Quality of the Film


I want to preface my comment by saying I'm not bashing Laurel and Hardy. But, this film was certainly not among their best, and the quality of the film was far below what I expect for a film produced in 1951. I watched the film and it felt like I was watching an early talkie, some low quality production from the early 1930s. I was totally shocked when I found out that it was produced in the 1950s, and with a healthy budget to boot. In short, did anyone else feel like the quality of the film was extremely poor for the 1950s?

reply

You go from one disappointment to another, don't you?

I'm so sorry for you!

reply

Eh, not really. I enjoy almost every movie I see (and I see a lot)! This wasn't really a disappointment, I was mostly shocked at the poor quality. But thanks for the support!

reply

I agree with you. I was personally shocked by the quality and at times had to try and make out what was going on. It was made even harder by the terrible audio as well. I have seen most of Laurel and Hardy's work, including their silent pictures, and this one is probably the worst quality out of them all.

reply

Yes I agree about the quality as well.It's not even any better on DVD.But the worst part of the film for me is the appearance of both Stan and Ollie.Stan looks awfully ill.Oliver is exactly 300 pounds overweight.It gives me the willies.

reply

I have the Platinum DVD and to say it offers the best picture quality doesn't say much. However, if you watch the BBC 2003 documentary "Laurel & Hardy: Living Famously," I noticed that the brief clips used from the film show a cleaner, best contrasted picture. So, there does appear to exist better source material.

Here's a youtube link to the part in the documentary which shows the footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXM64y4C7zE

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]