Early to Bed

While not being familiar with this 1928 short silent film "Early to Bed" from director Emmett J. Flynn, I needed no persuasion to watch it here in 2025, making it my very first time to do so. Why? Well, solely because this was a Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy movie.

H. M. Walker put together a nice script and storyline, which definitely showcased an archetypical comedy with the comedy duo. It was an enjoyable story and I had some good laughs, especially at the fountain scene.

Needless to say that the acting performances in "Early to Bed" were good. And you only have Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy starring in this 1928 movie.

If you enjoy the comedy of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, then you will definitely like "Early to Bed".

My rating of director Emmett J. Flynn's 1928 "Early to Bed" lands on a five out of ten stars.

One of the lesser lights of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy's silent productions. Early to Bed is directed by Emmett Flynn and photographed by George Stevens.

Over the years it has proved to be one of the boy's films that most can agree is a little bit off. It's not so much that the gags are in short supply, but more so it veers towards a darker side that doesn't sit well. Plot has Ollie inheriting some cash, which quickly turns him into a completely different person. He hires Stan as his butler and promptly starts to lord it over his abode. But Stan will only take so much bullying...

The most fun comes from a number of sequences set around the water fountain in the gardens, and the carnage that ensues once Stan finally flips and goes on a mad rampage. These sequences are heightened by the jolly musical accompaniments and the quality sound effects, while a cunning canine pet is fun and the only one unhindered by the odd tone of the piece.

Not essential and only of interest to Stan & Ollie completists. 5/10

This movie its humor is very childish, even for a Laurel & Hardy movie. Never have I seen Oliver Hardy act like a bigger baby before. Sure, it still gives the movie some good laughs but the humor is too simple and predictable to consider this an above average Laurel & Hardy silent comedy short.

Of course none of the Laurel & Hardy movies really have humor of a very high order when it comes to originality, predictability and subtlety but in normal cases this doesn't matter at all, since it's so extremely fine executed and timed. They however really went too far with this movie however. It's even more simple and predictable than we are accustomed to. Not sure what they tried to accomplish here. Perhaps they were targeting for a younger audience?

It's very sad to see acting Oliver Hardy as childish as he does in this movie. It gets to a level that it's almost too embarrassing to watch.

But still, the movie its slapstick is good. Although certainly predictable, it's still funny to watch all. Some of the sequences are really memorable but the rest of the movie and its story drags down the level of entertainment.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Early to Bed (1928)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Hardy becomes rich overnight and offers his best friend Laurel a job as his butler. Money soon goes to Hardy's head and he come home picking on Laurel. This is a very unfunny film and certainly the worst I've seen from L&H. The two have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, which really kills things. Most of the jokes come off annoying and not funny.

Sugar Daddies (1927)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A millionaire (James Finlayson) wakes up after a night of partying to discover that he's now married. The new bride and her crazy brother are now trying to blackmail him so he calls his attorney (Stan Laurel) to settle the matter. Not too many laughs here but the thing is fun nonetheless. Oliver Hardy plays the butler.

This is an early Laurel & Hardy vehicle of curiosity value because it is quite clear that the boys are in the very early stages of their joint career, and their basic characters and relationship have yet to be cemented. It's Ollie Hardy who is the annoying child of the two in this silent short - although, unlike Laurel in later films, Ollie goes out of his way to be deliberately annoying to Stan, whom he has employed as a butler after he inherits a fortune from his uncle.

Although it's strange to see their roles essentially reversed, the film does have some funny moments. Roach clearly had enough faith in the boys' ability to work together with solid results to cast them here with no supporting actors (other than a dog called Buster) and this at least pays off, even if they haven't yet got the relationship right. For this reason, if nothing else, the film serves as an interesting footnote in the development of Laurel & Hardy as we know and love them.