I'm surprised by the remarks of Laurel and Hardy fans who expected this cute little movie for kids to be as much of a masterpiece as the classic works of the genuine Laurel and Hardy. It's truly astounding. Why in the world would Laurel and Hardy fans expect this to be anything more than a cute little movie for children by Larry Harmon (Bozo the clown) who previously produced the wonderful cartoon versions of The Boys? Are the same Laurel and Hardy purists just as critical of Laurel and Hardy cartoons and comic books that entertained many youngsters? It may alarm the purists, but I have many fond memories of Stan and Ollie's encounter with Scooby Doo. It introduced me to The Boys and it was fun. So is For Love or Mummy.

However, perhaps I'm nitpicking, but in my opinion the "modern day" setting doesn't really seem to work in some respects. For a start, Stan and Ollie still wear their 30s/40s style attire - how many people do you catch wearing bowler hats in this day and age? At times, they seemed almost to be living in a bizarre time warp, which didn't really make sense.Overall though, this is good, old-fashioned slapstick comedy, well in the spirit of the real Stan and Ollie. It's nice to see such innocent laughs for a change, with the kinds of films we're seeing most of the time today, this is a rare treat for the family!

When I first heard of a 'remake' of the old Laurel & Hardy films, I thought it would be terrible. But after seeing the movie, I take it back! Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain pay great tribute to the late comedy team with their performance.

I'm a SON OF THE DESERT. The Boys were what pure laughter arising from the norm was all about. No attempt should ever be made to recreate that. It was unique and stands alone for the ages. No one would try to remake Michelangelo's Pieta, nor restructure Beethoven's Fifth. Yes, their comedy achieved the level of great art. Can anyone say why they lasted all those years, and after seventy-odd years, the world continues to demand their films?