input: The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.

Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.

The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.

Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.

Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.

Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.

Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.

By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative