Nothing But Trouble (1944)

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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.

The 1940s saw the decline of what were once the greatest comedy pairing in history, as they were placed in the hands of people who obviously had no idea what had previously made them so funny. It is fair to say that Laurel and Hardy were getting too old for slapstick comedy, had to rely more on verbal humour. That shouldn't be too much of a problem, unless of course the verbal humour is rubbish. The duo were given a script and told to stick to it, were not allowed any input into it. That, I think, was a fatal flaw, as L & H had always been great comedy innovators. Indeed, they would turn up at conventions and have audiences in fits with improvised-on-the-spot material. This film involves the duo finding employment as servants for a boy who, it turns out, is royalty. Problems lie with the stodgy, slow-moving script, the hit-and-miss gags and the fact L & H are just not allowed to play the characters that made them famous. There's the occasional laugh, and this film never goes down to the level of today's lesser 'comedy' films by relying on gratuitous swearing, sexual innuendo and the like (compared to trash like 'Kevin & Perry go Large this film is a masterpiece) but really the script could have been written with anybody in mind.

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.

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.