do detectives think ?
do critics think you should see ‘guardians of the galaxy vol. 2’? — the pixar detectives
looking for movie tickets? enter your location to see which movie theaters are playing do detectives think? near you .
a funny, early short film by the masters of comedy, i truly enjoyed watching laurel and hardy’s do detectives think? and hope that you do, too .
there are better laurel and hardy silents out there. even a neophyte like me knows that. but i do consider do detectives think? is a decent place to start. you don’t get their best work here, but you do, indisputably, get them .
although this film was never officially remade, many of the gags and specific situations in do detectives think? were reused by the comedians in later films, with going bye bye being the most obvious parallel .
hey toothpaste and i posted at the same time. great minds think alike !
review: ‘guardians of the galaxy vol. 2’ doesn’t really care what you think
on review: ‘guardians of the galaxy vol. 2’ doesn’t really care what you think
do detectives think? is not a great comedy short. but it does illustrate a truth about comedy in general, and slapstick comedy in particular: believable characters in unbelievable situations remain believable. or to put it another way: a good protagonist can elevate a bad plot .
( do detectives think? did add one important new ingredient to the formula, though. the suits and bowler hats that would come to be laurel’s and hardy’s trademark costume made their debut in this film. here, they were just meant to be typical detective’s garb. )
and there are loose ends. the author obviously wants you to read on, but i do think every novel should finish properly, even if there will be a sequel ...
so, i think the place the novel is set and the detective is key for me .
so far he seems to just accept the crazy things that happen around him. after being kept in the dark for so long, do you think him finding out would affect the team dynamic ?
i enjoy nordic noir, but they often have some of the most angst ridden detectives, in my opinion .
do think of a twist if you can. it’s not essential, but i do love a great twist. no big deal – it just has to be genuinely shocking while still plausible and something no one’s done before. easy, right? if you’re not about a killer twist, fair enough, but do make sure you’ve got a compelling premise to hook your readers in before they’ve even started .
the planet is our home; we need to be more responsible. here' s what i do .
an escaped convict is out to kill the judge who sentenced him. two inept detectives are hired to guard the judge .
review:' guardians of the galaxy vol. 2' doesn' t really care what you think | jon negroni
as with most of the silent comedies produced by hal roach studios, the humor didn’t rest entirely on the shoulders of the actors. title card writer h. m. walker was a witty fellow indeed and would often open these rib - ticklers with a great line, setting the tone for what was to follow. his opening card in “do detectives think” :
do detectives think (1927). more visually daring than the other shorts seen here, the film also has higher stakes (stan & ollie are bodyguards protecting a judge from an escaped murderer who' s vowed to kill him) and is, all - in - all, a pretty pacy affair that gets increasingly farcical as it goes on. good stuff .
regular readers of this blog know my opinion on standalone gags in comedy films (for a refresher on that, read my post on the patsy —a film you probably liked better than i did). but in this case i’m conflicted. these two gags may indeed have been the ones to cut from do detectives think? —but they’re also the best two gags in the film .
westworld ’s success makes me think there are a lot more shows like this in our future, a knowing codification of this relatively new genre, puzzle tv. (it occurs to me that search party was an attempt for comedies to get into this kind of serialized storytelling mystery. i’m for it. why should they get left out of the real water - cooler glory ?) what do you guys think of all these shows? what do you think of this kind of storytelling? am i selling westworld short? what other trends did you see in this year’s crop of serialized shows? talk dramas to me .
an escaped convict is out to kill the judge who sentenced him. two inept detectives are hired to guard the judge. (less )
stick a victory cigar in his own mouth in such a short amount of time. how on earth did he do that ?
that all depends on the tv show and on the real detective. of the hundred thousand or more of real detectives there are some really talented people who are very good at what they do. but one must remember that reality is much different than tv. a television show has a plot. that plot has a script in which the actors know the outcome so it is difficult to be a bad tv detective unless the script calls for it. beling a real detective has no script, no planned dialogue, and every crime scene is different. real detectives have to deal with unknown factors and actually learn things. it takes training and experience as well as knowledge of the law to be able to solve real crimes. tv detectives probably would be lost trying to solve real crimes. most real detectives understand that they are not competing with tv detectives .
spotted in the cast: wilson benge plays finn’s butler in “do detectives think”… and played a butler and other servile roles (waiters, doormen, valets, etc .) in over 95% of his other movie, shorts and serial appearances. of interest to genre fans are his appearances in bela lugosi’s “the death kiss” and one of the versions of mary rhinehart’s comedy horror template “the bat” (a straight horror version called “
now we’re getting some place! do detectives think? is the first l & h comedy since duck soup where laurel & hardy seem like laurel & hardy. this is the first movie where they both wear their trademark derbies — and, as if in honor of that occasion, it’s also the first movie where they do their hat - switching routine. except for a little extra growth on ollie’s mustache, all of the familiar elements are in place and remain there for an entire movie. there will be a few more missteps from here on in, but movie history is starting to take place .
this is silly. two grown men, even foolish ones like these two, would not be so juvenile as to be paralyzed with fear at the thought of stepping just a few feet into a graveyard after - hours. and if they were, surely they’d have found another route to the judge’s house? the gag does nothing to advance the story of do detectives think? it seems better suited to lesser comedians—the mugging larry semon - types. but there is a defense of it .
sorry, i didn' t think it was that big a deal since the producers have said it and i' ve seen it discussed here before. i' m sorry .
i kind of think of the loner’s duster as a cape or little kids blanket. it is like a tiny bit of solace for someone feeling isolated and alienated from his world .
silent short film with laurel and hardy as inept detectives hired to protect a judge from an escaped convict. the scene in the mansion is somewhat amusing, but the graveyard scene was lasted longer than necessary .
placing a character in familiar lands and dress can help sell the character as a mythic hero to the audience, but i don’t think it’s all that matters. the character has to fill the role as well .
stan and ollie do a fine job, they really do, and everybody does a fine job! except, it' s just ruined by a sort of a weird plot involving the tipton slasher trying to get away with murder. i know the laurel and hardy characters were developing, except it still doesn' t feel like it belongs here and would' ve been better suited in the movie sugar daddies .
i think myths are a form of marketing, though to sell the “brand” of the society that made them. the cowboy myth won in america because it more closely matched the overall myth of the west than the samurai .
the very simple yet memorable slogan “by mennen” was coined by advertising executive richard j. mercer. mercer also came up with the equally catchy “how do you handle a hungry man? ” jingle for campbell’s manhandler soups .
boutros boutros - ghali was the secretary - general of the united nations from 1992 until 1996. what does he have to do with nudity? nothing. but his name sure does have a poetically leering sound to it .
i think it' s a lot like batman where gordon doesn' t know that bruce is batman. the existence of the machine is the most logical way for the team to get their information (much like how bruce wayne being batman is the most logical choice), and both fusco and gordon are esteemed detectives. for all intents and purposes, gordon and fusco have the means to figure out what' s going on, so their failure to acknowledge their situations must be by choice .
is there a marketing component here? that is, choose to put your character in the expected familiar costume and people’s embedded archetypes will do the rest. which begs the question, is marketing the modern version of myth - making ?
i enjoy a good setting and i think that is often important to me. if i come across a crime novel set on a cruise ship, or in a school, or another' closed' community, that really appeals to me personally .
i' ve liked that fusco doesn' t know and almost avoids finding out, but it' s probably about time that he finds out. i think he' ll be ok with that or at least ok enough not to abandon team machine .
do write characters we can believe in. they don’t have to be nice (in fact, we often prefer it if they’re not) but they have to be engaging. if i’m reading from the perspective of a psychopath, i want to really believe i’m in their head, because there’s nothing more terrifying. i want to empathize with the victims, the detectives and, yes, even the killers. because if i don’t, i won’t care what happens to them, and that’s one of your biggest hooks gone .
i like an engaging story. good writing. attention to detail. i do like noir. we should know something about the lead detective but not necessarily everything. i also like some wit. so i like hammett, chandler and also crais .
you’d think most of the film would take place in the house. in fact, it takes nearly half the 23 - minute running time for stan and ollie to get there. this is mostly due to a pair of standalone gags executed along the way .
. “she had a real intuition about me, and not since my own mom had anybody really had my number. she really understood my tastes, and my ambition, and my fear, my anxiety about wanting to do everything by thursday morning. ”
i read quite a few mysteries so the believability of the characters and the plot are important to me. that is one reason i have virtually given up on cozies. however, i have also noticed that even procedurals are starting to add more and more about the private lives of the detectives involved. i don' t mind some information, but too often they go overboard so the mystery is lost in the problems of the detective. in fact, one plot device that seems to be current is the death of one of the team members. one other thing that bothers me is that some authors seem to feel that their detectives need to be perfect, with abilities that' astound' their colleagues or hunches that always prove to be right, but i prefer the detectives who can admit to being wrong occasionally. i am sure authors do this to move the story along, but as stories (regrettably) become longer and longer, i tend to lose interest and just want to get to the end. in fact, i sometimes just look at the end, and call it a day .
when the detectives realize the slasher is in the house, stan repeatedly jumps on ollie’s back in fear, preventing him from leaving the bedroom. when ollie finally manages to get the door open stan ends up missing ollie’s back and jumping right through the door and on top of the judge’s wife !
susan wrote :
i enjoy nordic noir, but they often have some of the most angst ridden detectives, in my opinion .
i' ve just listened to the episode of the podcast a stab in the dark where mark billingham talks to anne cleeves and yrsa sigurdardottir where they discuss nordic noir .
the bowlers appear here because they were traditional headgear for detectives at that time, almost a badge of authority like a sheriff' s stetson. i think i even remember some private eyes wearing bowlers in the stooge shorts (i can' t pin down any specific titles) even though by the' 30' s men' s fashion in general had moved to the fedora. l & h' s keeping the derbies forever after was a stroke of genius that made them iconic, motivation unknown, though by the' 40' s they were wearing a lot of fedoras as well .
what' s the plot ?
the tipton slasher
plans an evil plot to escape from jail and stan and oliver, detectives, are supposed to get the tipton slasher with violent, disastrious results. when the slasher pulls out a very violent knife, you know that this isn' t a comedy .
i think it depends what mood i am in. i like dark, depraved crime as well as the more gentle type. i enjoy european crime - not only nordic noir, but there is a lot of good crime fiction coming out of france, germany, etc. at the moment .
i think fusco knows a little bit. but he probably assumes harold does a lot more than he actually does. the rest of the team probably figure he' s safer the less he knows about it. especially since samaritan came online and would pick out fusco in a heartbeat if he were overheard .
that dress viola richard is wearing doesn' t do much to hide her cleavage in certain shots. in one shot when she welcomes the boys into the house, she is standing on the right of the frame and leaning slightly forwards. this shot reveals a pretty good look at her backside too !
oh, and for my overall rating, i' m going to go just a bit under metal' s rating and rate this movie a 6. 5. in other words, i do not recommend watching this movie, except for the historic value, because at times this movie drags slow .
he knows they' re doing good and helping people and there' s another group of people out opposing them, if not their mission / goals, i think he' ll be a little pissed, but will ultimately see that keeping him in the dark about the big picture let him stay under the radar .
though they were a few films away from becoming an official team, stan and ollie are here closer to being stan and ollie than ever before. they are a bit more well - groomed than their familiar selves; but as this film marks the first appearance of the derbies and the traditional costumes, many fans think of
so, as the title might suggest, in my opinion these things are all related. there' s a very fine line between plagiarism and the rest of them, and i was wondering if anyone has some guidelines to follow. i' ve always liked reading literature that would tastefully reference something obscure that i' ve read or seen in the past. the question is, how do you do it tastefully. when does it become excessive? i really like putting subtle and quirky shout - outs and homages to obscure things, but it seems like references can be closer to plagiarism. when does it become plagiarism ?
) who sentenced him. laurel & hardy, inept employees of a private detective agency, are assigned to guard him. waylaying the judge' s new butler, the killer gets into his house in that guise. prowling the house with huge knives and swords, young misses several opportunities to kill his intended prey, and adds the detectives to his list of victims when they continually get in his way. eager only to avoid him, and by now totally unconcerned by their mission to protect the judge, the boys do, by a fluke, capture him after all and after turning him over to the law, leave, bowing modestly and gracefully as they exit .
“wait, there is one way to find out. we set up a sting. you know like abscam. like abscam jerry. ” —kramer “what are you gonna do? you gonna put on a phony beard and dress - up like arab sheiks and sit around in some hotel room? ” —elaine, “the sniffing accountant”
the only out - of - place element is funny names. here, stan is ferninand finkleberry, “the second worst detective in the whole world, ” and ollie is sherlock pinkham, “the worst” — showing that even in this early entry, the boys fit the real - life hardy’s later description of their characters as “the dumb, dumb guy” and “the smart, smart guy who’s dumber than the dumb guy only he doesn’t know it. ” they are detectives hired to protect a judge (james finlayson) whose life is in danger when a convict (noah young) whom he sentenced to death has escaped. the boys are such brilliant detectives, they don’t realize that the judge’s new butler is the vengeful convict in disguise .
i think the difference between plagiarism and the others is that plagiarism is a deliberate attempt to pass off someone else' s work as your own. paying homage, referring or shouting out to something else is done very deliberately, with a nod to the source material. it is done with the intention of either using the original work to comment on yours, or to use your work to comment on the original. it serves an obvious purpose, and is not meant to be deceptive. the line can certainly blur, but i think the author' s intention comes through the work in subtle ways. you can most often tell when someone is paying homage vs just plain stealing .
as midnight approaches, the detectives make their way on foot towards the judge' s house, walking past the cemetery when all of a sudden ollie' s hat is blown off by the wind. he nervously looks into the graveyard and sees his hat lying next to another on the ground by a tombstone. he calls stan, who thinks it' s funny until
such a great question to think about. number one for me is the detective. he or she has to be especially clever, someone i trust to figure out what i can' t. that promise keeps me reading. amateur or professional, the mind of the detective is key. there are so many other things, will keep checking in .
of working with the rookie director, the veteran weaver later said, “i gave him the benefit of the doubt. i said, ‘there’s no reason for me to judge him because of his age. let’s see what he does. ’ and he did extremely well... i really think it’s one of the most creative jobs he’s ever done. ”
with filmmaker edgar wright, spielberg explained, “ [ producer ] george eckstein told me after the network saw it, ‘well, we’re going back to the desert, they want to push the truck off the cliff again and blow it up again.' i told george why that was such a terrible idea. i’d worked so hard to give the truck a long and painful death and i thought that’s what the audience wanted out of the resolution. i said, ‘if the network does force you to blow the truck up again, you get another director to do it because i’m not going to do it.' george fought for me, and for himself because he agreed with me. ”
his missing - persons investigation has just turned up a body in the woods – naked, hands tied behind its back, and a bin bag duct - taped over its head. the major investigation team charges up from aberdeen, under the beady eye of logan’s ex - boss detective chief inspector steel. and, as usual, she wants him to do her job for her .
a convicted murderer has escaped from prison, vowing bloody revenge on the judge who put him away. now, if that doesn' t strike you as the premise for a comedy, just keep reading: the panicked judge hires two detectives to protect him. and the detective agency sends their top men - - ferdinand finkleberry (
the second worst detective in the world
), and his colleague sherlock pinkham (
the worst
) .
arrested in 1993, joel rifkin is believed to have committed as many as 17 murders over a span of four years, though he was only convicted of nine. his victims were usually prostitutes that he hired in manhattan and brooklyn and took back to his home on long island. his “trademark” was dismembering his victims with a chainsaw (which detectives found in his garage after his arrest) after killing them and then distributing their body parts in various locations around the city .
i doubt it will change the team dynamic. he' ll have slightly less reason to call root nutella, but i' m sure he' ll have other reasons to continue to do so or will come up with something new that reflects the new knowledge. i see no reason why his dynamics with harold or reese should change in the long term. harold and reese have not lied to fusco or manipulated him .
don’t try to imitate. it’s impossible not to be influenced by other writers and i wouldn’t suggest otherwise. some of the best crime novels in the last few years have been homages to the classics. but whatever you’re writing, always make sure the voice is your own, because that’s the only way it will feel genuine. don’t write what you think we want to hear – be confident, distinctive and original, and it’ll pay off .
as soon as their boss tells stan and ollie they have to guard the judge and that he lives “just beyond the whitechapel graveyard, ” our heroes do a nervous double take. it doesn’t help that the boss adds, “this ‘tipton slasher’ will probably kill you – but you’ll be buried like heroes. ” however, the boss is almost buried first as stanley’s pistol goes off while he loads it, barely missing the head detective !
jill wrote :
the one thing i have noticed in recent mysteries is that every character is unhappy, even those that are not the main protagonists. too much angst gets a little tiring after a while ...
this seems to be the case not only with mysteries but with most mainstream fiction as well. seems like nobody is able to write a happy book, or if they do, nobody will publish it .
i like distinct characters both detective and suspects. pure mysteries - - such as the golden age and like ellery queen were focused on the murder (s) itself. there wasn' t much of a background on the detective. i like the leaphorn / chee mysteries because get to know the detectives and the mysteries they solve become intertwined with their lives. on the other hand, i don' t mind a pure mystery with fair play and everything that is expected because then it is a puzzle to me. good mysteries can be literary. i just read
red harvest
again by dashiell hammett, which must be blueprint for every private eye novel, and event though are several mini - mysteries in the book, the detective does undergo a change in the book which to me is closer to literary. i think ross mcdonald' s lew archer books are both mysteries and literary because of the observations he makes and the people he encounters .
that’s what laurel and hardy play this time: detectives. “ferdinand finklebery” and “sherlock pinkham” (thankfully, the names are mentioned only once). they’re charged with guarding the home of judge foozle (jimmy finlayson) and his dishy wife (viola richard) against a throat - slashing escaped con bent on revenge. finlayson, a regular foil for laurel and hardy, looks a little like chester conklin here. the killer (noah young) looks like mr. hyde. the wife looks just right .
“i think it’s time that chappy got read in, the fusco got read in, ” plageman says. “given the circumstance of where we ended up in the finale, where he was involved in the t - bone accident where dominic and elias were both shot, there’s going to be a lot of questions for detective fusco. when the heat starts turning on him, then he’s going to start to ask his own questions and want to know what’s going on. ”
betsy wrote :
one other thing that bothers me is that some authors seem to feel that their detectives need to be perfect, with abilities that' astound' their colleagues or hunches that always prove to right ,
perfect in their intuition and deductions, but so very imperfect in their own lives. i don' t want every detective to be an alcoholic loner, with ptsd and a shady romantic liaison... who, as you say, will probably be fridged to raise the stakes .
rather than being a star vehicle, jimmy finlayson and noah young are afforded nearly as much screen time as stan and ollie. both are excellent in their roles, and leave more of an impact than supporting players in l & h films usually do. it' s more a good film than a good laurel and hardy film. but as it marks the first real appearance of the boys, it was the most important film they had made to date .
i don' t think plagiarism must necessarily be intentional, though. certainly it' s at its worst and most obvious when it is. but if you know a novel or story very well, and it inspires you, and have read it enough that it lies in your subconscious... i think it' s perfectly possible that you could accidentally write a passage that' s almost word - for - word similar to something you' ve read and admired before without realizing it. it' s never happened to me before with novels, but i write songs in my spare time off from writing, and i' ve certainly written a lyric that i later realized i' d lifted from a song i' d heard before (and changed it, of course). or a composed a melody that i thought was good and original, only to listen to a song and realize crap! that' s where it came from !
plot: when judge foozle (james finlayson) sentences “the tipton slasher” (noah young) for his heinous crimes, the murderer vows revenge. when the slasher escapes prison, the judge hires two private detectives (laurel & hardy) to guard him. the pair must survive an encounter in a graveyard on the way to the judge’s house, and then must face the judge’s butler – who has been knocked out and replaced by the slasher! can stan & ollie bring this killer to justice without being scared to death ?
as you' ve probably surmised from the marketing, tracy morgan and bruce willis are partners, detectives who don' t do things by the book. cop out doesn' t have opening credits (a move which i give extra points for), we' re just delivered instantly to an interrogation where t - morg is doing his thing. it should be said (and so i' ll write it) that mr. morgan is one funny fellow. he' s transcendent in 30 rock and of the 20 total laughs the movie contains, a good 75 percent come from morgan just riffing. the script itself seems relatively unfunny, and if they hadn' t cast morgan my guess is they just would have given up on the project altogether. bruce willis comes off less great - - replacing him with a statue or inflatable doll might have provided more oomph - - and seann william scott is largely unused in what amounts to a cameo (regardless of what the trailers indicate) .
written and filmed may, 1927. released by pathe, july, 1927. produced by hal roach. directed by fred guiol. story by hal roach. two reels. cast: stan laurel, oliver hardy, james finlayson, noah young, frank brownlee, will stanton. story: a murderer (young) vows revenge on a judge (finlayson) for sentencing him to death, so the judge hires two private detectives (laurel and hardy) for protection. the gumshoes bungle their way along, but manage to capture the criminal .
that’s a great image. it’s the quintessential cowboy. it also does not fit the actual story at all, for one simple reason: roland (pictured above) never wears a duster. but the image of the badass gunslinger is so prevalent in the minds of the audience that everyone (including me) thinks of him as wearing one. throughout most of the series, however, he wears either a deerskin vest or a blue chambray shirt. we think of him in the duster because of the cowboy myth .
guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 picks up right where its predecessor left off both story - wise and in regard to its timeline. just a few months or so after the a - holes saved the galaxy and became a family, peter quill, drax, gamora, rocket, and groot embark on a new adventure that does something most sequels don’t really do. rather than go bigger and double down on beloved set pieces of the first film, guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 goes smaller and more introspective .
flagging a post will send it to the goodreads customer care team for review. we take abuse seriously in our discussion boards. only flag comments that clearly need our attention. as a general rule we do not censor any content on the site. the only content we will consider removing is spam, slanderous attacks on other members, or extremely offensive content (eg. pornography, pro - nazi, child abuse, etc). we will not remove any content for bad language alone, or being critical of a particular book .
some sitcom writers do their best to avoid penning time - sensitive references into their scripts, since news stories—no matter how widely covered at the time—are often forgotten long before a series goes into syndication. and sometimes characters just happen to mention events or personalities from their youth that haven’t necessarily remained green in the minds of the audience. case in point: these 20 cultural references made throughout seinfeld' s nine - season run, which may not make sense to younger viewers who are only now discovering the iconic series via reruns or streaming .
do be consistent. one of an editor’s favourite axioms is ‘consistency is king’. minor inconsistencies are to be expected and can be fixed at copyedit stage. however, huge plot holes can be seriously disruptive and are harder to fix down the line than avoiding them in the first place. everyone approaches plotting in different ways; some writers spend ages mapping it out, others find too much planning obstructive – it’s whatever works for you. just remember, if you get in a bind, switch off, make a cup of tea, and revisit in an hour or so .
if the goal of a series is to surprise and thrill its audience, binge - watching seems like a good end run around the self - defeating frenzy surrounding these kind of puzzle series, wherein we desperately want them to surprise us while making it all but impossible for them to do so. (a thing i’m not looking forward to in 2017: having to watch twin peaks along with a clue - crazed internet, which theoretically has the power to spoil even bob .) then westworld premiered, and i realized that making your audience feel smarter than and superior to your show is a perfectly viable strategy too .
back at the judge' s house he is sitting at the dinner table with his wife (viola richard) when she picks up the newspaper. the judge sees the headlines on the reverse which reveals the defendant has indeed carried out his courtroom threat and has escaped. foozle freaks, spitting out his drink and panics. outside the escaped convict heads towards the house with an accomplice and tells him his only intention is to get revenge on the judge for sending him down. the judge, having seen the newspaper is straight on the telephone to the detectives agency demanding the two bravest men they have. stan and ollie are hired by their boss (frank brownlee) to protect the judge .
that’s probably vol. 2 ‘s greatest asset. it exists solely to exist on its own terms, not as a crowd - pleaser or recapturing of previous success. despite releasing in may, it still aims to be an “august movie. ” it does what most sequels should aspire to accomplish in the same situation, especially when following one of marvel’s best films, period. vol. 2 is technically a better film and a must - watch for marvel fans, but more importantly, it’s a great example of how successful a film can be when put in the loving hands of a trusted visionary who doesn’t really care what detractors may think .
overall key laurel & hardy character traits on display in the graveyard scene: both have a naïve childlike innocence, ollie has an inflated opinion of himself and is deluded that he is “the smarter of the two” (when in reality he is just as dumb if not dumber than stan), stan treats ollie like an older brother who will protect him (jumping into ollie’s arms), ollie is insistent on having stan do his dirty work (forcing him retrieve their bowlers from the graveyard), stan does his famous “cry” that would become a trademark throughout his career, as well as various childlike facial expressions and body language that would become standard for the “stanley” character .
of course, the main attraction in the film is the pair of detectives hired by the judge to protect him. they are ferdinand finkleberry (stan laurel) and sherlock pinkham (oliver hardy). laurel and hardy are at their cowardly best trying to apprehend the villain—or at the very least, stay alive. there’s a lot of slapstick, and the pace is very quick, as the slasher (having impersonated the butler) is lurking abound the judge’s home with a large dagger, which he later “upgrades” with a scimitar off the wall. there are several funny moments when stan and ollie try to apprehend the slasher, ending with stanley putting the handcuffs on oliver by mistake, and after a “ghost scene” locking the slasher in the closet where oliver is hiding .
what stan and ollie don’t know is that the slasher and his henchman have jumped the judge’s new butler (as he walks to the judge’s home for his first day on the job) and the slasher is now masquerading as the family servant. the scenes where the slasher tries to exact his revenge on the judge are simultaneously horrifying and hysterical. the slasher gives the judge a drink from behind (so that the judge can’t see him) and as the judge indulges, the slasher pulls out an absurdly long knife and threatens to do away with the judge, but quickly re - pockets the weapon and ducks out of the room when he hears the judge’s wife coming. the slasher is truly scary in this scene, but both the ridiculousness of his knife and the fancy flourishes that the judge employs in the enjoyment of his drink acts as humorous counterbalance to the terror .
i' m curious what people consider most important in a mystery. of course, many things are needed to make a good mystery, but how do you rank them? which are most important to you, and which a bit less important? i' ve listed a few things, but if there are others you feel are also important, feel free to list them, too! fair play - - that is, all the necessary clues are given and the solution could be worked out from the information given, no hidden information or illogical leaps not justified by the facts given. excellent writing. interesting, well drawn, and believable characters. plausibility - - events that one could imagine really happening even if not likely. an interesting and well drawn setting and scene descriptions. plot twists and turns. a detective in whose company it is enjoyable for you as reader to spend time. other things? ? ?
everyman wrote :
jill wrote :
the one thing i have noticed in recent mysteries is that every character is unhappy, even those that are not the main protagonists. too much angst gets a little tiring after a while... ...
a few years ago (during my celtic phase !) i wrote two mystery novels - - - my
detective
was a druid and his sidekick a former roman slave. historically as accurate as possible, but still a rather off - the - wall cozy type mystery. with the help of a former professor friend, i got an agent, and finally some serious interest from a major publisher. i was over the moon, until i got the suggestions for adjustments. more blood, more gore, more in - depth sex and violence. in other words, they liked my premise and story, but wanted something
more modern
. i couldn' t do it. friends were telling me to just give them what they want - - - but not everyone can write everything any more than any flower can bloom anywhere. thus was flushed my great chance .
lynne, i have so much sympathy for your situation. i think it’s dreadful what agents and acquiring editors feel they can demand of their authors—and their utter lack of a sense of adventure or discovery in fiction! as a person who has worked around the edges of the publishing business my entire adult life, i firmly believe that agents and publishers should agree to publish something or not, but almost never recommend major revisions. copy editing and polishing, sure; but the rest is just imposing their own ego on the manuscript, usually with no more real sense of what readers might actually want to read than a flea. as a reader, i hate that with the vast majority of books, you can tell what you’re going to get from the cover and the blurb. you know what the plot twists are going to be. you know what the characters are going to say. faugh! books that surprise me are the books i treasure. i love the concept for your novel. if you decide to self - publish it, i hope you’ll let me know because i’d like to read it. in my late teens, i tried to write a novel set in that era, so it’s an interest of mine as well. and no in - depth sex or violence works for me !
some parts of this page won' t work property. please reload or try later .
are you ready for skyscraper? we are! see which other movies and tv shows we' re excited about .
want to share imdb' s rating on your own site? use the html below .
two convicts (laurel & hardy), in an escape attempt, tunnel into the warden' s office, instead. they then disguise themselves as painters and walk out the front gate. needing new clothes, ... see full summary »
fight manager (hardy) takes out an insurance policy on his puny pugilist (laurel) and then proceeds to try to arrange for an accident so that he can collect. when a pie delivery man (hall)... see full summary »
pompous j. piedmont mumblethunder, greets his nephew from scotland, who arrives in kilts. he is immediately taken to a tailor for a pair of proper pants .
members of a municipal band, stanley and oliver seem to be always following someone else' s lead, rather than that of the temperamental conductor. soon they' re out of a job, as well as their... see full summary »
stan and ollie hold out money from their paychecks from their shrewish wives so they can enjoy a night out on the town... with predictable results .
a con artist (garvin) and her infant son, are unmasked aboard a ship by a steward (laurel. )
pursued by forest rangers who want to press them into fire - fighting duty, stanley and oliver hide in the home of a big - game hunter who has just left town. when they find out that the... see full summary »
stanley and oliver are adopted by a runaway goat, whose noise and aroma in turn get the goat of their suspicious landlord. attempts to bathe the smelly animal result in a waterlogged free - for - all .
laurel & hardy, in pre - historic times, vie for the hand of the same stone age beauty .
leaving the dentist' s office, where hardy' s teeth have been extracted by mistake, the boys, still under the influence of laughing gas, meet up with a traffic cop (kennedy) and cause a huge... see full summary »
stan & ollie attempt to fool their wives by sneaking out to a poker game, but instead get involved with two flirty ladies, one of whom is the girlfriend of a jealous boxer .
hal roach studios - 8822 washington blvd. , culver city, california, usa
during the time judge foozle (james finlayson) lies in the bathtub trying to avoid the tipton slasher (noah young), the soap bubbles disappear from one scene to the next .
0 of 0 people found this review helpful. was this review helpful to you? yes no | report this
explore popular sci - fi movies and tv shows available to stream with prime video .
stan laurel & oliver hardy: come clean. (1931. v. o )
famous grave tour - forest lawn glendale # 1 (walt disney, sammy davis jr, etc. )
el gordo y el flaco, laurel y hardy: should married men go home. (1928 )
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd xhtml 1. 0 transitional / / en
urltoken
your social account may not have provided your email to us. please confirm or enter it below to complete your profile .
we found your email in our system. please provide your site password to link to your existing account .
forgot your password? enter your email address and we' ll send you instructions on how to access your account .
we have not verified that the email belongs to you. please check your inbox for the verification email .
to resend the verification email, please enter your email address and click submit .
finkleberry is a lanky fellow with a slack posture and dead eyes. sherlock is a pompous and officious man with a full belly and a chaplinesque toothbrush moustache. both men are dressed in trim gray suits that
merely the sight of these two inspires laughter in audiences today. the premise may not sound too comic, but no worries - - this is a laurel and hardy film. we know what kind of slapstick havoc is due .
first appeared in 1927, there was no such thing as a laurel and hardy film. such a thing had never really existed before - - this is where that story begins .
some film historians may choose to quibble with that statement. the are professional film scholars who have made it their life' s work to study the evolution of solo work by stan laurel and oliver hardy into the most famous comedy partnership of all time .
( 1927) as the seminal laurel and hardy prototype. certainly stan felt that picture was consistent with their later work, and remade it years later as
presents a startlingly raw and rough version of stan and ollie. it is a wilder form of slapstick than that which they - - and their studio hal roach - - would typically make. consider
much of the laurel and hardy formula is already in place here. ollie bosses stan around, stan resorts to sudden - onset crying jags and is prone to eating at inopportune moments. most notably, the two swap hats - - repeatedly. this would become a signature joke for the boys, and a sign of what made them special. there is nothing inherently funny about wearing somebody else' s hat - - at least not as far as adult sensibilities are concerned. maybe you could entertain a newborn baby by putting on the wrong hat, but just try going into a talent agency today and explaining that you have an act built around swapping virtually identical hats with the person standing next to you. laurel and hardy once made a
do detectives think ? is a silent comedy short film starring stan laurel and oliver hardy prior to their official billing as the duo laurel and hardy . the team appeared in a total of 107 films between 1921 and 1951 . 
do detectives think? is a silent comedy short film starring stan laurel and oliver hardy prior to their official billing as the duo laurel and hardy. the team appeared in a total of 107 films between 1921 and 1951.
do detectives think? is a silent comedy short film starring stan laurel and oliver hardy prior to their official billing as the duo laurel and hardy. the team appeared in a total of 107 films between 1921 and 1951.