Rating: PG
Runtime: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Director: Jon S. Baird
Quick Impressions:
I’m an Oscar enthusiast, but we’ve reached that magical time of year (February, I guess) when I can’t wait to buy all the nominated films on Blu-ray just so I can hurl them through the nearest window and be done with it all.
For me, at least, awards season fatigue is now rearing its ugly head. Lately I’m more in the mood to see mindless popcorn flicks in wide release sure to be bad (because it’s February) than quality art house fare (except I’m dying to see Mads Mikkelsen get eaten by a polar bear. Will Arctic ever actually come to a theater near me? I see that trailer every week! The only trailer I see more is the one for Julianne Moore! The Movie (It’s actually called Gloria Bell, and I doubt the polar bear actually succeeds in eating Mads Mikkelsen.))
Who am I kidding? I’m also curious about Never Look Away (that German cinematography nominee), and the one where Isabelle Huppert is a sinister handbag enthusiast, and the one where Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem are so afraid for that girl.
Who am I kidding? That art theater has got its hooks into me. I’ll probably never get to see a bad movie before spring when they already start releasing good ones again.
Stan & Ollie looked so good to me that even after I knew its Oscar hopes had been dashed, I still wanted to see it. (And that’s rare with me this time of year when, as I said, I am really ready to move on to 2019’s movies.)
But John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy? That just seemed like a good idea to me, and in the trailers, he pulls it off so well.
In fact, though the Oscars passed them over, both Reilly and Steve Coogan have been recognized for their performances in this film. Reilly got a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy, and technically Coogan could still win the Best Actor BAFTA on Sunday (though I don’t like his chances).
Oscar love or not, the two of them are superb as the iconic comedy duo Laurel and Hardy. As we watched, I could never decide whose work was more impressive. Reilly gives Oliver Hardy such depth and pathos, but when they do their actual comedy bits, Coogan’s Stan Laurel is spot on.
What I did not expect were such delightful supporting performances from Shirley Henderson (aka Moaning Myrtle and Bridget Jones’s friend Jude) and Nina Arianda (whose work I need to start watching more closely) as the famous duo’s bickering frenemy wives. Quite unexpectedly, these two get some of the biggest laughs in the movie. They’re funnier than Laurel and Hardy (which I think is intentional).
The Good:
This is the kind of movie designed to warm your heart and leave you feeling uplifted, and it mostly works.
I noticed afterward that the screenplay was written by Jeff Pope who co-wrote Philomena with Steve Coogan. That was a film I absolutely loved. (Judy Dench is so charming in the role. And didn’t Steve Coogan win the BAFTA for writing that film? He did. I guess the British Academy really loves Steve Coogan. I guess that means Jeff Pope is a BAFTA winner, too.)
This film is not as good as Philomena (mainly because the beginning is a bit slow), but you leave feeling happy and ready to watch some Laurel and Hardy movies. Even if you’ve never seen a single Laurel and Hardy movie, though, the film is still incredibly enjoyable. (I know because my husband just said he doesn’t think he’s ever seen a Laurel and Hardy movie, and he liked this film.)
Honestly, even if the story were entirely fictional, the drama about strain in a lifelong working friendship nearing its end would still be immensely compelling and satisfying.
The movie has another surprising thing going for it. Despite the fact that it’s about turmoil in a real-life Hollywood relationship, Stan & Ollie is (almost shockingly) wholesome. The movie is rated PG, and frankly, I’m surprised it’s not G. I recall no profanity of any kind in this film. There is no sex, either, and no real violence (unless you count staged mallet whacks, or a real life beaning with…bread maybe?) Nobody attacks anyone’s faith. Nobody uses drugs. Nobody goes on a shooting spree. Oliver places a bet on a horse race over the phone, and there is some smoking and drinking (though I think the film atones for this with its frequent lectures about and illustration of the medical dangers of alcohol and cigarettes).
These days, it’s almost shocking to see adults having a serious, life-altering conflict without using any profanity whatsoever. Even the multiplicity of vices Stan throws in Ollie’s face seems so wholesome. “You went golfing and ate hot dogs!”
Honestly, these two come across as such kind-hearted people. They may have had multiple marriages, but they love their wives. They may have their resentments, but they love each other.
What’s really incredible is that as you watch, you don’t notice this unusual wholesomeness because the drama is so intense and gripping. It’s rather refreshing to see a film made to honor people’s lives and work that treats them with such respect.
Some of the supporting performances are quite good, too. The wives, as I mentioned, practically steal the show. And both Danny Huston (as studio head Hal Roach) and Rufus Jones (as tour promoter Bernard Delfont) are perfectly cast in their roles.
Also, I quite enjoyed the set design, which is not something I usually notice. At several points, I remember thinking, “Britain must have been so interesting in the 1950s.” I especially like the look of the scenes inside the Savoy Hotel. Apparently, the interior location shots were filmed in the Sheraton Grand London Park Lane Hotel. (I wonder if it used to be a Savoy Hotel. I’m familiar with a lot of Sheratons stateside that used to be a something else.) To prepare for my honeymoon in London years ago, I researched a bunch of London hotels, but they were all Hiltons because my dad worked for Hilton.
Best Scene:
Reilly somehow manages to seem simultaneously like himself and like Oliver Hardy, as if they were always somehow the same person, which is very weird. He gives Hardy a wonderful pathos, though I never forgot it was Reilly underneath the fat suit. (If he wanted the Oscar nomination, he should have gained 150 pounds and run in Best Supporting Actor. The themes uniting this year’s Oscar nominees are hard core weight gain and soft category fraud. I guess nobody told John C. Reilly.)
At moments, Coogan practically disappears into Stan Laurel. In his real life exchanges, I don’t notice this as much (not surprising since I didn’t know Laurel in private life). But when he performs the comedy routines, he manages to look and sound eerily like Laurel.
But the wives steal every scene they’re in. I actually think this is a subtle flash of genius in the screenplay. The two comedians give us principally pathos and drama, while their wives provide the comic relief. (They get their share of touching moments, too, of course.)
My favorite scene comes when Rufus Jones’s sleazy tour promoter introduces some deep-pocketed fans to Laurel and Hardy’s bickering wives and afterwards notes that they’re getting two shows for the price of one.
Best Scene Visually:
One thing the film does well is show us how both Laurel and Hardy revert effortlessly into their comic personae when trying to make a human connection with strangers. Then as soon as eyes are off them again, we get the sense of their intense anxiety, fear, and frustration.
Both Reilly and Coogan do this beautifully again and again throughout the film.
Coogan has a wonderful moment waiting in a movie producer’s office where he uses an iconic hat trick to charm the receptionist (well played by Stephanie Hyam). But the humor that works so well on others doesn’t bring him much cheer as he listens to some deflating news moments later.
Reilly has a similar moment when he reacts to racing results in despairing rage–until he sees some schoolgirls staring at him and gives a characteristic little wave. But even though he’s playing comedy, what he feels is something very different.
Best Action Sequence:
The best bit the two do together on stage is their missing each other while going in and out of doors routine. The final time we see them perform this is best because we really get a sense of what this means to Hardy and what that means to Laurel.
The Negatives:
The movie begins slowly and doesn’t really fire on all cylinders until the wives arrive in London. I also wish we had seen a bit more of Laurel and Hardy’s actual comedy. We really get only two fully realized bits, the hospital scene with the boiled eggs and the endless doorway confusion. Laurel and Hardy did so many movies and live shows together. Surely there’s other humorous material that would also work in this film.
There’s a line in the movie in which Coogan’s Laurel mentions that they aren’t getting paid any residuals for TV reruns of their old films. This made me wonder if perhaps the people making this film didn’t have the rights to all of Laurel and Hardy’s material. Is it still owned by somebody else? (Just curious.) If not, I cannot fathom why a bit more of their funny stuff wasn’t shown in the film.
Another really bizarre thing is that I seem to have some vague memories of that Robin Hood film they discuss. Does it exist in some other form, like a cartoon or maybe a comic? (I almost think I’ve seen it as a children’s comic book!) Perhaps I’m just highly suggestible, and they implanted false memories in my head by always talking about it. I don’t know.
Overall:
If you’re a fan of Laurel and Hardy, then you should see Stan & Ollie. If you’ve never even heard of Laurel and Hardy, you still might enjoy this well told drama of a complicated relationship. Both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly give excellent performances, and their wives manage unexpectedly to steal the show.