IN: Review: Marilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay away.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Who was George C. Scott? George C. Scott was a renowned actor. Practically any movie that he's been in is the better off for it. Now ol' George had absolutely NOTHING to do with this movie..., but he once said something that describes said movie to a T.

I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that Great Writing can Save Bad Acting, But Great Acting CanNOT save Bad Writing. Never has this little observation been truer than in "The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy: For Love or Mummy".

The casting of the two leads was absolutely perfect. Bronson Pinchot (Laurel) and Gailard Sartain (Hardy) not only look the parts, but they do an exceptionally good job at mimicking the real deal (mannerisms and all). This movie should stand as a lasting testament to their talents. That said, this movie falls flat on its face when it comes to (you guessed it) WRITING.

Aside from the opening dialogue between Pinchot and Sartain (which was very "in character") and a brief gag involving a taxi, this movie is an absolute chore to sit through.

PROBLEM # 1: Too much time and effort went into the plot.

I don't want to know why the mummy wants to kidnap the pretty British lady. What I WANT is to see Stan and Ollie (or at least, their stand-ins). Way too much screen time was devoted to explaining the plot or to the not-very-funny secondary characters that said plot revolved around.

However, even if this movie had been all jokes, that would still leave us with...

...PROBLEM # 2: Most of the jokes are what I would call "watered-down" slapstick.

What do I mean by "watered down"?

In slapstick, a character gets hurt in an exaggerated way for comedic effect (ala Looney Tunes, 3 Stooges...,or how about Laurel & Hardy?).

In "watered-down" slapstick (as I define it), a character gets mildly hurt or inconvenienced, and the filmmakers play that up for comedic effect.

Maybe an illustration would help:

In Looney Tunes, Daffy Duck gets shot by Elmer Fudd. His bill falls off and he puts it back on. That is classic slapstick.

In this "gem", Ollie accidentally bumps into some people. They turn around, tell him to be careful, and continue on their merry way. That's not slapstick. That's not even funny. That's just...boring...and this movie is full of these kinds of jokes. It's as though they're this movie's bread and butter. The writers and directors just take these dull moments and act like they're supposed to be funny. Granted, the example I just gave is the most extreme case, but I can only cut it so much slack.

Long story short: The film just doesn't work because the script fails to capitalize on Pinchot's and Sartain's abilities to impersonate Stan and Ollie. Instead, the script capitalizes on plot exposition and lame jokes. Watching this movie is basically watching two excellent impersonators who were given no real material to work with.

Not a good movie, but an incredible sleeping aid.

I say give this one a miss and stick with the real deal (just so long as you steer clear of "Atoll K" and "Be Big").
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is obviously aimed at the same market as Monsters Inc and Shrek, but is different in its less cartoony feel (despite the deliberately cartoony characteristics of the lead creatures). The story is not one that had a massive in your face moral at the end (its more like its tugging at your shirt sleeves) but chooses just to tell a story about relationships between different "animals." You know the outcome, but you can't help being drawn in.

The characters themselves are far more than their voices (the advantage of less famous actors doing the voices), unlike most Disney movies. They are well rounded and completely believable, strangely. The group dynamics are brilliantly well presented and the character revelations and quirks are subtle and enjoyable. You will find yourself rooting for them far sooner than you would like to think.

The animation is brilliant, as you would expect, and you will be praying for the opportunity to go on the ice slide in the movie. You will fall in love with the characters, especially the comic relief of the prehistoric squirrel and its desperate attempts to bury its nuts. I came out wanting the obligatory merchandise, especially the sloth toy, only to be disappointed the next day when I couldn't find anything vaguely related.

Which, strangely, makes the movie all the more pure.

Better than Monsters Inc or Shrek.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The central theme in this movie seems to be confusion, as the relationships, setting, acting and social context all lead to the same place: confusion. Even Harvey Keitel appears to be out of his element, and lacks his usual impeccable clarity, direction and intensity. To make matters worse, his character's name is 'Che', and we are only told (directly, by the narrator) well into the film that he is not 'that' Che, just a guy named Che. The family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film, and once defined, the family is divided - the younger generation off to America. So cliche. Other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy's family; however the political stance of the director is murky at best, and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. So they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) - so what? Refusing to take a political stand, when making a movie about the Cuban revolution, is an odd and cowardly choice. Not to mention the movie was in English! Why are all these Cubans speaking English? No wonder they did not get permission to film in Cuba. And if family life is most important to look at here, it would be great if we could figure out who is who - we are 'introduced' to them all in the beginning - a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film! The acting was mostly shallow, wooden, and unbelievable, timing was off all around. The 'special' visual effects were confusing and distracting. References to American films - and the black character as Greek chorus - strictly gratuitous, intellectually ostentatious, and consistently out of place. I only watched the whole movie because I was waiting for clarity, or some point to it all. It never happened.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative