mark.waltz It is sad to note that the majority of Laurel and Hardy's post 1940 comedies are weak, minus the Hal Roach touch that made their shorts and features of the 1930's so beloved. This is one of the rare exceptions, a comedy that doesn't make the aging team look silly and uses the art of magic to enhance their gags. Kicked out of town for vagrancy, the boys need a one-way ticket and take advantage of an ad in the newspaper for a delivery man needed to take a casket to Dayton. They don't realize that the corpse is alive, and a criminal to boot! On the train, they encounter Dante the Magician and somehow get into his act. This is where the fun really begins. The gangsters show up looking for the coffin, which somehow ends up a prop in the show. Laurel & Hardy happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Laurel (literally) ends up with egg on his face.I found myself laughing quite regularly at the series of gags and confusion with Dante's magic behind most of the visuals. Sheila Ryan, who appeared with the boys in "Great Guns", returns for this outing as Dante's assistant. The sight of Laurel and Hardy in their costumes working with Dante has the audience in stitches, as does the moment when Laurel must climb a magic rope as Hardy plays the clarinet to keep the rope standing straight up. Elisha Cook Jr. ("The Maltese Falcon") is instantly recognizable as one of the stereotypical dumb crooks. The ending is another one of the team's visual gags that will have you tearing up in laughter.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie is like all Laurel & Hardy's '40's movies; Too much talking and not enough slapstick. And has an overwritten story and it relies too much on the script, rather than on Laurel & Hardy's antics and talent. Yes of course they get some slapstick to do but it doesn't feel as anything new or truly great, though the movie certainly does have its moments, which help to make this movie worthwhile.The story is rather weak but above all really uninteresting. The title is deceiving and certainly has nothing to do with the movie.Dante, a magician from the 20th century is in the movie too but you can wonder why. Seems like just a publicity stunt for both parties to me, since it doesn't serve a too big significant purpose for the main plot-line of the movie.Not that this movie is bad but by Laurel & Hardy standards it still is a rather weak and bad one, that really isn't among their best work.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

JoeKarlosi First things first - this is not a "horror-comedy" as I presumed it would be by the title. I mean, even the opening credits have the name of the film in ghoulish lettering along with the spooky image of a ghost leering down at Stan and Ollie, for crying out loud! But getting past that -- this is one of those oft-despised latter day "Fox films" that the aging team of Laurel and Hardy made after their greatest works at Hal Roach Studios. It's not as "heinous" as most critics make it out to be, but it's not one of their better forties movies either. In this one, the "boys" get released from a stay in jail and are told to leave town. So they meet up with a group of swindling crooks (one of them is played by a very young Elisha Cook Jr.) who need their help in traveling to Dayton, Ohio. The dopey plot is all over the place, but along the way there are some small chuckles to be had (the hitchhiking fiasco, the "Inflato" machine duping) and a few mildly cute slapstick gags. But things sink as the film goes on and "Dante the Magician" takes up too much screen time (he's even top billed along with Laurel and Hardy!) ** out of ****

hausrathman Laurel and Hardy are bamboozled into smuggling a gangster, disguised as a corpse in a coffin, from one city to another but complications arise when the coffin is switched with a coffin used in a magician's act. This film, produced by Twentieth Century Fox, doesn't approach the charm of even their weakest feature produced by the Hal Roach Studios, but I don't think this is necessarily Laurel and Hardy's worst film. There are a few laughs, sporadic as they may be. The main problem is that the comedy is too generic, it doesn't grow out of the personas they painstaking developed over the years. One could just as easily imagine Abbott and Costello or Bob Hope and Bing Crosby doing the Indian Rope trick gag. The production values are better than the Roach films, but production value is a poor substitute for comedy. The predicament can be summed up in the casting. In this film the boys are menaced by Elisha Cook, Jr.. Don't get me wrong. I think Elisha Cook, Jr., is an terrific supporting actor, but against Humphrey Bogart, not Laurel and Hardy. The boys are better menaced by a comic heavy like Walter Long.Still, although many Laurel and Hardy fans castigate Fox and MGM for their treatment of the duo during the 1940s, I don't honestly see how it could have been much different anywhere in Hollywood. Laurel and Hardy were products of the 1920s and 1930s, the golden age of screen comedy. The 1940s were the nadir of comedy. By the time "A Haunting We Will Go" hit the screens in 1942, all of the greats were all essentially gone. Chaplin was inactive, and never returned to the comedy which made him great. Harold Lloyd had retired. Buster Keaton's career was in ruins. W.C. Fields' career was over. The Marx Brothers' film career was essentially over. Even the Ritz Brothers only had two more films in them. When you look at Laurel and Hardy in the context of their peers, it is a great testimony to their popularity that their film career continued as long as it did. The 1940s would forever belong to Abbott and Costello and Bob Hope, the likes of whom would make some funny films, but decade never had the comic vitality of the 1930s.