Home
search
more | tips
IMDb > A-Haunting We Will Go (1942) > IMDb user comments
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 comments in total 

18 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Twilight of the Comic Gods, 27 March 2004
Author: hausrathman

Laurel and Hardy are bamboozled into smuggling a gangster, disguised as a corpse in a coffin, from one city to another but complications arise when the coffin is switched with a coffin used in a magician's act. This film, produced by Twentieth Century Fox, doesn't approach the charm of even their weakest feature produced by the Hal Roach Studios, but I don't think this is necessarily Laurel and Hardy's worst film. There are a few laughs, sporadic as they may be. The main problem is that the comedy is too generic, it doesn't grow out of the personas they painstaking developed over the years. One could just as easily imagine Abbott and Costello or Bob Hope and Bing Crosby doing the Indian Rope trick gag. The production values are better than the Roach films, but production value is a poor substitute for comedy. The predicament can be summed up in the casting. In this film the boys are menaced by Elisha Cook, Jr.. Don't get me wrong. I think Elisha Cook, Jr., is an terrific supporting actor, but against Humphrey Bogart, not Laurel and Hardy. The boys are better menaced by a comic heavy like Walter Long.

Still, although many Laurel and Hardy fans castigate Fox and MGM for their treatment of the duo during the 1940s, I don't honestly see how it could have been much different anywhere in Hollywood. Laurel and Hardy were products of the 1920s and 1930s, the golden age of screen comedy. The 1940s were the nadir of comedy. By the time "A Haunting We Will Go" hit the screens in 1942, all of the greats were all essentially gone. Chaplin was inactive, and never returned to the comedy which made him great. Harold Lloyd had retired. Buster Keaton's career was in ruins. W.C. Fields' career was over. The Marx Brothers' film career was essentially over. Even the Ritz Brothers only had two more films in them. When you look at Laurel and Hardy in the context of their peers, it is a great testimony to their popularity that their film career continued as long as it did. The 1940s would forever belong to Abbott and Costello and Bob Hope, the likes of whom would make some funny films, but decade never had the comic vitality of the 1930s.

Was the above comment useful to you?

17 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Re-evaluation needed, 9 September 1999
Author: G.Spider

Laurel and Hardy agree to transport a coffin containing a corpse. But after it becomes mixed up with a stage magician's coffin, Stan and Ollie end up as magician's assistants and find themselves entangled with gangsters who were smuggling one of their number in the coffin.

This is often unfairly dismissed as a turkey. It isn't one of L & H's greatest films, but it contains plenty of memorable points including a hilarious Indian rope trick as well as the duo being fooled into buying a 'money-making machine', Ollie hiding in a box which turns out to be a stage prop used in the 'death of 1000 cuts' trick. Dante the magician is an interesting character, the plot is well-written and there are some imaginate sets.

As I said, it's not one of L & H's best, but it's still a classic and certainly more than worth watching.

8 out of 10

Was the above comment useful to you?

15 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Hugely underrated, 4 October 2002
Author: Simon Wrell from England

This is one of laurel and hardy's most underappreciated films. The scene where Stan climbs a rope in a magic trick is one of the funniest things i have ever seen. There are some great lines too - "Let's go to Florida. I'm dying for an orange". Priceless.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
A-Haunting We Will Go (1942) **, 4 October 2006
5/10
Author: JoeKarlosi from U.S.A.

First things first - this is not a "horror-comedy" as I presumed it would be by the title. I mean, even the opening credits have the name of the film in ghoulish lettering along with the spooky image of a ghost leering down at Stan and Ollie, for crying out loud! But getting past that -- this is one of those oft-despised latter day "Fox films" that the aging team of Laurel and Hardy made after their greatest works at Hal Roach Studios. It's not as "heinous" as most critics make it out to be, but it's not one of their better forties movies either.

In this one, the "boys" get released from a stay in jail and are told to leave town. So they meet up with a group of swindling crooks (one of them is played by a very young Elisha Cook Jr.) who need their help in traveling to Dayton, Ohio. The dopey plot is all over the place, but along the way there are some small chuckles to be had (the hitchhiking fiasco, the "Inflato" machine duping) and a few mildly cute slapstick gags. But things sink as the film goes on and "Dante the Magician" takes up too much screen time (he's even top billed along with Laurel and Hardy!)

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A-Haunting We Will Go is pretty amusing for a Fox L & H flick, 27 December 2007
5/10
Author: tavm from Baton Rouge, La.

Because of this Laurel and Hardy film's poor reputation, I decided to watch this with Scott MacGillivray's commentary first before seeing it without. With the commentary, I appreciated many of the visual gags like various accidents from Stan's umbrella or the entire rope trick with Stan rising and falling with it depending on Ollie's playing or not of the clarinet. Of note is that Sheila Ryan appears in her second L & H movie a year after her first with the boys, Great Guns. Also, a couple of men who bilk Stan and Ollie on the train, Richard Lane and Robert Emmett Keane, would subsequently appear with them on The Bullfighters (Lane), The Dancing Masters (Keane), and Jitterbugs (Keane). Anyone interested in African-American comics of the '40s will probably want to check this one out to see both Mantan Moreland and Wille Best as waiters on a train though Mantan makes more of an impression here when he laughs at the boys' obviously fake money they thought was real because of the machine they saw Lane and Keane make different dollar bills from that they bought. As a fan of It's a Wonderful Life, it was certainly a treat for me to see Frank Faylen (Ernie the taxi driver) try to throw L & H off the train. While Stan and Ollie do provide plenty of laughs especially in a scene concerning two telephone booths from Dante the Magician that provide some nice double exposure of them, the gangster scenes, with one of them being Elisa Cook, Jr. of The Maltese Falcon, are mostly too serious to suit a Laurel and Hardy flick. That lion segment with them was funny though. Compared to the boys' Hal Roach output, this Fox entry doesn't come close quality-wise but A-Haunting We Will Go shouldn't be considered bottom-of-the barrel either. P.S. One of the children that was admiring Dante on the train was Terry Moore, who later became the leading lady on Mighty Joe Young.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Typical Laurel & Hardy '40's stuff., 28 August 2007
6/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands

This movie is like all Laurel & Hardy's '40's movies; Too much talking and not enough slapstick. And has an overwritten story and it relies too much on the script, rather than on Laurel & Hardy's antics and talent. Yes of course they get some slapstick to do but it doesn't feel as anything new or truly great, though the movie certainly does have its moments, which help to make this movie worthwhile.

The story is rather weak but above all really uninteresting. The title is deceiving and certainly has nothing to do with the movie.

Dante, a magician from the 20th century is in the movie too but you can wonder why. Seems like just a publicity stunt for both parties to me, since it doesn't serve a too big significant purpose for the main plot-line of the movie.

Not that this movie is bad but by Laurel & Hardy standards it still is a rather weak and bad one, that really isn't among their best work.

6/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Funny or typical of earlier Laurel and Hardy films? No,...but still a pleasant little film, 20 May 2008
5/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

Laurel and Hardy had been stars for years with Hal Roach Studios. However, by the 1940s, they were considerably older and their contract had expired. Their decision to try out other studios (RKO, MGM and FOX) resulted in a string of, at best, lackluster films. Sure, they made better money, but none of these films comes close to classic status.

As for A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO, it was one of these 1940s films, but at least it wasn't bad--just, unfortunately, made by a studio that had no appreciation for the team at all. The biggest problem about this film is that Stan and Ollie play roles that could have been filled by practically anyone. The usual banter and style you'd expect in a Laurel and Hardy film is strangely absent--something that plagued all their post-Roach productions.

The plot for A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO was quite unexpected. With a title like this, I would have expected a movie about a haunted house or ghosts but these were strangely absent from the film. Instead, it's about Stan and Ollie stumbling into a gang of criminals as well as bumbling into becoming assistants to a magician.

Fortunately, despite being a very odd and unfamiliar style, the script wasn't bad at all--but unfortunately it wasn't all that funny either. While there were a few mildly funny moments, they were all centered around camera tricks and had nothing to do with the boys themselves. It was if funny things were thrown at them instead of allowing them to just be themselves and express their own gentle form of humor. Still, not a bad film--but far from classic Laurel and Hardy. Worth a look for fans of the team and not particularly offensive or daring.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A-Haunting We Will Go **, 13 March 2006
4/10
Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@melita.com) from Naxxar, Malta

Until a few years ago, I've kept far away from Laurel & Hardy's notoriously poor 1940s vehicles produced by Twentieth-Century Fox; now that I've watched them all (and only NOTHING BUT TROUBLE [1944], made at MGM, remains from this sorry final period of the greatest comedy team in cinema history), I can say that this one is certainly the weakest of the lot!

There is very little typical material for the stars who, in any case, look tired and visibly disinterested throughout; that said, it's mercifully short and, therefore, not exactly painful to watch - as was the case with, say, UTOPIA (1951), an embarrassing mess that, regrettably, proved to be their cinematic swan-song - but, at the end of the day, it's not the boys' usually endearing and irresistible routines that are remembered, if at all, but rather the scenes involving an elderly magician that goes by the unlikely name of Dante...not to mention the dubious novelty of watching Elisha Cook Jr. in drag! To add insult to injury, the film's title is a ludicrous misnomer!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Low Point For Stan and Ollie, 20 October 2002
2/10
Author: Raymond Valinoti, Jr. (raymondva@comcast.net) from Murray Hill, NJ

In this film, some thugs hired Laurel and Hardy to transport a coffin containing a live thug to Dayton, Ohio in order to claim an inheritance. But the coffin is mixed up with another used in Dante the Magician's stage act with bizarre results.

As a crime drama, A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO is fine, conveying a ominous, suspenseful aura. As a Laurel and Hardy film, however, it is lousy. The grim gangster milieu is inappropriate for Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy's clownish characters. Most of the supporting actors are too humorless and realistic to successfully interact with the Boys. In the Hal Roach films, supporting actors like James Finlayson and Charlie Hall worked well with Laurel and Hardy because they performed in a farcical, larger-than-life manner.

What hurts this film even more is the scenario's contemptuous treatment of Laurel and Hardy's characters. At the Hal Roach lot, where they peaked, Laurel and Hardy became popular because even though audiences laughed at their blunders, the characters conveyed a sweet innocence that endeared moviegoers. In A HAUNTING WE WILL GO, the Boys are a pair of stupid jerks undeserving of respect or sympathy. A particularly revealing moment is when romantic lead John Shelton, who is working with Laurel and Hardy in the Dante the Magician's act, chastises them for misunderstanding the magician's props. The audience is supposed to share Shelton's disdain of Laurel and Hardy's ineptitude.

Dante, a magician in real life, gets to perform some tricks. Unfortunately, a levitation stunt passed off as his own actually seems to have been devised by the film's special effects department. Without meaning to belittle Dante's talents, one must say that when geniuses like Laurel and Hardy are in a film, who needs magic acts?

So far, I have only seen one other film Laurel and Hardy made after leaving Hal Roach, THE DANCING MASTERS. That film wasn't bad. But despite a few isolated laughs, A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO deserves its poor reputation among film comedy historians. For Laurel and Hardy completists, it's only worth seeing once.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Their Worst Film?, 24 October 2002
3/10
Author: BJJ-2 from Manchester,England

For many years,both ATOLL K(1951)and THE BIG NOISE(1944)had reputations for being Laurel & Hardy's worst film;amongst film scholars and L & H buffs like myself,this film has definitely taken over that mantle in recent years. So why is A-HAUNTING WE WILL GO so dismal? Firstly,Laurel & Hardy the actors are not allowed to play Laurel & Hardy the characters throughout.Namely,the naive,likeable innocents they established at the Hal Roach studios are virtually non-existent;they are forced to play irritating,doltish nit-wits who we are not called to sympathise with;the exact reverse philosophy as was with their Roach films. Secondly,Fox saddles them with a tenth-rate gangster melodrama in which they would've been better off not appearing in;much of the dialogue is straight,unfunny exposition with supporting characters that are far too tough and nasty to be funny. Thirdly,Alfred Werker,a solid director of melodramas,is totally out of his depth with comedy,and it shows up starkly in this film. And finally,the title is misleading;haunting has nothing to do with the plot,and nothing of it's description turns up in the film. The only mildly amusing moments occur within a train sequence featuring Dante the magician(who easily gives the film's most assured performance);Stan & Ollie,though,look embarrassed and bored with the film's content;as they should be.It's my candidate for their worst film,and many others are beginning to agree.3 out of 10.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history