Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2072 KP) rated Guaranteed to Bleed in Books
Jun 10, 2020
Guaranteed to Entertain
Ellison Russel is spending this particular Friday night in September 1974 at a high school football game. Not because she loves the sport, but because her daughter, Grace, is a cheerleader. Unfortunately, early in the second half, she stumbles on Bobby Lowell who begs Ellison “Tell her I love her” before he dies. Bobby and Grace grew up together, so the murder hits close to home. Ellison isn’t trying to solve things, but she can’t help but figure it out as she tries to figure out who the mysterious woman is. Will she pass on Bobby’s message? Will she find the killer?
I’m glad I was finally able to return to Ellison’s world. The story is strong. It doesn’t unfold in typical cozy mystery fashion, but that didn’t bother me. I got more and more involved the further into the book I got. Ellison is a great main character, and I loved watching the growth in the character here. The rest of the cast is also great, although I wish her Mother weren’t so focused on everything being perfect. I find it funny at times, but it can be annoying. The book walks a fine line between humor and more serious themes, and the result is rich. The book does venture into some PG-13 topics, but know that going into the book and you’ll be fine since it never gets too graphic. I do recommend reading book one before you read this one since it includes fallout from the events of that story. Hopefully, it won’t be so long before I visit Ellison again.
I’m glad I was finally able to return to Ellison’s world. The story is strong. It doesn’t unfold in typical cozy mystery fashion, but that didn’t bother me. I got more and more involved the further into the book I got. Ellison is a great main character, and I loved watching the growth in the character here. The rest of the cast is also great, although I wish her Mother weren’t so focused on everything being perfect. I find it funny at times, but it can be annoying. The book walks a fine line between humor and more serious themes, and the result is rich. The book does venture into some PG-13 topics, but know that going into the book and you’ll be fine since it never gets too graphic. I do recommend reading book one before you read this one since it includes fallout from the events of that story. Hopefully, it won’t be so long before I visit Ellison again.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Bone Key (Supernatural, #3) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
While I like the idea behind this, it just didn't come together very well. Part of the problem may have been that there were too many viewpoints from characters that usually had no other purpose than to die. A few of these would have been fine, but there was more than enough. The characterizations of Sam and Dean were on maybe half the time -- maybe -- though I'd venture closer to forty percent. Bobby fared better after a somewhat strange beginning. Some of the dialogue was so badly worded I couldn't imagine either of them saying what they did, or using such poor grammar in one sentence, even Dean. Now we get to the word 'gonna.' Would it kill anyone -- <i>anyone!</i> -- to say 'going to' every once in a while? Or is there some kind of curse that will give them continuous diarrhea for a year if they do? That really started setting my teeth on edge after a while. There was one passage from Dean that was particularly painful and I wish I had kept the page number so I could have typed the passage out for posterity. I can't say the book was horrible, but it wasn't good either and it's definitely the worst out of the first three <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/series/42135-supernatural">Supernatural</a>; books.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes 2 (2022) in Movies
Nov 14, 2022
Pleasant and Entertaining
Back in September 2020 - in the heart of the pandemic shutdown - Netflix released ENOLA HOLMES which was dubbed “the teen version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes” - one can decide for themselves if that is a good or a bad thing. For me, this flick was an agreeable way to spend a few hours and I, for one, was looking forward to further adventures of Enola and her more well-known older brother, Sherlock.
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Black Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Jude Law stars as Robinson, a former submarine captain made redundant after a long career with an underwater salvage company. Left without a pension, and blaming the company for his failed marriage, he learns from a former co-worker that a vast sum of Nazi gold is lying in wait aboard a sunken German U-boat at the bottom of the Black Sea. Upon securing financing and a submarine that has most definitely seen better days, he pulls together a crew of both British and Russian sailors, assuring every man that an equal share of the loot is to be had. Tensions among the crew soon arise and as one character chillingly questions, “What happens when one of them starts to figure out that their share gets bigger, when there is less people to share it with?”
A few too many easy coincidences drive this plot along, but if you’re willing to suspend just a bit of disbelief, there’s a great tale of paranoia, claustrophobia, betrayal and greed beneath the surface. Even through Jude Law’s dodgy Scottish accent, every performance (particularly newcomer Bobby Schofield as the inexperienced Tobin) is top-notch as both he and the supporting cast provide true believability to the disregard and distrust the two groups of men come to have for each other. Between Black Sea and his unexpectedly good turn in Dom Hemingway last year, Jude Law is firmly back on my radar, as he seems to be following in Matthew McConaughey’s footsteps by taking darker, more complex and challenging roles at this point in his career. From playing a father-figure for a boy frightened of what the future holds, to a man possessed of the determination, no matter what the cost, to return home rich, Law hits every note right and is more than capable of leading a cast this talented.
My only substantial complaint is the ending. On leaving the theater, it seemed one of the better solutions to the potential corner the filmmakers were painting themselves into, though the longer its sits, the more I think a film of this unrelenting intensity deserves an ending with some poignancy. Admittedly, I would have found something bleaker to be more satisfying. The easy route out taken in the last five minutes by director Kevin Macdonald and writer Dennis Kelly are a bit of a let-down when compared with the pulse pounding hour and forty-five minutes that precedes it, and for me it will only detract from Black Sea’s memorability.
With the mention of a submarine drama, it is almost inevitable that comparisons to Das Boot will be drawn. For the purposes of reviewing Black Sea however, I have been unable to do so as my only viewing of it was about a decade ago, when I very foolishly had the ambition to see not only the uncut 6-hour mini-series version that was put together for German television, but to do so in a single sitting. I was successful, but only in terms of completing the task. I know it was great and that it is above equal in the genre of submarine films, but at this point I’d be hard pressed to recall even a few minutes of it. It would seem, in this case, that Black Sea got a fair shake to be judged on its own merits (and that I now have a German epic to revisit, albeit in the slightly more truncated director’s cut form this time).
A few nitpicky complaints aside, and in direct contradiction with my take on the abysmally poor Blackhat from the other week, this is a fine example of a well-made, wall-to-wall suspense-filled thriller, and the film I wish I had started the year off with. Released in early December in the UK, where it has received generally positive reviews, it’s unfortunate that it has landed stateside in the January/February season of no-hopes.
A few too many easy coincidences drive this plot along, but if you’re willing to suspend just a bit of disbelief, there’s a great tale of paranoia, claustrophobia, betrayal and greed beneath the surface. Even through Jude Law’s dodgy Scottish accent, every performance (particularly newcomer Bobby Schofield as the inexperienced Tobin) is top-notch as both he and the supporting cast provide true believability to the disregard and distrust the two groups of men come to have for each other. Between Black Sea and his unexpectedly good turn in Dom Hemingway last year, Jude Law is firmly back on my radar, as he seems to be following in Matthew McConaughey’s footsteps by taking darker, more complex and challenging roles at this point in his career. From playing a father-figure for a boy frightened of what the future holds, to a man possessed of the determination, no matter what the cost, to return home rich, Law hits every note right and is more than capable of leading a cast this talented.
My only substantial complaint is the ending. On leaving the theater, it seemed one of the better solutions to the potential corner the filmmakers were painting themselves into, though the longer its sits, the more I think a film of this unrelenting intensity deserves an ending with some poignancy. Admittedly, I would have found something bleaker to be more satisfying. The easy route out taken in the last five minutes by director Kevin Macdonald and writer Dennis Kelly are a bit of a let-down when compared with the pulse pounding hour and forty-five minutes that precedes it, and for me it will only detract from Black Sea’s memorability.
With the mention of a submarine drama, it is almost inevitable that comparisons to Das Boot will be drawn. For the purposes of reviewing Black Sea however, I have been unable to do so as my only viewing of it was about a decade ago, when I very foolishly had the ambition to see not only the uncut 6-hour mini-series version that was put together for German television, but to do so in a single sitting. I was successful, but only in terms of completing the task. I know it was great and that it is above equal in the genre of submarine films, but at this point I’d be hard pressed to recall even a few minutes of it. It would seem, in this case, that Black Sea got a fair shake to be judged on its own merits (and that I now have a German epic to revisit, albeit in the slightly more truncated director’s cut form this time).
A few nitpicky complaints aside, and in direct contradiction with my take on the abysmally poor Blackhat from the other week, this is a fine example of a well-made, wall-to-wall suspense-filled thriller, and the film I wish I had started the year off with. Released in early December in the UK, where it has received generally positive reviews, it’s unfortunate that it has landed stateside in the January/February season of no-hopes.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.