This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Best movie ever!

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

One reviewer wrote to the effect that: "The 1940's (transferring from Roach Studios to 20th Century Fox) was a sad time for Laurel And Hardy." I don't think it was such a "sad time". In 1940 Laurel and Hardy were freed from their contract with Roach Studios. They could put some of their own ideas into their films. As far as I know they were still in good health. They looked good for their age. IT'S NOT A CRIME TO GET OLDER as I wrote above! Were their movies in the 1940's as good as in previous years? No. But we're talking about comparing their output in the '40's to some VERY CLASSIC FILMS done before. So, it's only by comparison that these 1940 films were "lacking" in relation to the genius of earlier efforts. I would prefer to watch these later Laurel and Hardy films any day rather than some of the other comic films by, say, Abbot and Costello or The Marx Brothers or The Three Stooges. Speaking for myself alone , I'd prefer "the boys" to any of the others!This film, "The Dancing Masters" is almost as good as "Great Guns" which is my favorite film from this era. There are NOT "constant laughs" like in some earlier films... the story is silly but interesting...it doesn't "drag" in other words...and "the boys" look VERY CUTE in their "dancing master costumes"! You won't roll on the floor but you'll be entertained....so..why not give the "senior citizens" an hour of your time...I think you'll enjoy yourself if you have a positive attitude! "The Boys" did!!! :o) boland7214@aol.com

I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as "Air Raid Wardens" and "The Bullfighters", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a "London Bridge" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in "Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a "2" as opposed to a "3".

For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.

Another unfortunate chapter in Laurel & Hardy's post-Hal Roach efforts,this is a desultory,poorly-constructed comedy which tries to compensate by reworking much material from the boys' Roach days.Such films as COUNTY HOSPITAL(1932),THICKER THAN WATER(1935) and THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY(1927) have revamped sequences in this film.THE DANCING MASTERS plot however,makes little sense and the scenes from the above earlier,better films seem to have been lazily added as an afterthought,almost as though screenwriter Scott Darling realises he has no funny ideas.This is probably correct,but sadly the reworkings don't work as they are pointless.Darling's own material is woefully hackneyed.The scenes where Ollie tries to cause an accident on Stan are at least of some interest,as these scenes reworked from THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY are lost.The supporting cast has some interesting names;Robert Mitchum in one of his earliest film roles;A former Roach Mrs.Hardy,Daphne Pollard,has a bit part;former Keystone Kop and Charlie Chaplin foil Hank Mann,in his only Laurel & Hardy film;and Margaret Dumont,The Marx Brothers perrenial leading lady.But they,like Stan & Ollie,can only do so much out of a banal screenplay.The best moments come from Stan's 'rhetorical strangle' and a locked safe;beyond that,there's little else.