Bud and Lou

The movie was obviously lovingly done, and the story line superb. When Hackett and Korman are acting "out of character", that is, living Bud and Lou's private lives, the story holds together well. But when they are trying to recreate Abbot and Costello's great routines, things fall apart, particularly a very poorly timed version of "Who's On First". The recent t.v. pic of the Three Stooges stands head and shoulders above this show.

"Bud and Lou" was made at a time when Hollywood was turning out quite a few biopics of Golden Age personalities, both for theatrical release and television, but this one has to rank as one of the worst. It offers a not-terribly accurate overview of the lives of the comics and their partnership, but renders the characters in blacks and whites. In short, Bud Abbott (played with no distinction by Harvey Korman) is depicted as a meek, go-along guy, and Lou Costello (very poorly played by Buddy Hackett) comes off as a mentally-impaired bully. Meanwhile their business manager, Eddie Sherman (played fairly well by Arte Johnson)is depicted as the sympathetic anchor in their lives. While this is a revisionist take on things, it is not unexpected, since Sherman was a major source for the book upon which the movie is based, Bob Thomas's eponymous "Bud and Lou" (and neither the book nor the movie explains why, if Sherman was looking out for their affairs so well, they both got into such trouble with the IRS). The film covers a good twenty years, yet no one ages or changes in any way; whereas the real Bud Abbott aged and changed greatly from their first film to their last, here he looks exactly the same in every scene. What really sinks it, though, even more so than the character and event inaccuracies, are the painfully unfunny recreations of A&C routines by K&H. Whereas the real guys could do bits like "Who's on First" in their sleep, with unerring timing and delivery, Korman and Hackett sound like they're cold reading the bits for the first time, with no sense of timing, meaning, energy, or performing chemistry. In particular, Hackett's vacant, gaping stare and unbelieving line delivery during these classic routines looks more like Lennie asking George about the rabbits than Costello asking Abbott about the first baseman. Some Hollywood figures were so distinctive that anyone attempting to portray them is automatically at a disadvantage. "Bud and Lou" proves that in spades.

Harvey Korman is not bad as Abbott but what the heck is Buddy Hackett doing? His voice is exaggerated. His timing is off (especially during "Who's on First"). Korman can't do the timing right when his partner us sooo slow. I did this routine with a partner. While we could never touch the real team, we were certainly better than these guys. The odd thing is that Hackett once substituted for Costello in the film "Fireman, Save My Child. " What a disgrace!

Another thing. Why isn't Betty Abbott in this movie?

The way they treated Abbott's epilepsy was fairly well done. I gave epilepsy myself. While it goes not seen as bad as Abbott's. It still is a cross to bear.

This was a missed opportunity. I think it's time for someone else to do a biography of the team. Only this time they need to do it correctly!

Can simple history be correct? Their first movie was NOT a starring film in "Buck Privates" but a supporting role in "One Night in the Tropics"

I saved the worst for last. The.way they treated Costello was terrible. Sure we heard he had done some poor things about him but there has to be some balance!

Is This Enough Words ?

I saw 'Bud and Lou' the night of its initial prime-time television release. It is certainly a loving look at these two legendary comics and takes the expected look at their showbiz origins and their close family lives. I was struck by the apparent desire to feature 'name' late-'70s stars in the title roles (most likely to assure better ratings, I'd guess), and the film's major flaw is that we are constantly distracted by the almost-competing performances of the two other very talented clowns, Harvey Korman and Buddy Hackett, who are sadly miscast in the title roles.

The stretch of imagination is too much to make, and try though I might, I kept seeing Korman and Hackett, whose resemblances to A&C, both physical and in mannerism, were nonexistent. (Better they had starred K&H in an original story, and left the A&C biopic to be done right, as was the masterful 'The Three Stooges' of 2000.) But to their professional credit, K&H soldier on in the roles.

The conclusion is unnecessarily downbeat, and doesn't correllate with our memories of those two great men, Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, the legendary partners in comedy who entertained millions and dedicated so much of their personal resources and private efforts to charitable causes and the public good, not the least of which were the War Bond drives.

Though it's not a successful portrait of the team, I believe all concerned did do what they could with the material, and at times the film does have its moments. See it and satisfy your curiosity.

On paper "Bud and Lou" should have been a winner. The casting of Harvey Korman as Bud Abbott and Buddy Hackett as Lou Costello looked like "can't miss" stuff. Unfortunately, "Bud and Lou" does miss and in a pretty big way. Korman never seems comfortable playing Bud and Hackett is forced to play Costello as a joyless bully. And when Hackett has to play some heavy moments, he's in over his head. The supporting cast is very good with nice work from Michele Lee, Arte Johnson and Robert Reed. But the tone of the movie is so melodramatic, so heavy-handed the whatever chance the movie had is smothered. I've seen "Bud and Lou" quite a few times over the years. It always disappoints. The real Bud & Lou deserve better.