I only really watched this movie to catch Laurel & Hardy and, to be honest, they and Mischa Auer as a randy movie star are the only things about this movie worth watching. Too bad that L&H's screen time amounts to little more than five minutes, and Auer has to play second fiddle to lesser talents like Patsy Kelly and Rosina Lawrence (whose final US movie this was before retiring to get married). Kelly is especially annoying at times as she seemingly labours under the misapprehension that if she SHOUTS HER LINES they're bound to be even funnier. Even Jack Haley, soon to be the Tin Man in THE WIZARD OF OZ, is unremarkable as a love-struck car mechanic who moves to Hollywood to win his sweetheart a screen test. The movie is only 70 minutes long but, until Stan & Ollie make their belated appearance, it seems a lot, lot longer.
14 Reviews
A good film - but not a Laurel and Hardy one
Space_Adventurer14 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is an enjoyable film, and the actresses hold the screen better than the men.
I bought it to complete my Laurel and Hardy collection. However, it is most definitely not a Stan and Ollie pic. Firstly they don't appear at all in the first 38 minutes of a film that is 1 hour 6 minutes.
Generally Stan and Ollie made some great flicks from 1927 until 1940 under Hal Roach. The earlier ones are, in my opinion, far superior as they feature some amazing sight gags and physical humour. The films made under different management relied on talking. Watching Stan and Ollie sitting down for 10 minutes is a far cry from the early films' comedy genius. Also one has the feeling that the boys are used in the later films in supporting roles to boost the careers of younger up and coming actors. Often theirs is a sub plot whilst the real action centres around a boy and girl trying to get together.
The point is that this film is very much in the post 1940 mould, when it was actually released in 1937.
In this film about a young girl trying to make it in Hollywood the boys make a brief appearance (one sentence each) as comedy extras on a Hollywood lot in a Busby Berkeley type extravaganza. They disappear until a 2 minute appearance in the 43rd minute. At that time they reappear as fake Mexican banditos. Another gap for the main plot till we see them for 4 minutes waiting for their next take at minute 56. They sit on a sofa for the entire scene, though it is a good scene with little talk and based on the boys trying to outdo each other on musical instruments.
In between takes of the "film within a film" they play it straight. This means it's the only other film in which the boys played other characters, apart from "Stan" and "Ollie", since they joined forces in 1927 till their 1941 number "A Chump In Oxford".
The trouble with this approach (and the post 1940 films) is that Stan and Ollie are comic caricatures. When you put them alongside "real" people they stick out like sore thumbs and look improbable.
The one joy of this film is the director of the films we see being made. It's James Finlayson, without his trademark bushy comedy moustache. His part is even smaller than the boys. He shouts "action" and "cut" and falls off a chair.
It would appear to be a very low budget manoeuvre to set any film in a Hollywood studio. That means turning the cameras in on themselves so you can see the technicians at work and not have to spend money on sets.
So, in total that's 7 minutes of the boys in this film. That hardly makes it a Laurel and Hardy film. I felt rather shortchanged. To be honest I would have accepted those 7 minutes as a separate short. Most of their earlier works were 20 minutes. As the later films are over an hour there is inevitably some padding. In this instance the padding is 99 minutes worth.
I bought it to complete my Laurel and Hardy collection. However, it is most definitely not a Stan and Ollie pic. Firstly they don't appear at all in the first 38 minutes of a film that is 1 hour 6 minutes.
Generally Stan and Ollie made some great flicks from 1927 until 1940 under Hal Roach. The earlier ones are, in my opinion, far superior as they feature some amazing sight gags and physical humour. The films made under different management relied on talking. Watching Stan and Ollie sitting down for 10 minutes is a far cry from the early films' comedy genius. Also one has the feeling that the boys are used in the later films in supporting roles to boost the careers of younger up and coming actors. Often theirs is a sub plot whilst the real action centres around a boy and girl trying to get together.
The point is that this film is very much in the post 1940 mould, when it was actually released in 1937.
In this film about a young girl trying to make it in Hollywood the boys make a brief appearance (one sentence each) as comedy extras on a Hollywood lot in a Busby Berkeley type extravaganza. They disappear until a 2 minute appearance in the 43rd minute. At that time they reappear as fake Mexican banditos. Another gap for the main plot till we see them for 4 minutes waiting for their next take at minute 56. They sit on a sofa for the entire scene, though it is a good scene with little talk and based on the boys trying to outdo each other on musical instruments.
In between takes of the "film within a film" they play it straight. This means it's the only other film in which the boys played other characters, apart from "Stan" and "Ollie", since they joined forces in 1927 till their 1941 number "A Chump In Oxford".
The trouble with this approach (and the post 1940 films) is that Stan and Ollie are comic caricatures. When you put them alongside "real" people they stick out like sore thumbs and look improbable.
The one joy of this film is the director of the films we see being made. It's James Finlayson, without his trademark bushy comedy moustache. His part is even smaller than the boys. He shouts "action" and "cut" and falls off a chair.
It would appear to be a very low budget manoeuvre to set any film in a Hollywood studio. That means turning the cameras in on themselves so you can see the technicians at work and not have to spend money on sets.
So, in total that's 7 minutes of the boys in this film. That hardly makes it a Laurel and Hardy film. I felt rather shortchanged. To be honest I would have accepted those 7 minutes as a separate short. Most of their earlier works were 20 minutes. As the later films are over an hour there is inevitably some padding. In this instance the padding is 99 minutes worth.
Pick A Star - just not an A list or B list one
laurencetuccori15 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
PICK A STAR was independent producer Hal Roach's brave but ill-advised 1937 effort to take on the big studios at their own game. MGM, Warner Brothers and Paramount had the stars, the production talent and the money to turn out lavish musicals even when the subject was the Great Depression. Roach had Patsy Kelly, Jack Haley and whatever change he could find down the back of the sofa.
It's understandable that he'd want to set his sights on bigger things than the two reel Laurel and Hardy comedies that had made him famous. Shorts are alright, and the Laurel and Hardy shorts were more than alright, but if he wanted to be taken seriously as a film producer he needed to step up to the big time, and that meant full length features. That also meant bigger production costs and while Hal Roach was certainly not a member of the Poverty Row group of studios he wasn't anywhere near the top tier either.
The paucity of funds is only too evident in every frame of PICK A STAR. It's not just the unimpressive sets but it's the uninspiring cast of C-list actors none of whom have the star-power to carry a film. Patsy Kelly carved out a very respectable career for herself as the loud and unladylike comic-relief in a long string of mostly low budget movies, but even she must have been surprised to find herself top billed in a musical, while Jack Haley was a fine song and dance man (and was to achieve immortality 2 years later as the Tin Man in 'The Wizard of Oz') but he's definitely not romantic leading man material. Roach further hampered his own ambitions by casting Rosina Lawrence (who? - exactly) as the nominal leading lady despite her glaring lack of charisma, charm or appeal. If that's not already enough to turn off audiences, the character she plays is so shallow and self-centered that there's really no incentive to root for the Cinderella ending the story's setting her up for.
If plausibility were a pre-requisite (and of course it's not because this is a Hollywood musical) she'd walk off into the sunset with the equally shallow and narcissistic Rinaldo Lopez, the patently inauthentic Latin lover movie star played by Mischa Auer. But in that scenario, Jack Haley would discover true love in the arms of Patsy Kelly and that's something no audience would buy!
Combined with an unimaginative and well-worn (even in 1937) story about a small-town mid-western girl dreaming of stardom in Hollywood, and some clumsily staged musical numbers which serve only to further highlight Busby Berkeley's genius as a choreographer, PICK A STAR boasts all the ingredients of a solid gold bomb. The film's saving grace is the cameo by Roach's biggest stars, Laurel and Hardy. The boys appearance has nothing to do with the story's forward motion but everything to do with giving moviegoers a reason to fork over ticket money to see the film. Their two scenes, while not classic L & H, are a very welcome distraction from the increasingly dull proceedings and the only real reason for watching the film in the first place.
Check out more of my reviews at http://thefilmivejustseen.blogspot.com/
It's understandable that he'd want to set his sights on bigger things than the two reel Laurel and Hardy comedies that had made him famous. Shorts are alright, and the Laurel and Hardy shorts were more than alright, but if he wanted to be taken seriously as a film producer he needed to step up to the big time, and that meant full length features. That also meant bigger production costs and while Hal Roach was certainly not a member of the Poverty Row group of studios he wasn't anywhere near the top tier either.
The paucity of funds is only too evident in every frame of PICK A STAR. It's not just the unimpressive sets but it's the uninspiring cast of C-list actors none of whom have the star-power to carry a film. Patsy Kelly carved out a very respectable career for herself as the loud and unladylike comic-relief in a long string of mostly low budget movies, but even she must have been surprised to find herself top billed in a musical, while Jack Haley was a fine song and dance man (and was to achieve immortality 2 years later as the Tin Man in 'The Wizard of Oz') but he's definitely not romantic leading man material. Roach further hampered his own ambitions by casting Rosina Lawrence (who? - exactly) as the nominal leading lady despite her glaring lack of charisma, charm or appeal. If that's not already enough to turn off audiences, the character she plays is so shallow and self-centered that there's really no incentive to root for the Cinderella ending the story's setting her up for.
If plausibility were a pre-requisite (and of course it's not because this is a Hollywood musical) she'd walk off into the sunset with the equally shallow and narcissistic Rinaldo Lopez, the patently inauthentic Latin lover movie star played by Mischa Auer. But in that scenario, Jack Haley would discover true love in the arms of Patsy Kelly and that's something no audience would buy!
Combined with an unimaginative and well-worn (even in 1937) story about a small-town mid-western girl dreaming of stardom in Hollywood, and some clumsily staged musical numbers which serve only to further highlight Busby Berkeley's genius as a choreographer, PICK A STAR boasts all the ingredients of a solid gold bomb. The film's saving grace is the cameo by Roach's biggest stars, Laurel and Hardy. The boys appearance has nothing to do with the story's forward motion but everything to do with giving moviegoers a reason to fork over ticket money to see the film. Their two scenes, while not classic L & H, are a very welcome distraction from the increasingly dull proceedings and the only real reason for watching the film in the first place.
Check out more of my reviews at http://thefilmivejustseen.blogspot.com/
Not great but good entertainment!
msladysoul2 April 2005
A wonderful movie. Rosina Lawrence is beautiful, charming, great personality. Patsy Kelly is as always funny. She is truly one of the great female comedians. She is a unsung comedian legend. Without Patsy the movie wouldn't have been much. Lyda Roberti is excellent, another comedian who doesn't get the honor she deserves. I bet Patsy and Lyda are a great laugh together in the films they appeared in. Whatever happen to movies. What happen to the great songs and simple but breathtaking entertainment? The guy in the nightclub scene that is entertaining that Jack Haley intrudes on and almost ruins his show but the audience enjoys is hilarious. What is his name? This isn't the greatest movie but good entertainment. This is a must.
"Well, would you mind going downstairs and doing it with your wife?"
classicsoncall8 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I picked up this movie under the re-issue title "Movie Struck", appropriate enough for the film's premise - a starry eyed Cecilia Moore (Rosina Lawrence) longs for a Hollywood career and sees her chance in the "On to Hollywood Beauty and Talent Contest". Though she wins against a handful of contestants (among them Miss Gopher City), the contest promoter runs off with the prize money, leaving Cecilia in a lurch. A series of fantastic coincidences eventually land Cecilia and her sister Nellie (Patsy Kelly) in Hollywood, while Cecilia's would be boy friend Joe Jenkins (Jack Haley) masquerades as an important man with connections who conspires to get her a screen test. Rounding out the main cast is Mischa Auer, a debonair Hollywood star who's forte seems to be seducing young, beautiful women. In this case, the casting was a bit off base, as his character Rinaldo Lopez is more a caricature than a romantic leading man.
The story itself moves along rather blandly, and Cecilia's big break screen test winds up incredibly boring considering the consequences. What gives the movie it's much needed comic relief are two terrific bits featuring Laurel and Hardy, first as a pair of Mexican bandits in business suits, and later in a funny harmonica duel. Even though you may find this film featuring the comic duo on a video sleeve, their actual screen time is probably less than ten minutes all told.
I'd be curious to know if the salon scene is the first in movies to portray an overtly gay male hair dresser; it's a short scene but the depiction is obvious.
With not much in the story of note other then Laurel and Hardy's antics, I'm pressed to give it much more than a lukewarm recommendation. By 1937, a lot of their best work was already behind them, so it's surprising they weren't used more here. The big winner coming out of the film seems to be Jack Haley, who became the "Wizard of Oz" Tin Man in a couple more years.
The story itself moves along rather blandly, and Cecilia's big break screen test winds up incredibly boring considering the consequences. What gives the movie it's much needed comic relief are two terrific bits featuring Laurel and Hardy, first as a pair of Mexican bandits in business suits, and later in a funny harmonica duel. Even though you may find this film featuring the comic duo on a video sleeve, their actual screen time is probably less than ten minutes all told.
I'd be curious to know if the salon scene is the first in movies to portray an overtly gay male hair dresser; it's a short scene but the depiction is obvious.
With not much in the story of note other then Laurel and Hardy's antics, I'm pressed to give it much more than a lukewarm recommendation. By 1937, a lot of their best work was already behind them, so it's surprising they weren't used more here. The big winner coming out of the film seems to be Jack Haley, who became the "Wizard of Oz" Tin Man in a couple more years.
Pick a Star has a couple of funny scenes from Laurel & Hardy in a film starring their co-star from Way Out West, Rosina Lawrence
tavm27 December 2014
In the past few weeks, I've reviewed a lot of work of one Rosina Lawrence. Who was she? Well, she was one of several pretty young women in Hollywood who managed to make it in the movies. When she ended up at Hal Roach Studios in 1936, she did quite some stuff there starting with a co-starring part in the Charley Chase short On the Wrong Trek. She then appeared in many Our Gang shorts as the new teacher, Miss Lawrence, to Spanky, Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Porky, and Darla. Perhaps her most famous role there-aside from what I just cited-was as the leading lady in Laurel & Hardy's Way Out West playing Mary Roberts. That led to this, her starring role as an aspiring actress going to Hollywood with Jack Haley and Patsy Kelly in tow. The only reason this would still get circulation today, however, is because of a couple of comedians of the studio who were Hal's biggest stars and are considered iconic today. Of course, I'm referring to Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy who only appear in a couple of funny scenes and only briefly meet Ms. Lawrence here. I had first watched part of this on the "Matinee at the Bijou" TV program on public television back in 1980 when this movie was titled Moviestruck. I guess it was disappointing waiting for what seemed a long time to get to when Stan & Ollie were going to appear that I bailed before they came! Then I got the VHS tape of them with scenes of their movies in the public domain of which this was included with their two scenes. So then I bought the authorized M-G-M tape of the whole thing which I then watched in its entirety. I remembered being pleasantly surprised to see James Finlayson-sans his trademark prop mustache-as the director of the movie-within-a-movie of the boys playing Mexican bandits alongside another L & H player, Walter Long. Also amusing to see them relax their characters a bit to show Patsy Kelly their breakaway prop bottles before...well, watch the movie if you want to find out. When I watched it again, just now, on YouTube, most of what happened I barely remember but it was funny seeing Mischa Auer playing a romantic movie star who must always keep appearances of being a Latin lover. And the musical numbers are pretty good, if not spectacular. So on that note, Pick a Star is worth a look for L & H fans. P.S. Since I always like to cite whenever a player from my favorite movie-It's a Wonderful Life-appears, here it's Charles Halton-bank examiner Mr. Carter there-appearing as the studio head. Oh, and about what happened to Rosina Lawrence: After one more movie, she retired and married a man named Juvenal Marchisio who would eventually die in 1973. Then she met John McCabe, a chronicler of Laurel & Hardy and the founder of their fan club-The Sons of the Desert-whom she eventually married on June 8, 1987. She died on June 23, 1997.
Watch it for a certain comedy duo
Leofwine_draca10 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
There's something lazy about PICK A STAR, a simplistic story in which an ordinary girl wins a talent contest and finds herself in Hollywood and mingling with the stars of yesterday. It's essentially a stretched story linking together a series of vignettes, many of which feature long-forgotten folk who mean nothing to modern viewers. The exception lies in the second half of the production, in which Laurel and Hardy show up for a lengthy interlude delivering plenty of their trademark comedy; they're a delight as always which makes this a must watch for their fans.
Enjoyable musical comedy.
Boba_Fett11382 February 2007
This is your standard musical comedy from the '30's, with a big plus that it features some well known '30's actors in small fun cameo's.
There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.
Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.
It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.
The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.
Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.
It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.
The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, they picked the wrong one.
mark.waltz18 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
O.K., Rosina Lawrence is sweet. For those who remember her as one of the schoolteacher's from "Our Gang", it will be a nostalgic memory to see her as the ingenue in this Hal Roach musical comedy that has a shell of a plot yet enough humor to keep the audience's attention. There's a sense of delight which comes in the opening credits when it switches to the famous Laurel and Hardy theme after the lead players (Lawrence, billed below Patsy Kelly, Jack Haley and Mischa Auer) and shows them in one of their stereotypical funny poses. Laurel and Hardy come on in two amusing scenes as themselves, filming a sequence in a comedy western and later resting on the set. But the film focuses on contest winner Lawrence's determination to make it as a movie star in Hollywood and her preparation for a screen test. Sister Patsy Kelly and old pal Jack Haley (who loves Lawrence in what appears to be more brotherly love for her) do all they can to encourage her, but the audience is on the fact that Kelly and Haley have more star quality than she does. Lawrence had enough sense to know it too, leaving movies for good just a few years later to become a footnote in the Hal Roach division at MGM.
"Do you mind if I smoke?", egotistical Latino lothario movie star Mischa Auer asks Kelly during their limousine ride to a night out on the town. "I don't care if you burn", Kelly replies in her deadpan style which made her a favorite in the 1930's. Yes, that line which has become a cliche is utilized here, although I'm not sure if this was its first appearance on film. Kelly's character should have been singled out for a screen test here, because she's naturally funny, and even the insulted Auer seems amused by her insolence. In fact, much of the film has Kelly reacting either verbally or visually to something stupid Auer says or does, and that is worth the price of a ticket to see this. Having been paired with Haley as his wife in the 20th Century Fox movie musical "Pigskin Parade" (where a real star, Judy Garland, was picked, along with a young Betty Grable), Kelly is much more appealing onscreen than Lawrence. Sure, her voice is sweet, but outside a church choir, who would rush to see her? It takes a lot of trinkets and lavish sets and chorus boys to make her appear to be the new hot ticket, and that is where the film fails to convince.
As for Laurel and Hardy, they get their two funny scenes rather late in this 70 minute film, first showing Patsy how the breakable bottles work (which results in them being knocked unconscious) and the even more funny sequence of them playing music with various forms of instruments, including a teeny tiny harmonica that leads to some very funny gags. Kelly's co-star in several shorts, Lyda Roberti, appears briefly as a very temperamental movie star performing a lavish production number. Another brief production number seems like it contains outtakes of the "I Gotta Feelin' Your Foolin'" number from "Broadway Melody of 1936". Laurel and Hardy regular James Finlayson is made up to look like a very eccentric European director and just that visual is enough to stir up some laughs. So while this fails as far as its promotion of a new musical star is concerned, the remainder of the film is pretty top notch.
"Do you mind if I smoke?", egotistical Latino lothario movie star Mischa Auer asks Kelly during their limousine ride to a night out on the town. "I don't care if you burn", Kelly replies in her deadpan style which made her a favorite in the 1930's. Yes, that line which has become a cliche is utilized here, although I'm not sure if this was its first appearance on film. Kelly's character should have been singled out for a screen test here, because she's naturally funny, and even the insulted Auer seems amused by her insolence. In fact, much of the film has Kelly reacting either verbally or visually to something stupid Auer says or does, and that is worth the price of a ticket to see this. Having been paired with Haley as his wife in the 20th Century Fox movie musical "Pigskin Parade" (where a real star, Judy Garland, was picked, along with a young Betty Grable), Kelly is much more appealing onscreen than Lawrence. Sure, her voice is sweet, but outside a church choir, who would rush to see her? It takes a lot of trinkets and lavish sets and chorus boys to make her appear to be the new hot ticket, and that is where the film fails to convince.
As for Laurel and Hardy, they get their two funny scenes rather late in this 70 minute film, first showing Patsy how the breakable bottles work (which results in them being knocked unconscious) and the even more funny sequence of them playing music with various forms of instruments, including a teeny tiny harmonica that leads to some very funny gags. Kelly's co-star in several shorts, Lyda Roberti, appears briefly as a very temperamental movie star performing a lavish production number. Another brief production number seems like it contains outtakes of the "I Gotta Feelin' Your Foolin'" number from "Broadway Melody of 1936". Laurel and Hardy regular James Finlayson is made up to look like a very eccentric European director and just that visual is enough to stir up some laughs. So while this fails as far as its promotion of a new musical star is concerned, the remainder of the film is pretty top notch.
a sprinkling of Laurel and Hardy
SnoopyStyle11 September 2020
A girl wins a trip to Hollywood with hopes of stardom. This seems to be a remake of Free and Easy (1930). I can leave the actual story behind. It tries to be a grand Hollywood musical at times. It's behind the scenes sort of. The only parts I truly care about is Laurel and Hardy. The bottles are fun and the harmonica is pretty good. The other stuff is forgettable. I rather have a full Laurel and Hardy movie.
Two Tickets to Hollywood
richardchatten10 May 2020
A quiz question rather than a film. Notable solely for James Finlayson (minus his false moustache) as a director filming a sexily-attired chorus line and then a barroom fight with bottles between Walter Long and Laurel & Hardy (with Charlie Hall as Finlayson's assistant) and for featuring two Tin Men (Hardy, who played him in 1925, and Jack Haley, soon to take on the role in MGM's 1939 classic).
As usual it perpetuates the old myth that all scenes in movies are shot in long shot with the director throughout never getting out of his chair. Apart from the boys, the funniest people in it are predictably Patsy Kelly and Mischa Auer (the latter playing a Latin lover named Rinaldo Lopez).
As usual it perpetuates the old myth that all scenes in movies are shot in long shot with the director throughout never getting out of his chair. Apart from the boys, the funniest people in it are predictably Patsy Kelly and Mischa Auer (the latter playing a Latin lover named Rinaldo Lopez).
Musical comedy feast, with Laurel and Hardy on the side.
rsoonsa22 March 2002
Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles.
The Hal Roach follies.
planktonrules12 September 2020
Although the Hal Roach films were released by MGM and featured MGM prominently on the title screens, this was an independent studio...albeit a small one that specialized in comedy shorts up until the late 1930s. And, like bigger studios like MGM ("The Hollywood Revue of 1929") and Twentieth Century-Fox ("The Goldwyn Follies"), this smaller studio decided to make a star-studded musical comedy featuring their talent much like theirs in some faux 'behind the scenes' skits. But since they had lesser stars than the big studios, the best Roach could offer were Laurel & Hardy (a hot duo), Patsy Kelly & Lyda Roberti (a not so hot duo who also made shorts for the studio and here they don't play a team) as well as a few familiar character actors such as James Finlayson, Charlie Hall and Walter Long. The only major stars in the cast not usually associated with Hal Roach are Jack Haley and Mischa Auer.
The story begins with Cecelia (Rosina Lawrence) winning a talent show. However, the guy in charge, Mr. Stone, turns out to be a crook....and he just ran off with the proceeds. As a result, Cecelia cannot go to Hollywood like she planned. But the emcee, Joe (Jack Haley), feels partly responsible and he sells his business and heads to Hollywood to make money to bring Cecelia and her sister (Kelly) there as well. What follows is Cecelia's long journey towards stardom as well as a lot of distractions along the way...all the while, Joe's pretending he's made something of himself while he's just a lowly busboy.
So is this any good? After all "The Goldwyn Follies" was pretty terrible and "The Hollywood Revue of 1929" wasn't much better! Surprisingly, although I wouldn't consider "Pick a Star" a great film, it IS better than the big studio versions. Much of this is because the film has only a few cameos...whereas the other films had too many and they seemed to take the place of plot! This film, in contrast, seems to have more plot and less detours. Aside from an enjoyable couple of bits with Laurel & Hardy* and a quick appearance by Alfalfa Switzer, the film lacked these many cameos. Overall, a nice time-passer but not a film which will change your life in any way.
*If you do see "The Hollywood Revue of 1929", Laurel & Hardy and Buster Keaton are in this one. I guess since Hal Roach films were distributed by MGM they were loaned to MGM for this one.
The story begins with Cecelia (Rosina Lawrence) winning a talent show. However, the guy in charge, Mr. Stone, turns out to be a crook....and he just ran off with the proceeds. As a result, Cecelia cannot go to Hollywood like she planned. But the emcee, Joe (Jack Haley), feels partly responsible and he sells his business and heads to Hollywood to make money to bring Cecelia and her sister (Kelly) there as well. What follows is Cecelia's long journey towards stardom as well as a lot of distractions along the way...all the while, Joe's pretending he's made something of himself while he's just a lowly busboy.
So is this any good? After all "The Goldwyn Follies" was pretty terrible and "The Hollywood Revue of 1929" wasn't much better! Surprisingly, although I wouldn't consider "Pick a Star" a great film, it IS better than the big studio versions. Much of this is because the film has only a few cameos...whereas the other films had too many and they seemed to take the place of plot! This film, in contrast, seems to have more plot and less detours. Aside from an enjoyable couple of bits with Laurel & Hardy* and a quick appearance by Alfalfa Switzer, the film lacked these many cameos. Overall, a nice time-passer but not a film which will change your life in any way.
*If you do see "The Hollywood Revue of 1929", Laurel & Hardy and Buster Keaton are in this one. I guess since Hal Roach films were distributed by MGM they were loaned to MGM for this one.
On Further Review, YES IT's FUNNY!
verbusen15 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the best ensemble comedy/musical "B" film's that I have seen (and since I'm in my 40's now and only seeing this now, I am not an expert but I have seen all the well known films out there). When there are a ton of actors getting their lead for minutes at a time, usually the comedy interferes with the musical bits, and very often the musical pieces interrupt the comedic flow. Call me in a crazy kind of mood but when I saw this on TCM Europe, I was laughing out loud with pleasure! So who delivered the laughs for me? Without a doubt Mischa Auer delivered me some terrific gut busting laughs, he even steals the ending, it was great! Speaking of which, I think why this movie works is because although L & H are a selling point (and why I got hooked to watch this one (them and Hal Roach), I love them in their early Hal Roach stuff), this keeps them at a minimum and stays squarely on ADULT fare (by 1930's standards, and not that far from today's standards if you read between the lines). Jack Haley is also great to watch, I admit that I only know him from W O OZ and I loved him there, and I also laughed out loud here at his waiter bit in the show. Patsy Kelly is the only "ugly" femme in the 30's movies that actually turns me on (something tells me she was a spitfire in real life); and the musical numbers have a real professional production (Busby Berkley'ish) quality, that blew me away from what I am used to in this genre. I could go on and on, but rest assured I really enjoyed this movie. 8 of 10 I saw it on TCM Europe and will record it to watch again with my wife on TCM USA. Good Stuff!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
