I first saw NOTHING BUT TROUBLE a few years ago. At the time, I thought it was an OK film and didn’t really understand why it was so hated by Laurel and Hardy fans. However, at the time I also hadn’t seen the majority of their Roach work and, though I enjoyed the few that I had seen, I was not as interested in their work as I am now. Now, having seen all of their work with Roach, truly appreciating their best work, and having seen the problems with AIR RAID WARDENS, I find that NOTHING BUT TROUBLE...is an OK film, and I don’t really understand why it’s so hated by Laurel and Hardy fans.
Well, OK, obviously it’s a post-Roach film, but what about this film necessarily makes it worse than some of the other post-Roach films? Is it the comedy? Well, it’s not perfect, but it isn’t taken up by tons of recycled material that was done better by them at the Roach studios. Is it the supporting cast? Again, not perfect, but for a 1940s comedy not at the Roach lot, they’re passable. Is it the self-pitying? While there is a fair amount of it, it does make a lot more sense here thanks to the sentimental tone of the story.
Speaking of the story, let’s talk about that. I must admit (while waiting for the pitchforks to come out) that I actually like this story. The tone is very different, but like I said in my JITTERBUGS review, I don’t think different is always a bad thing. The idea of Laurel and Hardy meeting royalty is nothing new; we’ve seen it before in THE BOHEMIAN GIRL. Don’t get me wrong, THE BOHEMIAN GIRL is still a better movie than this, but having Laurel and Hardy come into this situation isn’t necessarily an unbelievable one. I do think their friendship with the king actually is convincing...for the most part. The part where they send him home, despite him claiming that his uncle beats him, did seem pretty out of character for them, even if they do feel bad about it later. Still, I thought that the story was interesting and the portion at the mission especially gives it some emotional weight. Yeah, they do deem themselves unworthy in his presence...but, come on, high society has always looked down on them, even at Roach. It does seem understandable. They even have the kid playing a part in some of the comedy.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the comedy in this movie is not perfect. The scene with the lion is indeed not a very good one, and it seems like Laurel and Hardy are treated here more as simple idiots than usual. But I still like a good portion of the comedy. I enjoyed watching the football scene mainly to see Stan. He has to keep getting away from the action and his movements throughout this scene are very entertaining to watch. I also really did like the portion with Stan trying to serve the meals. Even the opening, though a bit reminiscent of the AIR RAID WARDENS opening, is still fun to watch thanks to Stan’s reaction to getting yelled at by the French boss, and not understanding what he said. The steak scene is fun at first, though it does go on a bit too long.
Really, I don’t see any Keaton touches in here. Apparently he did come up with a Keaton-style climax, but it was discarded in favor of the more Harold Lloyd-style climax seen in the finished film (the director, Sam Taylor, also co-directed SAFETY LAST!). As seen here, the climax is fine; the prince being poisoned does seem pretty out of place, though.
The supporting cast is fine enough in their roles. Mary Boland fits the role of the wealthy woman trying to impress the king. David Leland is fine, although he’s mainly limited to reaction shots towards the end. Philip Merivale is a pretty boring villain, though.
Maybe it’s just because I’m a sucker for sentimentality, but I found myself somewhat entertained by this film and thought the sentimentality, though not done as well as in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, worked fine. It’s not a Laurel and Hardy classic, but I don’t think NOTHING BUT TROUBLE is nearly as bad as it’s usually made out to be.
7 out of 10
