NOTE IMDb
7,4/10
1,9 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueStan fakes receiving a telegram so he can go to a club with Ollie and a bottle of his unsuspecting wife's liquor, but she overhears his plans.Stan fakes receiving a telegram so he can go to a club with Ollie and a bottle of his unsuspecting wife's liquor, but she overhears his plans.Stan fakes receiving a telegram so he can go to a club with Ollie and a bottle of his unsuspecting wife's liquor, but she overhears his plans.
Baldwin Cooke
- Waiter
- (non crédité)
Jean De Briac
- Shopkeeper
- (non crédité)
Dick Gilbert
- Phone Booth Gawker
- (non crédité)
Vladimir Gueteron
- Orchestra Leader
- (non crédité)
Charlie Hall
- Cabdriver
- (non crédité)
Jack Hill
- Man in Rainbow Club
- (non crédité)
Frank Holliday
- Rainbow Club Singer
- (non crédité)
Bob Minford
- Phone Booth Gawker
- (non crédité)
Tiny Sandford
- Headwaiter
- (non crédité)
Harry Wilde
- Nightclub patron
- (non crédité)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe number Oliver Hardy calls to reach Stan Laurel (OXford-0614) was Laurel's real phone number.
- GaffesFrom where they were standing, it would have been impossible for the laughing crowd to have actually seen Ollie at the phone booth.
- Versions alternativesThere is also a colorized version.
- ConnexionsAlternate-language version of La vida nocturna (1930)
- Bandes originalesThe Curse of an Aching Heart
(1913) (uncredited)
Music by Al Piantadosi
Lyrics by Henry Fink
Performed by Frank Holliday
Commentaire à la une
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were comedic geniuses, individually and together, and their partnership was deservedly iconic and one of the best there was. They left behind a large body of work, a vast majority of it being entertaining to classic comedy, at their best they were hilarious and their best efforts were great examples of how to do comedy without being juvenile or distasteful.
Although a vast majority of Laurel and Hardy's previous efforts ranged from above average to very good ('45 Minutes from Hollywood' being the only misfire and mainly worth seeing as a curiosity piece and for historical interest, and even that wasn't a complete mess), 'Two Tars' for me was their first truly classic one with close to flawless execution. Didn't find 'Blotto' as one of their best and a bit disappointing compared to their late 1928 and the best of their 1929 efforts, which were among their best and funniest early work. It is still very good and has much of what makes Laurel and Hardy's work as appealing as it is.
The story is extremely slight to the point of non-existence and the first part takes a little bit too time to get going and is a little formulaic.
When 'Blotto' does get going, which it does do quite quickly, it is great fun, not always hilarious but never less than very amusing, the best being classic hilarity. It is never too silly, there is a wackiness that never loses its energy and the sly wit is here, some of the material may not be new but how it's executed actually doesn't feel too familiar and it doesn't get repetitive.
Laurel and Hardy are on top form here, both are well used, both have material worthy of them and they're equal rather than one being funnier than the other (before Laurel tended to be funnier and more interesting than Hardy, who tended to be underused). Their chemistry feels like a partnership here too, before 'Two Tars' you were yearning for more scenes with them together but in 'Blotto' and on the most part from 'Two Tars' onwards we are far from robbed of that. Their comic timing is impeccable.
'Blotto' looks good visually, is full of energy and the direction gets the best out of the stars, is at ease with the material and doesn't let it get too busy or static. The supporting players are solid with a scene stealing Anita Garvin.
Overall, very good. Not essential or classic Laurel and Hardy, but a very good representation of them. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Although a vast majority of Laurel and Hardy's previous efforts ranged from above average to very good ('45 Minutes from Hollywood' being the only misfire and mainly worth seeing as a curiosity piece and for historical interest, and even that wasn't a complete mess), 'Two Tars' for me was their first truly classic one with close to flawless execution. Didn't find 'Blotto' as one of their best and a bit disappointing compared to their late 1928 and the best of their 1929 efforts, which were among their best and funniest early work. It is still very good and has much of what makes Laurel and Hardy's work as appealing as it is.
The story is extremely slight to the point of non-existence and the first part takes a little bit too time to get going and is a little formulaic.
When 'Blotto' does get going, which it does do quite quickly, it is great fun, not always hilarious but never less than very amusing, the best being classic hilarity. It is never too silly, there is a wackiness that never loses its energy and the sly wit is here, some of the material may not be new but how it's executed actually doesn't feel too familiar and it doesn't get repetitive.
Laurel and Hardy are on top form here, both are well used, both have material worthy of them and they're equal rather than one being funnier than the other (before Laurel tended to be funnier and more interesting than Hardy, who tended to be underused). Their chemistry feels like a partnership here too, before 'Two Tars' you were yearning for more scenes with them together but in 'Blotto' and on the most part from 'Two Tars' onwards we are far from robbed of that. Their comic timing is impeccable.
'Blotto' looks good visually, is full of energy and the direction gets the best out of the stars, is at ease with the material and doesn't let it get too busy or static. The supporting players are solid with a scene stealing Anita Garvin.
Overall, very good. Not essential or classic Laurel and Hardy, but a very good representation of them. 8/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- 9 sept. 2018
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Quelle bringue!
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée26 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Une Nuit Extravagante (1930) officially released in India in English?
Répondre