Purely Joyful Movie!

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

In 1932, when jobs were as hard to find as a girdle on a welder (so the narration says), Laurel and Hardy went to Europe to find work. They return years later during World War II (when jobs were as easy to find as a girdle on a welder). They return to the same agency where they had previously been unable to find a job to find potential employers now in line where potential employers were. In a scene that could have been expanded for some funny bits with the society matrons desperate to have a chef and butler, they meet desperate Mary Boland who immediately takes them home and spoils them with the determination to keep him. "My last butler stayed with me for 3 years. He writes me every know and then from an island called Alcatraz", she says. They go to get groceries to prepare Oliver's "Steak a la Hardy" and meet up with a young teen-aged boy hiding his identity as an exiled king (David Leland) who has a desire to play football. After playing referees to the football team he joins up with for one game (interrupted briefly by mother, a credited Connie Gilchrist, on and off faster than the unbilled boys in the game), then try to steal steak (actually horse meat!) from a zoo lion. (Leo earning his keep, perhaps?) The steak is so tough it can't be cut by anything but perhaps an axe, ruining Boland's dinner. Then, the hiding king is discovered, and Boland dismisses Stan and Oliver, which lands them in a mission. The boy King is identified (and in danger of a plot on his life), but Laurel and Hardy are then hired as his butler and cook much to his delight for a huge party that ironically Ms. Boland and her husband (Henry O'Neill) attend. Laurel and Hardy are brought into the plot on the King's life and it's rather predictable what happens from there.While there are some amusing moments in this late Laurel and Hardy film, it is not really all that funny, yet much better than "Air Raid Wardens", "The Bullfighters" and "Utopia". (Not saying much---those three are duds!) I always enjoy Mary Boland, especially her unique voice; I can't help thinking of her line in "The Women" where she says to Paulette Goddard "Let's have a little drinkie, shall we"?, every time I see her. She's not quite a Billie Burke, nor is she Marie Dressler, Dame May Witty or Florence Bates either. Her society matrons are always fun; I could imagine her in a 40's version of "Gilligan's Island" as Mrs. Howell. (In fact, she did several films with similar themes, "Down to Their Last Yacht" and "Four Frightened People") I also enjoyed the performance of David Leland as the very charming boy King; I was shocked to discover he died only a few years after this.) But in a Laurel and Hardy film, they dominate the film. They were likable at any age, but its very sad to see them doing these types of gags while obviously having aged very much. They appear tired, yet determined, like all old troopers, to keep going. Don't expect much when watching this, but it's mercifully short (under 70 minutes), so it can be viewed as a barely passable time filler.

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.

Working as chef and butler in the midst of the depression, Laurel and Hardy ruin a dinner party and get hired to be a chef and a butler by rulers of a country, in the process they, accidentally foil a plot, by enemy agents, to poison a young boy king. i like the parts when Oliver and Stan are trying to cut Oliver's famous steak with a saw!!!. then Oliver imitates a lion. this is a classic movie,i wish it was on a DVD. i cant find it. but i watched it on TV. all their movies are good. this should be considered on the good movie list for Laurel and Hardy Movies,its one of my favorites. i also would like to mention other Laurel and Hardy movies that are great. Sons Of The Desert Blockheads The Music Box These are also great Laurel And Hardy Movies.

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.