Derrière les barreaux

This is the one where Stan&Ollie are accidentally locked outside the prison, and Laurel angrily pounds on the gate to be let BACK IN;while Hardy gives the camera one of those unforgettable looks of disgust.

And the opening title card---"Neither Mr. Laurel or Mr. Hardy had any thoughts of doing wrong. As a matter of fact,they had no thoughts of any kind".

Enormous Tiny Sandford is given the chore of guarding the boys on the work gang, and he takes the brunt of the abuse(gooey soup poured on his shoes;but only after it's been overloaded with pepper).

Actually,putting rice in the radiator IS a good way to stop a leak----but science takes a back seat to laughs and loss of dignity.

And their first prison film wasn't this one,but 1927's THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS.

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were comedic geniuses, individually and together, and their partnership was deservedly iconic and one of the best there was. They left behind a large body of work, a vast majority of it being entertaining to classic comedy, at their best they were hilarious and their best efforts were great examples of how to do comedy without being juvenile or distasteful.

Although a vast majority of Laurel and Hardy's previous efforts ranged from above average to very good ('45 Minutes from Hollywood' being the only misfire and mainly worth seeing as a curiosity piece and for historical interest, and even that wasn't a complete mess), 'Two Tars' for me was their first truly classic one with close to flawless execution. Didn't find 'The Hoose-Gow' as one of their best and a bit disappointing compared to their late 1928 and previous 1929 efforts, which were among their best and funniest early work. It is still good with a lot of great merits.

It may not be "new" material as such, some rather familiar material here and the first part takes a little bit too time to get going.

Compared to the late 1928 and previous 1929 output, it is a little on the subdued and bland side, contrary to the insane craziness and wacky slapstick that was properly starting to emerge.

When 'The Hoose-Gow' does get going, which it does do very quickly, it is good enough fun, not really hilarious but never less than amusing. It is never too silly, the energy is there and the sly wit is here, some of the material may not be new but how it's executed actually doesn't feel too familiar and it doesn't get repetitive.

Laurel and Hardy are on top form here, both are well used, both have material worthy of them and they're equal rather than one being funnier than the other (before Laurel tended to be funnier and more interesting than Hardy, who tended to be underused). Their chemistry feels like a partnership here too, before 'Two Tars' you were yearning for more scenes with them together but in 'The Hoose-Gow' we are far from robbed of that. Their comic timing is impeccable.

'The Hoose-Gow' looks mostly good visually (even if the polish is not always there), has energy and the direction gets the best out of the stars, is at ease with the material and doesn't let it get too busy or static. The supporting players are solid.

Overall, very good. Not essential or classic Laurel and Hardy but hardly disgraces them either. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Everyone has heard that famous phrase. But what about imitating yourself? Is that still flattery? Laurel and Hardy recycle not one, but two recently-used comedy routines in this short.

Plot In a Nutshell: Two innocent bystanders (Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy) are swept up in a police raid and sent to prison, where they wreak their usual havoc.

Why I rated it a '5': Overall this is not among L&H's best efforts. When you recycle multiple gags in a 20-minute film, it speaks to a lack of imagination and hints at churning just to get in their quota of 10 shorts a year. For those not aware, the 'loose-top-on-the-salt-shaker' bit was already used in "You're Darn Tootin'" and the 'soggy rice fight' was already used (in the form of pies) in "The Battle of the Century."

Perhaps if you have not seen either of those earlier shorts, "The Hoose-Gow" may seem fresh; but once you realize this, however, one can't help but be less than impressed with this effort. Add to this is the fact that the soggy rice fight isn't particularly hilarious and it just kind of falls flat. Hey, it's still Laurel and Hardy, so it's not a total loss. But in their entire catalog of work, "The Hoose-Gow" is decidedly run-of-the-mill.

5/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Probably not. They did much better work elsewhere.

An early Laurel & Hardy talkie, `The Hoose-Gow' is strongest in its first half…the pathetic attempts at escape, the sheer terror on Stan's face as he tries to dislodge the apple from his mouth, the absolute fear and despondency of two child-souls set down amongst a hardened prison population. Also priceless: Ollie's guileless explanation to guard Tiny Sanford: "Honest, officer, we were only watching the raid." Somehow, coming from Stan and Ollie, the statement rings of truth. In the work camp, things settle into the traditional Stan and Ollie mealtime gags. When they chop down the lookout's post it's another of those gags of anticipation which was such an integral part of their humor. And it's to their credit that most of the film is shot on location, something uncommonly problematic for the early sound technology of the late 20s. There is also something wistfully nostalgic about those Arcadian, windswept eucalyptus-lined locations of southern California, so unpopulated in 1929. Once they get involved in the creamed rice fight at the end, it descends into rather standard fare.

This is an okay Laurel and Hardy film--about average overall. While the plot is a bit different than most of their films, the team did do several films where they were convicts (such as LIBERTY and PARDON US). And, of these films, this is perhaps my least favorite. It isn't because the film is really bad, but a lot of the humor isn't all that memorable and the rice throwing at the end seems very derivative--throwing pies, etc. is almost a cliché since it's been seen a lot already in older comedies. I just don't see why throwing food is funny--it just seems like a cheap laugh. If you are a die-hard fan, then this IS a film for you. For others who are not familiar with the duo, find another film first--this film isn't magical or a must-see film.