Soitenly
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy  (Read 798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

  • Global Moderator
  • Egghead
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,000
  • Gender: Male
  • Sugar Daddy in waiting
    • View Profile
Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy
« on: May 31, 2015, 02:46:35 PM »
  • Publish
  • http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/wrong.html
    http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_166_Wrong-Again
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020607/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=20bMtZQ5z7w

    Watch WRONG AGAIN in the link above



          WRONG AGAIN unfortunately might be the weakest of the Laurel and Hardy silents.  I think the main problem with this short is there's one very simple premise that involves a horse, and it's hard to train a horse to do much physical comedy.  There is one bit where the horse is standing on top of a piano, piano legs off replaced by a crushed Oliver Hardy underneath.  Stan tries to lift Ollie out of the piano, but all the horse can do is knock Stan's hat off with its nose, causing Stan to run after his hat and drop the piano on top of poor Ollie.  This happens on repeat for what seems like three hours, and is excruciating to watch.

           The bit when Stan and Ollie are talking and establish that millionaires do things backward would be even better with sound.  At this point, even the title cards speak their language.  You can hear Ollie saying what's on these cards, the pantomime is just right, and the reverse hand gesture that repeats to signify backwards thinking is a nice touch.  Again, this would be better with sound.  It's funny, the best of these Laurel and Hardy silents I do not miss sound at all, but on ones such as these, I think sound would have improved things slightly.  Most comedians are either silent comedians or sound comedians in my mind, but Laurel and Hardy are one of the rare cases where their style can switch between both worlds. The cool thing with their talkies is they did not forget this, as there are silent bits scattered in their talking work when no dialogue is needed.

          Really overall a one dimensional gag film with a horse on a piano that falls flat because like I said, there's limited slapstick opportunities a real horse can comply with.  Worth mentioning the older lady in this short is the only Laurel and Hardy appearance of Josephine Crowell, who while wasted here, plays one of the all time great nasty mother in laws in Harold Lloyd's HOT WATER.

    5/10



    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,113
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy
    « Reply #1 on: June 09, 2015, 01:14:48 PM »
  • Publish
  • I counted... just during the scene when Ollie was getting crushed by the piano, the jackass horse knocked Stan's hat off ELEVEN times, never mind all the times when the two were sitting on the piano with the horse.

    This was putrid, but it could have been worse.  I enjoyed what they made of it, but the plot made me dumber by several IQ points.
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline metaldams

    • Global Moderator
    • Egghead
    • ******
    • Posts: 6,000
    • Gender: Male
    • Sugar Daddy in waiting
      • View Profile
    Re: Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy
    « Reply #2 on: June 09, 2015, 06:54:27 PM »
  • Publish
  • I counted... just during the scene when Ollie was getting crushed by the piano, the jackass horse knocked Stan's hat off ELEVEN times, never mind all the times when the two were sitting on the piano with the horse.

    This was putrid, but it could have been worse.  I enjoyed what they made of it, but the plot made me dumber by several IQ points.

    Eleven times?  I can believe it!  Next week's short, BIG BUSINESS is anything but putrid, so my goal is to have at least three of you respond.  If someone does not enjoy that one, then they're probably not a Laurel and Hardy fan.  WRONG AGAIN, on the other hand.....

    Offline Umbrella Sam

    • Bonehead
    • **
    • Posts: 144
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy
    « Reply #3 on: September 10, 2017, 12:18:15 PM »
  • Publish
  • I think this short is OK. I do like the set-up and think that they are able to have some funny slapstick gags between Laurel and Hardy. I like Hardy with the statue and do think that the initial misunderstanding of getting the horse on the piano is pretty funny. It's nothing special, but for the most part it works.

    That being said, I will admit that scene with the horse and the hat does feel like it goes on too long, though it isn't nearly as bad as the upper bunk scene from BERTH MARKS. Overall, the short really didn't have that much of an impact on me. I didn't love it or hate it; I just thought that it was OK. Not their worst, though it doesn't really stand out much.

    6 out of 10

    Offline metaldams

    • Global Moderator
    • Egghead
    • ******
    • Posts: 6,000
    • Gender: Male
    • Sugar Daddy in waiting
      • View Profile
    Re: Wrong Again (1929) - Laurel and Hardy
    « Reply #4 on: September 10, 2017, 12:34:34 PM »
  • Publish
  • I think this short is OK. I do like the set-up and think that they are able to have some funny slapstick gags between Laurel and Hardy. I like Hardy with the statue and do think that the initial misunderstanding of getting the horse on the piano is pretty funny. It's nothing special, but for the most part it works.

    That being said, I will admit that scene with the horse and the hat does feel like it goes on too long, though it isn't nearly as bad as the upper bunk scene from BERTH MARKS. Overall, the short really didn't have that much of an impact on me. I didn't love it or hate it; I just thought that it was OK. Not their worst, though it doesn't really stand out much.

    6 out of 10

    Thanks for the reviews, I may revive Laurel and Hardy someday, we'll see.