maxcellus46

William is offered a lucrative position in France but he & Hester would have to leave England & move to France. Decisions, decisions.

Overall, this is a great series which presents a lot of new comedic situations especially given the 'ol "fish out of water" scenario.

My only real concern is why no attempt was made to bring back at least one or two of the characters from the original series.

Picture this, William & Hester are sat down having a nice quiet Sunday morning breakfast when all of a sudden someone knocks at the door then enters with those immortal words, "It's only Sonia." That would have made for a great scene, weeks into this second series.

Otherwise a most enjoyable series with the most likeable & funny characters. ENJOY!

The old story of transplanting a human brain into an ape's skull is an old one that's been done plenty of times in Hollywood. Also the situation of reviving someone wrongfully executed & then getting revenge on those who put him in that spot. This version is ok as a "time waster" & interesting to watch in comparison to an earlier version of this plot, "The Walking Dead" with Boris Karloff, 1936 made at WB. The current 1941 version lacks that certain atmosphere especially in the laboratory scene where everything seems quite normal & this is just another routine operation. George Zucco who plays the scientist seems to have been "held back" by the script and the director from being his usual "mad scientist" persona, not to mention the fact that he has very few lines & screen time in this whole mess. IT all boils down to just a guy in a gorilla suit & even the revenge scenes are not at all dramatic or erie as in the Karloff version. Speaking of that 1936 version, Karloff in some of scenes almost resembles his Frankenstein Monster but without the makeup. Sadly in this 1941 take-off there IS a very good cast but the story just doesn't seem to make any attempts to thrill or scare one making it somewhat of a "yawn" for just over an hour running time. Watch this first then go back 6 years to the Karloff version & compare. Then again, with Karloff in such a role, how could anything go wrong? 1941 was the middle of the second horror film cycle that began in 1939 with "Son of Frankenstein", 1940's "Man Made Monster" with Lon Chaney Jr. & of course 1941's "The Wolfman." Studios would follow Universal Studios horror wave with their own attempts at the genre. As 1945 came to a close & Universal made their last classic monster film "House of Dracula" so did the other studios. For awhile in the late 40's everyone switched over to westerns until the early 50's when monsters, gigantic things, once again would roam the Earth.

NEver heard of this film before & just watched it today. I was expecting something akin to the quality of "The Spoilers" & "Pittsburgh" given they are also a Dietrich-Wayne combo. Sadly "Seven Sinners" is first, only a reference to the dive bar where Dietrich works. The story, if you can call it that, is really just a mish mash of running around, bar fights & lackluster characters. There really is no story, no sympathy for any of the character & the Duke himself has actually very little to do in this film. This seems to have been one of those "quickie" Universal productions where they were trading on Dietrich's name only & didn't bother with anything else. John Wayne had just reached real stardom the year earlier in John Ford's "Stagecoach" but was still sort of a "newbie" even though he had been making movies since 1928 & playing repetitive cowboys at poverty row studios all through the 1930's. This film & his much later "The Conqueror" where Wayne was miscast as Ghengis Khan are his two worst films ever made. Advice? You can avoid this one & not feel that your Wayne filmography watching is incomplete.

I seriously wonder why some even bother to attempt to emulate, imitate or just copy what was perfect in the first place with the original. Sort of like someone attempting to "re-write" Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Cleese & Booth wrote a perfect series with the perfect cast. They are "real" characters whereas this series is a "characature" of the original, i.e. one dimensional stereotypes. The pace is good, some of the jokes are o.k. but there certainly is none of the self inflicted stress & situations that Basil Fawlty would find himself in. Never try to imitate the original especially if it is/was great in the first place. Many have tried that route & usually always fail. There's only one Laure & Hardy, Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd & there's certainly ONLY one Fawlty Towers! Be original & do something NO ONE else has yet done. That's how the greats did it hence why they're great.

I am not planning on seeing this movie just from the trailer alone. It appears to be too "jokey" & corny, like a bad Benny Hill sketch. In reality, the historical B&H were two of the first serial killers in modern history. Characters that I don't find much humor if ANY about. Sort of like making a comedy about Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy. Oops! Now I've done it! Given ideas to someone out there to make yet another bad movie. Speaking of which, good, bad or whatever, I personally have written my own screenplay about Burke & Hare which is far more Gothic with just a touch of black humor, possibly in the style of the old Universal/James Whale type of horror movie. This film however, my judgement based upon the trailer alone, is enough for me to avoid wasting my time with, Maybe if some producer/director out there would take a few minutes to peruse MY script, they'd see that I've made more of a serious attempt to capture the mood & atmosphere of this historical period.

As stated above, I have not yet seen this film probably I sort of saddened to watch a great actor is final film role. Just from reading the info on this film, I'm also rather upset with the director or whoever was responsible for the casting, that they did NOT make sure that Cagney & O'Brien would have any scenes TOGETHER. THey had been close friends since about 1925 when they first met on Broadway & quite a number of great films together back in the 1930's at Warner Brothers. For this very last time, WHY didn't anyone bother to preserve their EXCELLENT screen chemistry & put them as co-stars in this film? Both died within a few years of each other, their other former co-star from that "Golden Age", Frank McHugh having passed away in 1981. A terrible & incompetent decision on "somebody's part, no doubt. Want to see them together then watch three of their best together: 1933's "Here Comes the Navy", 1934's "Devil Dogs of the Air" & probably their VERY best, 1935's "The Irish In Us" that includes a 19 year old Olivia De Havilland.

How many shows on TV, and especially "sitcoms", of the last 15-20 years can you consider as being actually funny but also well written and intelligent? Not many by my count: about only two, "Seinfeld" and "As Time Goes By." I watch this series over and over again and never tire of the characters or the stories. A great performance happens when you forget that these are all actors performing and begin to follow and listen to them as real people. Advice from Spencer Tracy "Never act" and this cast does just that. They are so natural and the chemistry amongst them is so perfect, that you forget that you're watching a TV show and feel like you're privy to people's personal lives. And the stories and writing are superb! Nothing that's done or said just for a cheap quick laugh or gag but something that not only amuses but stimulates your brain as well without being "brainy." "As Time goes By" deserves, if hasn't already received, some sort of an award or testimonial to its brilliance. ALL of the cast/writers/directors/producer deserve a "Royal" recognition of some kind for their lovingly approach to this wonderful show! A major and heartfelt thanks to Jean/Judi Dench & Lionel/Geoffrey Palmer for their performances!!!

I've watched this film several times now and actually, every time I watch it seems to get a little better each time. It's an original concept on the continuance of the Frankenstein myth with some added "modern" futuristic bends and twists that motivate the story along. One of the best thing about this film is John Hurt. This doesn't seem to be his type of movie yet he does very well in it. His voice, especially, is captivating and keeps your attention. He has the type of voice that very few actors these days can boast about in that it has personality and sonority in tone. Something akin to the voices of Colin Clive, Vincent Price and of course, Claude Rains. If they ever decide to do a serious biopic about Rains, I really hope that John Hurt is considered: he'd be perfect for the part! "Yes...I know. Made me from dead. I love dead...hate living." - The Monster in the original 1935 "Bride of Frankenstein"

GAWD! This is considered a "great" film??? WHY? It's almost as if Jerry Seinfeld had conceived this mess, i.e. "let's make a film about nothing!", except this doesn't have the cleverness nor the laughs that his TV series does. It comes across to me as completely self indulgent and actually narcissistic! A film made by those in it JUST so they could watch themselves on screen. And what's his name gives a far better performance as Bill Cosby's goofy neighbor on "Cosby" because he sure can't nor doesn't provide for any kind of performance in this piece of schlock! Don't waste your time on this "yada yada yada yada!" Better time spent watching a snowy screen on your TV!

I give it a "3" because it's still a good "time waster" but not at current prices. It's really a shame that when Basil Rathbone was playing Holmes, Universal Studios didn't give the series an "A" picture budget and reduced the series to a "B" picture status. Unlike the first two "Holmes-Watson" movies from 20th Cent. Fox in 1939, namely "Hound of the Baskervilles" and "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes."

This latest attempt is yet another modern example of tens of millions spent on special effects but not enough money spent on a good story or proper actors.

BTW, the ONLY other Holmes that ever met the standard of Rathbone's version was the BBC TV series that starred the late Jeremy Brett.

This one with Downey? Wait for it to come out on video or appear on cable: save your money.

Forget the atmospheric scenarios of the 1930's, '40's era films, the dark humor of James Whale as in the "Bride of Frankenstein" and forget the iconic image first created by Universal's Master make-up man Jack Pierce and brilliant interpretation of Karloff. This English version has none of the above. A shame considering the talents involved in this particular production: Peter Cushing as a non-sympathetic Baron (Dr.) Frankenstein as opposed to Colin Clive's and Christopher Lee as the "creature" as he's billed in this version as opposed to Karloff's billing as "The Monster - ?" in the 1931 version. The English version of the 50's, 60's and 70's depends more on gruesome visuals of dissections and a certain amount of sexual implications than on creepy castle towers, fog enshrouded graveyards and just that bit of black comedy so often found in the Universal versions, especially in "The Bride..." of 1935. This is not to say that this is not a worthwhile effort but do not expect too much. By comparison it fails against the much more recognizable Karloff-Chaney-Lugosi-Strange monster characterizations. A good time waster but I wish that Hammer Studios had not been in such a hurry to capitalize on the Frankenstein name and spent a little more time/money on a better screenplay. It's a coin toss as to whether or not to see this one.

Enough has already been said about the literary background of this story, so I want to say some things about the production. First, the billing of this film was promoted as yet another Karloff-Lugosi teaming as in their much earlier outings for "The Black Cat" from 1934, "The Raven" from 1935 and "The Invisible Ray" from 1937, not to mention their extremely ideal pairing in "Son of Frankenstein" from 1939. I know that when I first saw this picture as a typical Saturday afternoon TV "creature feature" kid back in the 1960's, I was disappointed to find out how little actual screen time Karloff and Lugosi had together. I think that it was due to Val Lewton who wanted to make a more literal "horror" film than just another Universal-type monster film and so hence he didn't want to overplay Karloff and Lugosi together. But then again Lugosi is virtually wasted in this otherwise highly atmospheric and tense film based upon the actual historical events surrounding grave robbing in early 19th Century Scotland and Burke & Hare.

Another part that I find lacking in this film is the fairly weak musical score. It doesn't evoke enough of the mood that is intended by all the ghoulish action. Again, I think this has to do with Mr. Lewton's avoidance of making a mirror image type film of the kind having been made at Universal just prior to this release. At Universal there was always a rousing score provided by Frank Skinner or Hans J. Salter for the likes of the Wolfman, the Mummy, the Frankenstein Monster or Dracula's Son. Nothing memorable as far as music for this picture and I think that's a shame given the story material. Fog enshrouded streets, graveyards and etc.

Henry Daniel is a sinister yet sympathetic character as Dr. McFarlane in that he helps a little girl regain the use of her legs and ability to walk again but then again deals with murdered victims in order to provide "specimens" for his students to study from.

Despite some of my negative findings, this picture is more than well worth your time viewing in that it presents a subject with great tension, mystery and fear and with a cast that you could never put together today if remaking this story. "Dig it up" at your local video rental!

This short, as with a lot of the shorts made with Shemp, is merely a remake or better yet retread of something that was done far better the first time. In the late forties and early fifties, Columbia was trying to "kill off" their shorts department but were still contractually obligated to produce shorts with the Stooges. That didn't mean that they were going to write new stories or gags or at least keep the production levels as high as they were previously with Curly. Hence why they resorted to just redoing a lot of the earlier "Curly" shorts now with Shemp and some of these bits are funnier with Curly because they were written specifically for his character and not Shemp. All of this does a disservice to Shemp's own abilities and unique comedy style. Columbia was SO cheap at this time that they even would just edit clips from the earlier Stooge's shorts into these later ones with Shemp. For example, the scene with the cook dealing with the crazy faucet at the sink and the stove turned into a sprinkling system is a direct edit from the original 1940 "A Plumbing We Will Go." This is not a bad short but just not as good as the original.

A piece of pure schlock to say the very least. The basic "story", if you can call it that, is pretty much a ripoff from the far better and much more intense "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" from the 1970's. This Zombie (Rob) film is nothing more than a feeble attempt to shock you into numbness, as is shown with most of the victims in this story. Dr. Satan? He or "it" appears more as some kind of alien creature or maybe an actual demon from the underworld. And there is no real attempt to explain or define what the motivation for all this butchery is. It just happens, one after another. It also leaves nothing to your imagination so that you dredge up in your mind what's happening as in the original "Texas Chainsaw." In this flop everything is right out there in the open, distorted camera shots as they may be. A waste of time. Avoid it like the plague!

Another piece of low grade splatter and gore all in the order to do, what? I don't know. This entry into the Frankenstein saga is negligible to say the least. Andy Warhol's Frankenstein? I'm not surprised. It's as if Ed Wood, the grade "Z" director from the 1950's had obtained a larger budget but still ended up making nothing of merit. The story, in spots, is almost actually comical and sophomoric, much like a skit on SNL. The dialog, if you can call it that, is juvenile and totally silly. The "acting" far below the junior high school level. Care to take some time out of your life and watch this? Go ahead but don't say that I didn't warn you. I'll take no responsibility.

At this point in the history of Hal Roach Studios, Mr. Roach wanted to progress beyond the "two reeler" concepts and begin to compete with MGM and the other large studios by making feature films exclusively. His main concept was to produce what he termed "streamlined" comedies which would run just about an hour or a little more. The purpose being that he could produce feature length films on a shoestring budget and therefore be more competitive with the large studios. Not a bad idea, in concept. With "Our Relations" Stan Laurel wanted to show that if Roach would allow them to spend more money on production, that he and Ollie could make "A" grade comedies instead of just the quicky type two-reelers. Stan produced this film and the next one to follow, "Way Out West", and it shows what he had been after for a very long time. "Our Relations" is a breezy, fast paced comedy that shows L&H not only capable of the 'ol slapstick bits but also most capable of handling situational comedy as the type Cary Grant and other similar stars were performing at this time. There's lots of original gags and lines in this film demonstrating the apt writing of one of the old masters by this time, Felix Adler, who also wrote for numerous Three Stooges shorts. In a way I'm saddened by this film because it was one of the very few times in L&H's careers that production values were not a concern and they obviously had absolute creative control over their performances. It's a shame that Hal Roach didn't appreciate them enough to keep them on past 1940 and continue with their logical progress toward even greater things. Had he done that, there would have been much more to enjoy from them and maybe they might have even given Abbott & Costello a real run for their money. Whatever the case, if you enjoy L&H, don't miss this one!

Without going too much into the premise for the story, that's already been covered by everyone else, I'll just say that Andy Griffith should have been at least nominated for an Oscar, and won, for his work in this extreme film! I say "extreme" because this is not a story with a happy and trite ending. It IS a gritty, hard hitting expose' of television and the advertising rackets and how "they" attempt to to appeal to the rest of us and use people's ignorance against themselves. In steps the main character, Lonesome Rhodes. A combination of Will Rogers, Huey Long with a touch of Hitler. He is a ambivalent, malevolent megalomaniac who has nothing but delusions of grandeur and self importance. However, he does receive initial help from Patricia Neal. She's sort of a female version of a Dr. Frankenstein in that she first discovers him and then encourages him to develop his knack for telling people what to think and what to do. You will see Andy Griffith as a character who is a million light years from his humble, nice guy sheriff persona from TV. DON'T MISS THIS ONE!!!

Low budget "films" like this just give me hope as an aspiring screenwriter. In other words, if there are people out there who are willing to finance a piece of schlock like this, than there's certainly much more than a glimmer of hope for someone like myself who can actually write stories. This film is right up there, or should I say "down there" with the Ed Wood's of the world. The story, if you can call it that, and the dialog, not to mention the sophomoric acting, is a travesty toward the genre itself. Someone should have driven a stake through this stinker while it was still just on paper. It follows that since literature has pretty much been killed off, that film should follow. In order to have a good or even just passable movie, you must have at the very least decent writing. The legendary Curt Siodmak springs to mind. They used a lot of his stories for low budget films way back when but they still come off today as good, serious entertainment, i.e. "Donavan's Brain". The cast for this "work" should seriously consider going back to work at their respective hamburger joints or shoe stores and forget about any future feeble attempts at appearing in front of a camera. Avoid this one like the plague itself!!!

Yes, Jim Carey is fairly brilliant in what he does and how he does it. However, this is not the "Jim Carey Show", it's supposed to be about the Grinch, how he attempted to ruin Christmas and how in the end he finds redemption and all with appropriate humor applied. Not so here. This is, apparently, about Jim Carey, by Jim Carey, and nothing else but Jim Carey. Hence why for the last few years he hasn't been involved with anything noteworthy. People get very tired of someone who's ALWAYS "on". Same thing happened to Robin Williams. You may be the star of the picture but you are not the picture itself, or you shouldn't be. You are merely the performer hired to perform the material handed to you. The 1966 TV animated version is much better because of three things: the animation of Chuck Jones based upon Dr. Suess's characters, the adherence to the actual story and of course the profound narration by Boris Karloff. Watch this latest "grinch" along with Carey's Andy Kaufamnn "tripe" if you dare.

I gave this film a rather high rating if for no other reason except that it's an excellent story about someone who was apparently totally psychotic and self absorbed. Andy Kaufmann was someone who should have been pitied and institutionalized in order to seek a cure. It's almost like the story of the Elephant Man who was put on exhibit in sideshows so people could gawk at his gross deformity. Same is the case with Kaufmann. His legacy is that of being a mildly humorous "one joke" comic with a very obvious dead end in show business. He's not the first though. There have been many who thought what they did was hysterically funny and clever but eventually it was proved to be nothing at all. Joe Penner in the 1930's-40's with his "Wanna buy a duck?" played itself out very fast and he ended in total oblivion. Or another was Parkyakarkus with his "How DO you do!" These people and Kaufmann have proved continually that they are of limited intellect and creativity when it comes to attempting to being funny. Lionel Barrymore was rumored to have said on his death bed, "There's only one thing harder to do than die, and that's comedy." As for this mish mash of a story about a mish mash of a "comdeian", it's only entertaining to the morbid curious and clinical minded. Otherwise it's a definite "pass".

This is an out and out example of plagiarism, at its worst. The story is based upon the earlier film from the late 1940's called "Mr Blandings Builds His Dreamhouse" that starred Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas. That film is chock full of sophisticated humor and even slapstick comedy as only the incomparable Cary Grant could perform. Myrna Loy is constant as his seductive but loyal wife and Melvin Douglas as her old college boyfriend who was beat out by Cary. This later adaptation, if you care to call it that for the purpose of keeping it clean, is a writer's and director's mulligan stew of ineptness, not to mention the sophomoric performances of the leading "actors". For me it's like comparing a fine vintage wine with sewer water. Why don't these "indies" really act like indies and write their own stories to screw up instead of messing around with something that was done perfectly the first time around? Miss this one like the plague!

Considering that this is an attempt to tell the story of just part of the life of one of the most enigmatic people who ever lived, it was a mistake to have even considered it in the first place. The cast, generally speaking, is excellent. The production values and art direction are extremely high. The script, in a word, stinks. This movie should have never been made. First of all, this film deals with only a small part of Howard Hughes' life. It seems fragmented and disjointed. There is no "beginning" to the story, we're just thrown into his life in the late 1920's and not given any background as to who this is and where he's from. The movie ends pretty much the same way. As what apparently is not said anymore in the movie business, what's the motivation? There doesn't seem to be any. We are treated to a somewhat clinical observation of a multi-millionaire and his various psychological exploits. This makes the character flat and a non-person. Some of the other characters such as Katherine Hepburn are given the same consideration. They are merely names and dates in history without personalities and depth. Is this what Mr. Scorsese actually intended? Is he tearing down these people or is he actually not aware of what was happening? On some level it could appear that he has a personal grudge against Howard Hughes and most of the rest of the characters because he doesn't bring out any dimension or humanity in these people. That's for minds more qualified than mine in psychology to delve into. I'm only writing my opinion about what I saw. Dramatic presentations about historical events and people are never accurate and so don't go into this film expecting the absolute truth. As is usual, they got the names and dates right but not the story. Howard Hughes was extremely complex, not normal by societal convention, and much more than just a megalomaniac womanizer as portrayed here by the inept, incredulous performance of DiCaprio. Rent this if you have the time to waste.

Of all the odd and grotesque characters that the "Man of a Thousand Faces" had portrayed, this is a REALLY a strange one. I say that because his part of Dr. Ziska is never really explained or given a defined motivation as was done with all the other characters. In my opinion, this is not really a "Lon Chaney" film but more something akin to that bane of all great actors, namely "contractual obligation". Yes, He has a major role in this film but the focus is really on the comedic relief here in the personage of Johnny Arthur. Mr. Arthur is another "strange case" because he's at a time when the competition was quite stiff with the likes of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and the person he physically resembles the most, Charley Chase. Maybe that's why he never became the headliner he was aspiring to be. And that's a shame because as you watch this film, he certainly steals it away from Mr. Chaney, no small accomplishment, with his mastery of slapstick and ability to evoke pathos without becoming "mushy". The plot is the basic "old dark house" one with secret passages and the "mad scientist" played for all it's worth by Chaney. So don't look for any special thrills or chills in this one or for an "undiscovered" character by Chaney but instead watch this one for the comedy of Johnny Arthur and enjoy and wonder "what if" he had had more of an opportunity at starring vehicles and not ending up as a bit player in the 1930's. He would certainly have ranked right up there with the other greats of the time.

This happens extremely rarely but yes, this sequel to the original "Buck Privates" is better. Why? There's more of A&C in this one actually as opposed to the original which has more musical numbers in it and more of a romance subplot. In "Buck Privates Come Home" there's more typical A&C burlesque routines that made them famous in the first place. I'm speaking primarily of the 'ol "Floogle Street Sketch" and the story about Floogle Street and the Susquehannah Hat Company. Either the street name or the name of the hat company sets everyone off whenever Lou mentions them to passing pedestrians. It is pure classic comedy, of which apparently writers forgot how to do nowadays. I highly recommend this flick!

Yes, as the other reviewers have already stated, this may not be vintage L&H but it's far from being their worst work as at 20th Century Stupid...I mean Fox. This film certainly has all of the basic ingredients for things to go wrong for the boys. But it's their serious approach and determination that makes them funny. They don't play it for laughs as other comedians might but they take their work and situation quite seriously and that is the essence of their eternal humor. In this film, they are faced with some basic issues that really might be encountered by any one of us today, namely job related stress. First, we would get checked out by a doctor and he would prescribe some much needed rest and perhaps staying by the sea. That's where the surrealness comes in to all of this. L&H always take a most plausible set of circumstances and exaggerate it but never to the point of being incredible, except maybe once in awhile. This makes us laugh because we can relate to their self caused predicaments and attempts at extrication. That's what makes Stan and Ollie universal in their appeal. In this film all those ingredients are presented in a delightfully artful and gracefully slapstick way. Not their best in comparison to their earlier work probably because this was the actual last film they did for Roach because he wanted to mirror the "big" studios and go into making features exclusively and also wanted to hurry up and finish their contractual obligation. BIG MISTAKE! They should have all stayed together and continued for maybe five more years. What the world may have missed in their not considering this as an option. Watch, laugh, and enjoy this as their last great performance.