Great Guns

[Mr. Binx]

Recently I watched L&H's Great Guns knowing it was a lesser regarded effort
due, in part, to the barebones production style of producer Sol Wurtzel. It
was a pleasant surprise to me, and I'm wondering whether my experience is
simply the result of lowered expectations, or is the film maybe unfairly
dismissed because it is 'grouped' together with the other 3 movies produced
by Wurtzel and considered part of their past prime after leaving Hal Roach
Studios. Anyway, I enjoyed it largely, just wondering what other opinions
might be.

tia,
Mr. Binx

[Hal Erickson]

GREAT GUNS really comes alive before an audience, though I find it only
sporadically amusing.
Too much Boy-Girl crap, too many out-of-character lines for Stan and Ollie,
and the individual sight gags
aren't as well handled as they would have been at Roach.

Otherwise, I can see why it was successful in 1941, and why audiences laugh
at it today. I laugh at ROOM SERVICE, even though it's not the best or most
representative of the Marx Bros. films. I regard it as a comedy that happens
to star the Marxes, rather than a tailor-made vehicle. GREAT GUNS can be
enjoyed in the same spirit, (and perhaps best enjoyed by those unfamiliar
with the team's Roach features).

--Hal E

Post by Mr. Binx
Recently I watched L&H's Great Guns knowing it was a lesser regarded
effort due, in part, to the barebones production style of producer Sol
Wurtzel. It was a pleasant surprise to me, and I'm wondering whether my
experience is simply the result of lowered expectations, or is the film
maybe unfairly dismissed because it is 'grouped' together with the other 3
movies produced by Wurtzel and considered part of their past prime after
leaving Hal Roach Studios. Anyway, I enjoyed it largely, just wondering
what other opinions might be.
tia,
Mr. Binx

[cseguin]

Last time I watched GREAT GUNS, it actually upset me. Watching Stan
struggling to deliver lines totally unsuited to his character, and
knowing how unhappy he was, broke my heart. But my wife enjoyed it
more that WAY OUT WEST, so what do I know!

I have no doubt that the Fox films are great audience films, but they
really lack the charm of the Roach productions. But I often
wonder .... did audiences in the 40s really notice the difference, or
care?

Post by Hal Erickson
GREAT GUNS really comes alive before an audience, though I find it only
sporadically amusing.
Too much Boy-Girl crap, too many out-of-character lines for Stan and Ollie,
and the individual sight gags
aren't as well handled as they would have been at Roach.
Otherwise, I can see why it was successful in 1941, and why audiences laugh
at it today. I laugh at ROOM SERVICE, even though it's not the best or most
representative of the Marx Bros. films. I regard it as a comedy that happens
to star the Marxes, rather than a tailor-made vehicle. GREAT GUNS can be
enjoyed in the same spirit, (and perhaps best enjoyed by those unfamiliar
with the team's Roach features).
--Hal E

Post by Mr. Binx
Recently I watched L&H's Great Guns knowing it was a lesser regarded
effort due, in part, to the barebones production style of producer Sol
Wurtzel. It was a pleasant surprise to me, and I'm wondering whether my
experience is simply the result of lowered expectations, or is the film
maybe unfairly dismissed because it is 'grouped' together with the other 3
movies produced by Wurtzel and considered part of their past prime after
leaving Hal Roach Studios. Anyway, I enjoyed it largely, just wondering
what other opinions might be.
tia,
Mr. Binx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by cseguin
Last time I watched GREAT GUNS, it actually upset me. Watching Stan
struggling to deliver lines totally unsuited to his character, and
knowing how unhappy he was, broke my heart. But my wife enjoyed it
more that WAY OUT WEST, so what do I know!
I have no doubt that the Fox films are great audience films, but they
really lack the charm of the Roach productions. But I often
wonder .... did audiences in the 40s really notice the difference, or
care?

Nobody seems to notice except us Laurel and Hardy buffs. I have seen
Great Guns with an audience and, as Hal points out, it gets a huge
reaction as it did in 1941, only a year after Saps at Sea, only four
years after Way Out West.

JN

[MJ]

“Great Guns” was the second L&H film that I saw with an audience. The
first was “Blockheads.” My initial reaction was that they must have
been shot many, many years apart. More than the humor, I believe that
the make-up was responsible for that reaction.

I vividly recall the weirdness of the comparison. There’s a quick
scene in “Great Guns” where there’s a knock on the door and Stan peeks
around to see the other side of the door. I elbowed my buddy with,
“Did you see that?!?” Too bad we didn’t have rewind buttons in those
days.

I had been so enthralled by the combination of big, big gags and
extremely subtle humor in “Blockheads,” that the very broad humor of
“Great Guns” seemed to be a major letdown. The aforementioned door gag
was a very welcome throwback to the L&H I had expected to see.

But this was the late 1960s, not the 1940s. We can look back now and
see what went wrong, but I doubt that the contemporary audiences knew
or cared. Even two years is enough for a general movie audience to
forget what came before.

“Great Guns” isn’t much of a Laurel & Hardy film when viewed in the
big picture, but it fit right in with what was popular and successful
at the time. And it still worked with that audience I saw it with, all
those years later.

So, yeah…. it’s just us who see anything wrong.

-MJ