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 'Night Owls' as one of their best and a bit disappointing compared to the best of their late 1928 and 1929 efforts, which were among their best and funniest early work. It is still good with a lot of great merits.
It may not be "new" material as such and the first part takes a little bit too time to get going.
Also found it to end on an abrupt whimper, ending just like that with not much resolve or punch.
When 'Night Owls' does get going, which it does do very quickly, it is good enough fun, not really hilarious but never less than amusing. It is never too silly, the energy is there 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 'Night Owls' we are far from robbed of that. Their comic timing is impeccable, particularly in the pretending to be cats scene, the comic highlight.
'Night Owls' looks good visually, has 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, particularly from an enjoyably hammy James Finlayson.
Overall, good. Not essential or classic Laurel and Hardy but hardly disgraces them either. 7/10 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 'Night Owls' as one of their best and a bit disappointing compared to the best of their late 1928 and 1929 efforts, which were among their best and funniest early work. It is still good with a lot of great merits.
It may not be "new" material as such and the first part takes a little bit too time to get going.
Also found it to end on an abrupt whimper, ending just like that with not much resolve or punch.
When 'Night Owls' does get going, which it does do very quickly, it is good enough fun, not really hilarious but never less than amusing. It is never too silly, the energy is there 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 'Night Owls' we are far from robbed of that. Their comic timing is impeccable, particularly in the pretending to be cats scene, the comic highlight.
'Night Owls' looks good visually, has 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, particularly from an enjoyably hammy James Finlayson.
Overall, good. Not essential or classic Laurel and Hardy but hardly disgraces them either. 7/10 Bethany Cox