Nothing But Trouble (1944) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Better than today's comedies that's for sure.
fang123horn27 April 2006
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.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stan and Ollie in decline.
theowinthrop31 July 2005
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.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Movie
scoobyleigh937 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enjoyable late Laurel & Hardy.
Boba_Fett113818 October 2007
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.

14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Character instead of gags
bkoganbing4 August 2013
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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"I heard what he said, but I didn't hear what he meant".
classicsoncall31 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I've been catching a slew of the old Laurel and Hardy films and shorts on cable recently, most of them from the Twenties and Thirties. This one from 1944 held a couple of notable differences for me. First off, because it was an MGM movie the production values were a lot better, having more to do with the improvement in filming technology than anything else I imagine, although the budget would probably have been a factor as well. But the other thing was how much Stan had aged and filled out his features, it seemed to make him less funny. Ollie not so much, he looked more like the 'old' Ollie than Stan looked like the 'old' Stan, if you get my meaning.

Parting from the Roach Studio format was also apparent. There was more of an emphasis on a story that included other players, so it took the Boys out of the action from time to time. The main plot seemed a little troubling to me, an elderly Prince Saul (Philip Merivale) was in league with a colleague named Ronetz (John Warburton) to poison the pre-teen King of Orlandia (David Leland), apparently in order to affect the line of succession. Obviously with Laurel and Hardy on the case, this wasn't going to happen, but it does seem a grisly topic for one of their stories.

Though the backdrop of World War II is never mentioned by name, one can't miss the reference to using ration cards at the market, a staple of the era. I wonder what modern day viewers think of that if they've never learned what rationing was all about. For their trouble though, the slab of horse meat Stan and Ollie swiped from the hungry lion proved disastrous as a dinner menu item at the Hawley's. But it did lead to that funny scene with the two-man saw trying to carve it up for eating.

The young actor portraying King Christopher looked familiar, however it was shocking to look up his credits page on IMDb and learn that David Leland died at the age of sixteen, some four years after this picture was made. He looked like he might have had a successful career moving forward, so there's that unhappy element on which to close this review. For his part, Leland's character was presented as a typical royal who preferred to be a commoner, and he had a finely tuned rapport with Stan and Ollie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's sad to see L&H as shadows of their former selves at the end of their career; watch a 1930's L&H movie instead.
mandzirm6 February 2000
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.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a very bad film...considering...
maxcellus4627 December 2005
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.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"All you have to do is look the lion straight in the eye. Lions are afraid of that. I read that in a book." "But did the lion read the book?"
The_Movie_Cat12 January 2002
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.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A depressing film which is often painful to watch.
StormSworder15 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another L & H Wartime Disappointment
BJJManchester31 October 2006
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.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slightly funny but sad Laurel and Hardy movie
mark.waltz31 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Michael_Elliott29 February 2008
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a very tired and sad entry
MartinHafer6 February 2006
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.
8 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a notch above their later ones...not real funny, but not bad
beauzee5 November 2014
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.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Undercooked trouble
TheLittleSongbird11 January 2019
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
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A sad outing for this great comedy team
dwesthorrorcom15 February 2017
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing But Trouble (1944) *1/2
JoeKarlosi15 January 2007
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 ****
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed