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) [email protected]

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.

Problem with this movie is that nothing in the movie really feels connected to each other. The story feels messy and weak. On top of that the supporting actors were also quite horrible in their roles.No, this is not the best Laurel & Hardy movie. It still is good for some laughs certainly but overall it's a disappointing movie to watch. The movie already begins weak and unfunny. The movie does get better as it progresses but it never reaches the same level as any of the other Laurel & Hardy movies.Another disappointment was Stan Laurel. He didn't seem to play his character with as much joy as he used to do and his acting was to be honest poor at times.Still watchable but not really recommendable, even though the movie does have its moments.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Though generally regarded as one of their weakest films, this has a fair quota of laughs. Stan's "dancing" at the beginning is amusing and Robert Mitchum has a good cameo "selling" the boys insurance. Best scene is where they try to hide from Margaret Dumont, eventually launching her husband into the swimming pool.