The Laurel & Hardy impersonations were pretty good, but that aside it was a fairly weak movie. The "damsel in distress" was not very engaging, the villain seemed out of place, and the less important characters contributed very little to the movie. If you want to see an entertaining movie with Laurel-and-Hardy-like characters, you'd probably enjoy "The Impostors" more than this one. If you want to watch Laurel & Hardy, get the real thing.
User Reviews
Review this title32 Reviews
Not all THAT bad
JohnSeal2 June 2000
I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it.
Another fine mess...
fantasmic197113 October 2000
I was glad when I heard about this new film, and Gailard Sartain was outstanding as Ollie. Although this new film wasn't as laugh-out-loud as the original L&H films were, it's still worth a watch. Hopefully we'll see more to follow in the film series. And with the advent of the internet, perhaps Larry Harmon will take a few suggestions from the huge fan-base (that he now has access to) on what direction to follow for a possible second L&H motion picture. If there isn't a second, then find the original Laurel and Hardy feature "Sons of the Desert." That is, quite possibly, one of their best features by far. "Flying Deuces" is another goodie, and easier to find.
I rather enjoyed it
JoeL.10 April 2000
It was not Laurel and Hardy, but the two actors did a more-than-acceptable job at adopting their mannerisms and voices. What's so wrong with conjuring up the sweetness and memory of the greatest comedy team ever, and doing it up again in a modern setting and on the big screen? Granted, the clothes were out of place and the context of the originals was totally not there. But the whole thing could have been much worse. At least it wasn't overly crude, as many modern comedies are. Maybe it will get a few people (especially kids) to seek out the original L&H.
Great imitation, bad bad movie.
BabyJ200116 June 2001
Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.
I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?
I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.
FART JOKES.
I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?
I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.
FART JOKES.
Oy
edgein1530 November 2001
Isn't it a tad odd that a L&H remake would use a plot that is so typically Abbott & Costello?
Yeah, the story is absolute crap, but the two leads really ARE dead ringers for the original duo. My one beef with their very decent mimicry is that Hardy only gives one trademark reaction look of frustration at the audience.
This thing is by NO means great, but it's definitely worth a look.
Yeah, the story is absolute crap, but the two leads really ARE dead ringers for the original duo. My one beef with their very decent mimicry is that Hardy only gives one trademark reaction look of frustration at the audience.
This thing is by NO means great, but it's definitely worth a look.
A terrible mistake ...
conejito_andarin18 November 2004
Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.
First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.
It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.
Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)
First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.
It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.
Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)
Whrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The_Movie_Cat25 June 2001
That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.
I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.
A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.
Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?
Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.
Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!
Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.
Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.
I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.
I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.
A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.
Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?
Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.
Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!
Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.
Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.
I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.
Accept no substitutes
klg195 August 2000
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"
Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?
As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.
Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!
Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?
As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.
Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!
Why oh why???
carp683 April 2005
This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.
I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.
Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.
I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.
Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.
At Best Unnecessary, At Worst An Insult
fdextro3 July 2003
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.
Great tribute to Laurel and Hardy - just good fun!
eta.carinae22 June 2000
Diehard devotees may resent a new adventure that features Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy characters, but "For Love or Mummy" is a delightful tribute to these two comedy legends, and fun for the whole family. Gailard Sartain and Bronson Pinchot play lookalike nephews to their namesake uncles Ollie and Stan, and the imitations are nearly perfect - from Oliver's patient but bumbling southern gentleman to Stanley's falsetto shrieks of distress. The action begins when the young Messrs. Laurel and Hardy are chosen by their men's club to guard an ancient mummy, but the mummy has its own agenda, one that includes kidnapping the pretty daughter of the museum curator, whom Ollie has a crush on. There's nothing scary for the kids, but lots of good old-fashioned laughter like the original Laurel & Hardy brought to yesterday's generation of comedy fans.
Really a delight, Pinchot and Sartain are spot-on as the classic Stan and Oliver
inkblot111 May 2015
Dear me, Laurel (Bronson Pinchot) and Oliver (Gailard Sartain) are STILL always in another fine mess. Making their own fliers at the library, they run out of the book stacks without paying for copies, to the great chagrin of the much put-upon librarian. Even though this lady vows the duo will be charged, she ends up bicycling into the river when their antics make her lose control. Meanwhile, the accident prone twosome meet up with a beautiful professor's daughter, Leslie, and Oliver is smitten. This woman soon needs their help, as her father (F. Murray Abraham), also an archaeologist, receives a mummy's sarcophagus from Egypt. Ah, but the mummy awakens and starts threatening the populace but especially Leslie. However, this gal only has eyes for another businessman. IF Stan and Oliver can prove this entrepreneur is up to no good AND protect Les, will her affections be transferred to Ollie? This is a delightful film, with Pinchot and Sartain doing just marvelously in roles with shoes that are hard to fill. Their voices, too, are perfect and Pinchot has the wacky facial expressions down pat. Naturally, Abraham is great, although underused, and the rest of the cast quite nice. Viewers will love the Manhattan sets, costumes, well-conceived script, and tight direction as well. Have you always wished for MORE Laurel and Hardy films, when you thought it wasn't possible to get them? This is your lucky day when you discover this little flick.
Completely Unwatchable
pdking7716 October 2016
It's unimaginable that anyone could hope to think that they could capture the humor, magic and chemistry of the funniest duo in comedy history. I kept thinking this is more of a Three Stooges movie minus one. The premise is trite and the physical comedy is far too over the top, probably because the director/producers felt that the physical comedy of the 1930s is to subtle for modern audiences. There is too much forced situations set up to just set up broad, gratuitous destruction. L&H worked because the two could play off of each other and the situations they're innocence and naivete got them into. This movie completely misses the mark by a wide mile what made Laurel and Hardy comedies genuinely funny and should never have been made.
Agreed, a great tribute indeed!
fordprefect42-011 April 2001
However, perhaps I'm nitpicking, but in my opinion the "modern day" setting doesn't really seem to work in some respects. For a start, Stan and Ollie still wear their 30s/40s style attire - how many people do you catch wearing bowler hats in this day and age? At times, they seemed almost to be living in a bizarre time warp, which didn't really make sense.
Overall though, this is good, old-fashioned slapstick comedy, well in the spirit of the real Stan and Ollie. It's nice to see such innocent laughs for a change, with the kinds of films we're seeing most of the time today, this is a rare treat for the family!
Overall though, this is good, old-fashioned slapstick comedy, well in the spirit of the real Stan and Ollie. It's nice to see such innocent laughs for a change, with the kinds of films we're seeing most of the time today, this is a rare treat for the family!
Definitely the worst remake of such a classic series.
jarany10 October 1999
I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.
A modern Laurel & Hardy film made in South Africa?! Really?!?!
planktonrules22 May 2020
"The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy in 'For Love or Mummy" is both awful and amazing. The amazing part is how close Gailard Sartain and Bronson Pinchot recreate Laurel & Hardy. In particular, Sartain is spot on as Hardy...but you also must admire Pinchot's acting, which is way better than what he showed us in "Perfect Strangers". The problem with the movie is pretty much everything else...the writing, the supporting cast, the decision to place the pair in the present day, as well as making this a full-length film instead of a comedy short (and generally Laurel & Hardy's best work was in their short films).
The story finds the pair placed into what seems like a re-working of "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy"...with a bit of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (with the missing artifact angle...and the boys being blamed for it). This is a serious miscalculation, as this sort of thing isn't at all like ANY Laurel & Hardy film...but it worked well with Abbott and Costello. Perhaps they should have just made this an Abbott and Costello tribute film. Seeing Hardy and Laurel being chased by a mummy and dealing with the baddie with mystical powers all just seemed wrong-headed and forced. Additionally, filming in modern day South Africa....well, that's WAY beyond wrong-headed and forced!
So how could this film have worked? Well, by making it look EXACTLY like a Laurel & Hardy short for a start. Filming in black & white might have been nice and setting it back in the late 1920s or 1930s would have really worked nicely. Instead, seeing the pair in 1930s Laurel & Hardy garb in modern times with such an unconventional plot was jarring and weird....and not in a good way.
The story finds the pair placed into what seems like a re-working of "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy"...with a bit of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (with the missing artifact angle...and the boys being blamed for it). This is a serious miscalculation, as this sort of thing isn't at all like ANY Laurel & Hardy film...but it worked well with Abbott and Costello. Perhaps they should have just made this an Abbott and Costello tribute film. Seeing Hardy and Laurel being chased by a mummy and dealing with the baddie with mystical powers all just seemed wrong-headed and forced. Additionally, filming in modern day South Africa....well, that's WAY beyond wrong-headed and forced!
So how could this film have worked? Well, by making it look EXACTLY like a Laurel & Hardy short for a start. Filming in black & white might have been nice and setting it back in the late 1920s or 1930s would have really worked nicely. Instead, seeing the pair in 1930s Laurel & Hardy garb in modern times with such an unconventional plot was jarring and weird....and not in a good way.
For slapstick lovers
blumdeluxe6 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"For love or mummy", in a remake of the old series, tells the story of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh in search for his eternal wife and how the two are trying to save the innocent woman from her curse, causing all kinds of trouble and chaos on their way, of course.
I was a bit skeptical about a remake of such a famous series, because it always has a touch of making money with it. After giving this one a try, though, I have to admit that a lot of love and effort was put into the movie and some of the slapstick elements indeed match the humour the series is famous for. The movie certainly doesn't have a strong plot or very sophisticated jokes. The special effects bear the smell of the 90s and in general you have to cope with a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless I really had fun with it and if you don't go into the movie with all too high expectations, I think you can have a good time.
All in all this is something especially for slapstick fans. If you can accept new films of this series and liked the humor and style of the older titles, you can at least see this as a nice bonus.
I was a bit skeptical about a remake of such a famous series, because it always has a touch of making money with it. After giving this one a try, though, I have to admit that a lot of love and effort was put into the movie and some of the slapstick elements indeed match the humour the series is famous for. The movie certainly doesn't have a strong plot or very sophisticated jokes. The special effects bear the smell of the 90s and in general you have to cope with a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless I really had fun with it and if you don't go into the movie with all too high expectations, I think you can have a good time.
All in all this is something especially for slapstick fans. If you can accept new films of this series and liked the humor and style of the older titles, you can at least see this as a nice bonus.
How
BandSAboutMovies18 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
How?
Why?
Larry Harmon, one of the writers of this movie, is better known as Bozo the Clown. He was also smart, buying the rights to Bozo from Capitol Records and franchising local Bozo shows in nearly every major U. S. market and in other countries. In 1961, he went even bigger and bought the merchandising rights to the likenesses of Laurel and Hardy, making a cartoon with Hanna -Barbera and performing Stan's voice (Jim MacGeorge, who played Stan on Get Smart, ended up being Hardy. Yes, that's kind of weird). He held the rights so long that he was able to make this movie 38 years later.
The co-director and co-writer with Harmon was John R. Cherry III, the former advertising man who created Ernest P. Worrell and directed all of his films. When Jim Varney got too sick to make movies, he decided to make this, a film with the aim of reintroducing Laurel and Hardy to the new millennium.
To play Oliver Hardt, Gailard Sartain (who was in the Cherry-discovered comedy team of Chuck and Bobby with Bill Byrge; they're also in the Ernest movies). And for Stan Laurel, why not Bronson Pinchot, who was a long way from Beverly Hills Cop by 1999. To be fair - I'm a big fan of Pinchot and see him as someone who never got the opportunity to how what he could do. Just watch True Romance to see him in action.
Somehow, the comedy team is in modern day Florida where they protect Leslie Covington (Susan Danford) from a mummy who wants to destroy her father, archeologist Henry Covington (F. Murray Abraham, who in 1999 was a long way from Amadeus).
Harmon also appears as the owner of Bozoworld, getting all his media into the movie.
Supposedly, the answer to why they are in 1999 is that the characters are the great-nephews of the legendary comedians. Yet why do they sound and act exactly like them? Why do they dress as if they came from a hundred years ago? Do people know who Laurel and Hardy are in this universe? Are they not mindblown that two non-brain addled - well, maybe - adults are dressing and acting like their uncles? Do they have too explain all the time that they are the great-nephews of Laurel and Hardy? Did Laurel and Hardy make love to their mothers in some act of family shame to ensure that the genes would keep passing through the holy bloodline? Are they legacy characters like The Phantom and Starman?
Who is this movie for? Anyone still alive that cared about the characters would be upset that someone else is doing a deep fake of them in real life. And anyone else would have no idea who they are. Does anyone else know that in a short called "Sons of the Desert" Laurel and Hardy were in a fraternity called the Brotherhood of the Nile and that totally means they should encounter a mummy at some point?
This was made in Cape Town, South Africa. This seems like the right place, I guess.
Why?
Larry Harmon, one of the writers of this movie, is better known as Bozo the Clown. He was also smart, buying the rights to Bozo from Capitol Records and franchising local Bozo shows in nearly every major U. S. market and in other countries. In 1961, he went even bigger and bought the merchandising rights to the likenesses of Laurel and Hardy, making a cartoon with Hanna -Barbera and performing Stan's voice (Jim MacGeorge, who played Stan on Get Smart, ended up being Hardy. Yes, that's kind of weird). He held the rights so long that he was able to make this movie 38 years later.
The co-director and co-writer with Harmon was John R. Cherry III, the former advertising man who created Ernest P. Worrell and directed all of his films. When Jim Varney got too sick to make movies, he decided to make this, a film with the aim of reintroducing Laurel and Hardy to the new millennium.
To play Oliver Hardt, Gailard Sartain (who was in the Cherry-discovered comedy team of Chuck and Bobby with Bill Byrge; they're also in the Ernest movies). And for Stan Laurel, why not Bronson Pinchot, who was a long way from Beverly Hills Cop by 1999. To be fair - I'm a big fan of Pinchot and see him as someone who never got the opportunity to how what he could do. Just watch True Romance to see him in action.
Somehow, the comedy team is in modern day Florida where they protect Leslie Covington (Susan Danford) from a mummy who wants to destroy her father, archeologist Henry Covington (F. Murray Abraham, who in 1999 was a long way from Amadeus).
Harmon also appears as the owner of Bozoworld, getting all his media into the movie.
Supposedly, the answer to why they are in 1999 is that the characters are the great-nephews of the legendary comedians. Yet why do they sound and act exactly like them? Why do they dress as if they came from a hundred years ago? Do people know who Laurel and Hardy are in this universe? Are they not mindblown that two non-brain addled - well, maybe - adults are dressing and acting like their uncles? Do they have too explain all the time that they are the great-nephews of Laurel and Hardy? Did Laurel and Hardy make love to their mothers in some act of family shame to ensure that the genes would keep passing through the holy bloodline? Are they legacy characters like The Phantom and Starman?
Who is this movie for? Anyone still alive that cared about the characters would be upset that someone else is doing a deep fake of them in real life. And anyone else would have no idea who they are. Does anyone else know that in a short called "Sons of the Desert" Laurel and Hardy were in a fraternity called the Brotherhood of the Nile and that totally means they should encounter a mummy at some point?
This was made in Cape Town, South Africa. This seems like the right place, I guess.
Not all bad, but it too often forgets that it was supposed to be a Laurel & Hardy film
I_Ailurophile2 November 2023
While not all their works are equal, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy absolutely deserve their status as comedic legends. Their humor may have been a tad lighter and gentler, and sometimes outright silly, but they were broadly as dependable as iconic contemporaries like Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, and The Three Stooges, especially in their physical comedy, gags, and repartee. I think it behooves one to approach with skepticism the very notion of a modern picture in which different actors portray the duo in a new story, ostensibly revisiting their style of comedy, but who am I to refuse the experience? Well - as ever I'll watch anything and everything, and I think there is certainly much to appreciate in 'The all new adventures of Laurel & Hardy.' Unfortunately, despite all the best efforts to expose the pair to a new, younger audience, it takes little time at all for the issues to accumulate and the fun to flounder. I don't think this is very good.
By all means, there really is a lot to like here. The least that can be said is that the film-making team of John R. Cherry III and Larry Harmon - writers, directors, and co-producers - worked hard to recapture as best they could the look and feel of Laurel and Hardy themselves. Of anyone who could be cast in the roles, Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain probably bear the nearest physical resemblance to their respective figures; it's not a one-to-one comportment, but that wouldn't be possible anyway. Similarly, much love to Pinchot and Sartain themselves, for they clearly studied the movies of Laurel and Hardy very closely in an effort to match, as closely as possible, their manners of speech, posture, and energy. No one could ever hope to completely replace the legends, yet I watch this and I plainly see the men in the actors' performances; these are probably the best possible homages, or tributes, that one could ask for in terms of portrayals. I would also say that I do recognize, in both writing and direction, elements of the same fun-loving mirth that defined Stan and Oliver: slapstick, situational comedy, gags and exaggerated reactions, and above all the dynamics between the two stars themselves. We see this in how "Laurel" and "Hardy" are written generally, and in the best of the dialogue and scene writing.
Yet 'For love or mummy' quickly starts to break down beyond the baseline endeavor to recapture the root elements. One may reasonably raise a skeptical eyebrow at Laurel and Hardy having been brought into the present day, yet I don't think the notion would have been an issue if all the other sensibilities of the 20s, 30s, and 40s had been left intact. That's not what happened here, however. Even when the icons themselves were placed in a period setting in their features (e.g., 'Fra diavolo' in 1933, or 'The Bohemian girl' in 1936) the sense of humor was not modified, and the setting only added slight, appropriate flavor to the shenanigans. Regrettably, this is one core trait of the duo that Cherry and Harmon failed to discern in their studies; it's not just that Laurel and Hardy have been loaded into the 90s, but the 90s have been overloaded into Laurel and Hardy. There's a mean streak to no small amount of the intended humor here, and cartoonish absurdism that is right at home with Ernest P. Worrell, 'The Stupids,' Ace Ventura, or 1993's 'Super Mario Bros.,' but not with the sensibilities of the 20s, 30s, or 40s. This 1999 flick weaves in wildly fantastical aspects to the plot, and tries to flesh out the storytelling with background, lore, and asides for supporting characters, but again, these modern conceptions of cinematic storytelling, and Laurel and Hardy, do not belong together. Frankly, the same ethos applies to the cinematography, direction, music, stunts and effects (practical and post-production), and pretty much everything else in these eighty-odd minutes.
Don't get me wrong: in and of themselves, every part here looks and sounds good. I have no notes for the cast or crew; their work is admirable, from every actor's performance, to those stunts and effects, to every note in the score, and from art direction to costume design, hair, and makeup. The direction is strong. 'The all new adventures' is well made according to the standards and aesthetics of the 90s. And I believe there's much to like in what Cherry and Harmon conjured for the title - in writing and direction alike - in terms of the dialogue, characters, scenes, and narrative. And I would absolutely be lying if I said that this didn't inspire some hearty laughs. Yet therein lies the issue: all the laughs came from those moments that most closely aligned with the comedy of the real Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, and their dimwitted, bumbling fictional selves; for all the excellent work that Pinchot and Sartain put into their depictions, they still had to operate within the bounds of the screenplay and its realization, and those moments are relatively few and far between. It clearly was possible to bring the icons a few decades forward in time. However, more than not the picture is simply a 90s comedy. If you want a 90s comedy, you'll get it; if you want a Laurel and Hardy comedy, you need to revisit the pieces they made more than fifty years prior. (Yes, I'm counting out 1951's 'Atoll K' / 'Utopia.' Everyone should.) Cherry and Harmon tried to blend Laurel and Hardy and the 90s, but in the process they failed to see what made Laurel and Hardy such shining stars, or at least forgot to meaningfully take those qualities into consideration in the mixture.
I don't think this is completely rotten. I see the skill, hard work, and intelligence that went into it, and there really is a lot that deserves respect. Pinchot and Sartain are surely the top highlights in their efforts to mimic Laurel and Hardy, and insofar as Cherry and Harmon took their comedic cues from those films of many years past, 'For love or mummy' really is funny. Sadly, in this case, two halves just do not make a whole, and there are wide swaths of the length where "Stan" and "Ollie" could have been replaced with any two random blokes and the presentation would have been no different. If you want to make a Laurel and Hardy flick, you need Laurel and Hardy. I do appreciate the effort and all that its participants put into it, but the end result just doesn't live up to expectations. There are far worse ways to spend one's time, but even if you're a "Son of the Desert" and a devotee of the pair themselves, there's just not much reason to check this out.
By all means, there really is a lot to like here. The least that can be said is that the film-making team of John R. Cherry III and Larry Harmon - writers, directors, and co-producers - worked hard to recapture as best they could the look and feel of Laurel and Hardy themselves. Of anyone who could be cast in the roles, Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain probably bear the nearest physical resemblance to their respective figures; it's not a one-to-one comportment, but that wouldn't be possible anyway. Similarly, much love to Pinchot and Sartain themselves, for they clearly studied the movies of Laurel and Hardy very closely in an effort to match, as closely as possible, their manners of speech, posture, and energy. No one could ever hope to completely replace the legends, yet I watch this and I plainly see the men in the actors' performances; these are probably the best possible homages, or tributes, that one could ask for in terms of portrayals. I would also say that I do recognize, in both writing and direction, elements of the same fun-loving mirth that defined Stan and Oliver: slapstick, situational comedy, gags and exaggerated reactions, and above all the dynamics between the two stars themselves. We see this in how "Laurel" and "Hardy" are written generally, and in the best of the dialogue and scene writing.
Yet 'For love or mummy' quickly starts to break down beyond the baseline endeavor to recapture the root elements. One may reasonably raise a skeptical eyebrow at Laurel and Hardy having been brought into the present day, yet I don't think the notion would have been an issue if all the other sensibilities of the 20s, 30s, and 40s had been left intact. That's not what happened here, however. Even when the icons themselves were placed in a period setting in their features (e.g., 'Fra diavolo' in 1933, or 'The Bohemian girl' in 1936) the sense of humor was not modified, and the setting only added slight, appropriate flavor to the shenanigans. Regrettably, this is one core trait of the duo that Cherry and Harmon failed to discern in their studies; it's not just that Laurel and Hardy have been loaded into the 90s, but the 90s have been overloaded into Laurel and Hardy. There's a mean streak to no small amount of the intended humor here, and cartoonish absurdism that is right at home with Ernest P. Worrell, 'The Stupids,' Ace Ventura, or 1993's 'Super Mario Bros.,' but not with the sensibilities of the 20s, 30s, or 40s. This 1999 flick weaves in wildly fantastical aspects to the plot, and tries to flesh out the storytelling with background, lore, and asides for supporting characters, but again, these modern conceptions of cinematic storytelling, and Laurel and Hardy, do not belong together. Frankly, the same ethos applies to the cinematography, direction, music, stunts and effects (practical and post-production), and pretty much everything else in these eighty-odd minutes.
Don't get me wrong: in and of themselves, every part here looks and sounds good. I have no notes for the cast or crew; their work is admirable, from every actor's performance, to those stunts and effects, to every note in the score, and from art direction to costume design, hair, and makeup. The direction is strong. 'The all new adventures' is well made according to the standards and aesthetics of the 90s. And I believe there's much to like in what Cherry and Harmon conjured for the title - in writing and direction alike - in terms of the dialogue, characters, scenes, and narrative. And I would absolutely be lying if I said that this didn't inspire some hearty laughs. Yet therein lies the issue: all the laughs came from those moments that most closely aligned with the comedy of the real Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, and their dimwitted, bumbling fictional selves; for all the excellent work that Pinchot and Sartain put into their depictions, they still had to operate within the bounds of the screenplay and its realization, and those moments are relatively few and far between. It clearly was possible to bring the icons a few decades forward in time. However, more than not the picture is simply a 90s comedy. If you want a 90s comedy, you'll get it; if you want a Laurel and Hardy comedy, you need to revisit the pieces they made more than fifty years prior. (Yes, I'm counting out 1951's 'Atoll K' / 'Utopia.' Everyone should.) Cherry and Harmon tried to blend Laurel and Hardy and the 90s, but in the process they failed to see what made Laurel and Hardy such shining stars, or at least forgot to meaningfully take those qualities into consideration in the mixture.
I don't think this is completely rotten. I see the skill, hard work, and intelligence that went into it, and there really is a lot that deserves respect. Pinchot and Sartain are surely the top highlights in their efforts to mimic Laurel and Hardy, and insofar as Cherry and Harmon took their comedic cues from those films of many years past, 'For love or mummy' really is funny. Sadly, in this case, two halves just do not make a whole, and there are wide swaths of the length where "Stan" and "Ollie" could have been replaced with any two random blokes and the presentation would have been no different. If you want to make a Laurel and Hardy flick, you need Laurel and Hardy. I do appreciate the effort and all that its participants put into it, but the end result just doesn't live up to expectations. There are far worse ways to spend one's time, but even if you're a "Son of the Desert" and a devotee of the pair themselves, there's just not much reason to check this out.
It's telling that they couldn't secure the rights to Sons of the Desert
mattcomic20 January 2019
"Brotherhood of the Nile"?
The timing of every gag is off. The genius of L&H is that they let jokers breathe. This gets through them as quickly as possible so that we can get back to...to...F. Murray Abraham-based intrigue?
Also, I'm pretty sure all of the dialogue in this is ADR. Well okay, maybe not all, but good grief.
The timing of every gag is off. The genius of L&H is that they let jokers breathe. This gets through them as quickly as possible so that we can get back to...to...F. Murray Abraham-based intrigue?
Also, I'm pretty sure all of the dialogue in this is ADR. Well okay, maybe not all, but good grief.
Not Good!
alexpeychev13 January 2021
Maybe I am just too much of a Laurel & Hardy fan, but i found this thing on HBO and thought I was hallucinating. This was awful!!! Has Bronson Pinchot's career sunk so low that he must do this? A Stan Laurel impression???? Yikes! And Academy Award winner F. Murray Abraham doing a small burn as these lame Laurel & Hardy copycats do their shtick was almost too painful to watch.
I liked it!
lotsafun31 October 2005
I'm surprised by the remarks of Laurel and Hardy fans who expected this cute little movie for kids to be as much of a masterpiece as the classic works of the genuine Laurel and Hardy. It's truly astounding. Why in the world would Laurel and Hardy fans expect this to be anything more than a cute little movie for children by Larry Harmon (Bozo the clown) who previously produced the wonderful cartoon versions of The Boys? Are the same Laurel and Hardy purists just as critical of Laurel and Hardy cartoons and comic books that entertained many youngsters? It may alarm the purists, but I have many fond memories of Stan and Ollie's encounter with Scooby Doo. It introduced me to The Boys and it was fun. So is For Love or Mummy.
Weak writing scuppers this updating of the classic comedy duo
Leofwine_draca16 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This attempt to update the classic comedy partnership for a new generation simply isn't very funny due to the weak writing and lacklustre material. It takes two Laurel & Hardy imitators and throws them in the middle of a frankly puerile story involving evil foreigners, a re-animated mummy, and even a random CGI snake at the climax. Whether you find all this funny or not depends on your taste for comedy, but I'm afraid I thought it was pretty awful.
The good thing about this is that Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain do passable imitations of the famous duo, with Pinchot capturing Stan's voice and mannerisms remarkably well. What a pity, then, that they don't get to go through many of the classic slapstick routines. Most of the jokes consist of them bumbling around or falling over, and there's none of the wittiness of the old 1930s version. The poor writing is particularly noticeable in the dialogue scenes between the pair. Most of all you just feel sorry for F. Murray Abraham for appearing in this.
The good thing about this is that Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain do passable imitations of the famous duo, with Pinchot capturing Stan's voice and mannerisms remarkably well. What a pity, then, that they don't get to go through many of the classic slapstick routines. Most of the jokes consist of them bumbling around or falling over, and there's none of the wittiness of the old 1930s version. The poor writing is particularly noticeable in the dialogue scenes between the pair. Most of all you just feel sorry for F. Murray Abraham for appearing in this.
Funnier than expected
DHollins13 May 2000
When I first heard of a 'remake' of the old Laurel & Hardy films, I thought it would be terrible. But after seeing the movie, I take it back! Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain pay great tribute to the late comedy team with their performance.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
