Question: Q: This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.
A: positive
Q: 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").
A: negative
Q: I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliché' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.
A: negative
Q: Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)

Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film  though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre  but quite fun  performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10.

Answer: A: negative