draft notice that his pet raven takes away.  The scene cuts as the raven is flying away.  According to the audio commentary, there was supposed to be a scene where Stan and Ollie are up in a tree trying to fetch the draft notice from the raven and I could see comic potential there.  Too bad that had to be cut and not some other scenes.

      Abbott and Costello made a very successful army comedy that we just reviewed called BUCK PRIVATES.  GREAT GUNS does borrow, having military maneuvers at the end and also includes a love triangle of sorts, though not as developed as BUCK PRIVATES.  The Andrews Sisters really livened up BUCK PRIVATES as well and a similar presence would have been great here.  I’m not usually one for music in these things, but on the plus side, at least there are no sappy musical numbers either, in fact, there are none at all.  We also get a military maneuver scene as the finale in both films and I can do without either version.  One thing in GREAT GUNS favor in that respect is at least the comedians have some involvement in their version of the scene.

      Character wise, the main problem with a Stan and Ollie is they are very subservient and overprotective of their “master.”  The young guy they protect it turns out doesn’t need their protection and their interfering nature hits a low point when they pose as the leading man’s financial advisors trying to convince the female love interest he’s broke and unhealthy.  Sheila Ryan does a good job playing faux melodramatic here, it’s just a shame it was written for a scene so wrong for Stan and Ollie’s characters.

      People of interest.  Director Monty Banks was actually a silent film comedian in his own right.  Writer Lou Breslow was the director of PUNCH DRUNKS from you know who.  His writing career much more prolific than directing.  Already mentioned Sheila Ryan was the leading lady in the Stooge film GOLD RAIDERS.  Blink and you’ll miss him, but be on the lookout for Whitey from the Bowery Boys in the horse scene.  Finally, one of the aunts was played Mae Marsh.  In the mid teens she played major roles in BIRTH OF A NATION and INTOLERANCE, being especially good in the latter.  It’s funny how these big silent stars get relegated to small character roles in talkies, Henry B. Walthall was another. In the past I mentioned Walter Long as “Gus,” in BIRTH OF A NATION.  In that infamous scene, Mae Marsh is the one who runs away and jumps off the cliff.  So if you ever watch that controversial scene, just think, they both acted with Laurel and Hardy.

      If taken as a standard b film in a world where we have no other reference to these Laurel and Hardy guys, GREAT GUNS is passable entertainment.  As a Laurel and Hardy film, they’ve done better, much better.  I remember even the Fox series improving as it went along.  We shall see how good my memory is in the coming weeks.

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

     First "uh oh " moment is the first moment we see Stan messing with the garden hose and he never once squirts himself.  In the old days there wouldn't have been a dry square inch in sight.
     This is actually better than I thought it was going to be, though.  It's hard to say that L & H are only comedy relief, they're fairly well integrated into the story, yet they do have some decent sequences, mainly pratfalls and walking into walls, but well done, especially by two fifty-year-olds.  Hardy is still a hoss,  many of his falls and crawls are obviously him, and despite all the fat-shaming jokes, which aren't funny anymore, he's in there pitching.
     No comedy tours de force, unfortunately, aside from the crow down the pants, which goes nowhere.  Penelope, incidentally, is also a trouper.  If I tried one of those moves with one of my cats,  she'd bite my finger up to the shoulder.  Watching Ollie try to deal with the crow down his pants, I see him doing some of Curly's schtick,  very like the climax of Saps at Sea.  Hardy at times is definitely rougher on Laurel.  A couple of times he really whomps on Stan.  And Stan has no big comedy scenes at all, really, not even a piece of wax fruit.
     Their make-up is definitely more realistic, especially compared to parts of Flying Deuces.  Again, I'm all right with it, they certainly don't look pruned-out and elderly, not yet anyway.
     In a nutshell, it's just not funny enough.  It's like the last draft before the final polish.  The polish, the magic, never arrives.

[metaldams]

     First "uh oh " moment is the first moment we see Stan messing with the garden hose and he never once squirts himself.  In the old days there wouldn't have been a dry square inch in sight.
     This is actually better than I thought it was going to be, though.  It's hard to say that L & H are only comedy relief, they're fairly well integrated into the story, yet they do have some decent sequences, mainly pratfalls and walking into walls, but well done, especially by two fifty-year-olds.  Hardy is still a hoss,  many of his falls and crawls are obviously him, and despite all the fat-shaming jokes, which aren't funny anymore, he's in there pitching.
     No comedy tours de force, unfortunately, aside from the crow down the pants, which goes nowhere.  Penelope, incidentally, is also a trouper.  If I tried one of those moves with one of my cats,  she'd bite my finger up to the shoulder.  Watching Ollie try to deal with the crow down his pants, I see him doing some of Curly's schtick,  very like the climax of Saps at Sea.  Hardy at times is definitely rougher on Laurel.  A couple of times he really whomps on Stan.  And Stan has no big comedy scenes at all, really, not even a piece of wax fruit.
     Their make-up is definitely more realistic, especially compared to parts of Flying Deuces.  Again, I'm all right with it, they certainly don't look pruned-out and elderly, not yet anyway.
     In a nutshell, it's just not funny enough.  It's like the last draft before the final polish.  The polish, the magic, never arrives.

I agree with the make up comment.  A lot of people make a big deal that without the clown white they look older at Fox, but it doesn’t bother me either.  Yes, the fat shaming jokes stand out and never happened at Roach.

My memory is the Fox films do get better and the two MGM films are bad.  We shall see.  I watched the commentary for A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO last night and it was stated Stan slowly regained some level of control by the third Fox film (of six) and had a lot of control by the last. 

[Umbrella Sam]

Well, it certainly was better than I expected it was going to be. I’d probably put it on the same level as their weakest Roach film, SWISS MISS (although SWISS MISS is a little funnier than GREAT GUNS, it does have a more frustrating story).

Starting with Stan and Ollie’s characters, from the outset there does seem to be something off about them. There are moments where they feel like generic dumb guys rather than the Laurel and Hardy characters. Thankfully, it’s not throughout the whole film. We’ve still got some of the minor touches like Hardy always insisting he enter a room before Laurel, and there does seem to be a genuine effort by the writer to try to capture the Laurel and Hardy style, which is more than can be said for most of Buster Keaton’s MGM features.

There still are some funny moments. The reused board gag from THE FINISHING TOUCH, Laurel and Hardy spilling the drinks. As dumb as it sounds, I even found the gag with Hardy having the raven stuffed in his pants to be kind of amusing. Overall, the effort shows through, but the lack of awareness from the writer also tends to shine through. The fat shaming jokes do go way too far here. The Roach studio occasionally did these kinds of jokes (the “overstuffed pollywog” comment from BLOCK-HEADS comes to mind), but never to this extent. Even the female lead makes fun of Hardy’s weight!

The romantic interests are more likable than the leads in SWISS MISS and BUCK PRIVATES, though they’re still pretty dull. Dick Nelson was not a regular leading man. He was a cartoon voice actor, and a good one (listen to his Edward G. Robinson imitation in RACKETEER RABBIT, it’s pretty funny). Here, though, he seems out of place and mainly resorts to just smiling and laughing at Laurel and Hardy’s actions. Sheila Ryan does a little better, thanks to her faux melodramatic scene, but otherwise doesn’t get to do a whole lot, and like metaldams said, that scene is frustrating for how Laurel and Hardy’s characters are written.

Besides the sergeant, who has a really whiny voice, the rest of the supporting cast isn’t bad, but there aren’t any memorable standouts unlike the Roach films. Really, this logic could be applied to the film as a whole. It’s a decent B comedy, and if we weren’t comparing it to most of the Roach films, it wouldn’t appear all that bad. The best Roach comedies were on a different level and besides SWISS MISS (in which Laurel and Hardy also sometimes tend to feel out of character), even the weaker ones at least benefitted from such a likable format. So, yeah, GREAT GUNS is a bit of a disappointment, but at least judging from this, I would have to agree that the post-Roach hatred seems to be blown a little out of proportion.

6 out of 10

[metaldams]

I’m sensing a general theme - better than expected.  I’m glad I’m not alone and like I said, should be even more apparent as the series goes on.

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

The actor who plays the colonel is Russel Hicks, who also played the con man who sells Egbert Souse the beefsteak mine in The Bank Dick.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Hampered by material better suited to Abbott and Costello, the decline of Laurel and Hardy began with this badly conceived 1941 comedy — a sad comedown from the Hal Roach days. The Boys try their best to redeem "Great Guns," but it's a losing battle. Stan and Ollie's lack of creative input is woefully apparent.

4/10

[HomokHarcos]

When watching this movie it was clear that 20th Century Fox made it to cash in on Buck Private's popularity. In 1941 Abbott and Costello are now the most popular comedy duo. I do think Laurel and Hardy are integrated in the plot better than Abbott and Costello were in Buck Privates, as they help their side win in the army game. My favorite part was when they were involved in the target practice and everybody was shooting guns at them. They are clueless throughout the whole movie in that their friend wants to join the army but they keep stopping him.

[metaldams]

When watching this movie it was clear that 20th Century Fox made it to cash in on Buck Private's popularity. In 1941 Abbott and Costello are now the most popular comedy duo. I do think Laurel and Hardy are integrated in the plot better than Abbott and Costello were in Buck Privates, as they help their side win in the army game. My favorite part was when they were involved in the target practice and everybody was shooting guns at them. They are clueless throughout the whole movie in that their friend wants to join the army but they keep stopping him.

I enjoy reading your comments.  Since you’re almost at the end of Laurel and Hardy, anybody you’re going to comment on next?

[HomokHarcos]

I enjoy reading your comments.  Since you%u2019re almost at the end of Laurel and Hardy, anybody you%u2019re going to comment on next?

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that! It's either the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello next.

[GenoCuddy]

Late last year, I undertook a project where I watched and reviewed all of Laurel and Hardy's American post-Roach product.

Here is my review of Great Guns.

I quite enjoyed GREAT GUNS and thought it to be a decent "B" movie comedy, it was after all produced by Fox's "B" movie maven Sol Wurtzel and the boys still seem fresh.

There are three standout sequences in the film, for me and those are a hilarious bit where Stan hides Penelope in Ollie's trousers leading Ollie to contort his round frame and let out those wonderful trademark Oliver Hardy grunts, the single laugh out loud moment in the movie, another highlight is when Stan is shaving in the dark and places a lit lightbulb in his mouth to see what he's doing proving once again that Stan Laurel is a man of mystical, magical qualities. Lastly, the sequence where the boys hitch a ride back to base on a traveling
target in a shooting range, mistaking the sound of a gun blast to that of a woodpecker is hilarious.

The secondary performers, MacDonald, Nelson and Ryan acquit themselves nicely and Ryan is extremely easy on the eyes, giving
Laurel and Hardy another in a long line of attractive female costars. My one gripe is why is there a huge source of light in the darkroom, I know it's a movie and there has to be some light, but as a former photography student, I'm nitpicking.

Though some see this film as a pale imitation of the earlier 1941 release, the Abbott and Costello army comedy BUCK PRIVATES, the viewer should be informed that Lou Costello consulted Stan Laurel during the production of BUCK PRIVATES, so perhaps Laurel wanted to use similar gags for his film as well. All in all, GREAT GUNS is a decent timewaster, and I enjoy it on its own merits. It may not be a ribald comedy like WAY OUT WEST, but it does have a lot going for it, and any film with Laurel and Hardy cannot be all bad [except say, the complete cut of ATOLL K]. I enjoy the 20th Century Fox comedies that Stan and
Babe made and they must've liked the experience on GREAT GUNS, since they made five more movies for Fox.

[NoahYoung]

Yes, the fat shaming jokes stand out and never happened at Roach.

Yes it did. In BLOCK-HEADS, Finlayson calls him "an over-stuffed pollywog," and an "inflated blimp."

[NoahYoung]

...they must've liked the experience on GREAT GUNS, since they made five more movies for Fox.

Not necessarily. I've worked at jobs I hated. At the end of the day, bills need to be paid, you need a roof over ur head, and you need to eat.
 

While not a good comedy, GREAT GUNS is slickly made, and has decent production values, and doesn't exude the lazy tiredness of some of the Fox films, and both M-G-Ms. It moves along at a good pace, and at any minute you expect it to come alive -- but it never does.

From the outset, it shouts "We're in he '40s now." A CHUMP AT OXFORD and SAPS AT SEA shout, "We're actually still in the '30s." With a little more thought, pictures like this could have been much better. But they still made money, which was all that mattered to the studios.