SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Lee Eisenberg By 1945, it was clear that the film careers of Laurel and Hardy were winding down. Their second to last feature was "The Bullfighters", wherein they play detectives who go to Mexico to arrest a larcenist. As it happens, not only is Stan a dead ringer for a noted bullfighter, but a man whom the guys helped imprison is seeking revenge.There are some funny scenes, but the movie isn't quite like their 1930s movies. On top of that, the casting of white people as Mexicans is politically incorrect. And of course, it's hard to enjoy the bullfighting scenes, knowing what a cruel sport it is. I always root for the bull. If the bullfighter gets injured...well, he knew the risks.Anyway, it's OK, not great.

mark.waltz Going "Down Mexico Way" as private investigators, the boys once again are part of a case of mistaken identity with Laurel believed to be a famous (!) Spanish bullfighter. They discover that one of their old cases has come back to haunt them, a man they sent to jail for a crime he did not commit. In trying to hide from them, they decide to utilize the fake bullfighter persona, but as predicted, the real bullfighter arrives. This creates an hour of farce, some funny, but most tired. I still couldn't help but laugh at a repeat of the egg sequence from 1934's "Hollywood Party" in which a bowl of eggs is conveniently set down on a bar where it is used as a weapon between the boys and their foil (in this case the blonde Carol Andrews). There's also a similar bit with water used instead of eggs in the hotel lobby. Their antics here seem a bit tired, although there is a clever usage of special effects for the final gag that will literally leave you "rattling" with laughter.

Michael_Elliott Bullfighters, The (1945) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Laurel and Hardy's final American film finds them playing detectives in Mexico looking for a woman. They end up with a seedy promoter (Richard Lane) who wants to pass Laurel off as a famous bullfighter. The boys have to go along with the plan so that the promoter doesn't turn them over to an man they wrongfully sent to prison years earlier. Going through L&H's final films at Fox, I think one could agree that they're not the best work from the boys but at the same time they're not nearly as horrible as their reputations would have you believe. This film here certainly isn't the greatest but there are enough laughs to make it worth viewing and the 61-minute running time goes by rather quickly. The best gag in the film happens early on when the boys are sitting next to a fountain and Laurel accidentally shoots Hardy with some water. Hardy, thinking it was a man sitting next to them, starts a water fight and this rather long sequence just keeps getting funnier and funnier as it goes along. What's so special about this scene isn't the water being thrown around but the facial expressions of Hardy as he keeps getting into a bigger mess. It's also priceless just seeing the look on Laurel's face as he sits back not understanding what's going on. The rest of the gags are hit and miss at best and this includes a misfire involving the boys and some eggs. The final gag inside the bullring isn't as funny as it could have been and the very final gag is a complete disaster and comes off rather embarrassing. With that said, there are enough laughs here so fans will certainly want to check it out but those new to the group will certainly want to try their earlier work first.

maxcellus46 I say "watchable" as if telling someone that when the dentist pulls their tooth, it'll only hurt a little while. Not a great recommendation for a film. This was it for the boys. Hollywood had essentially "forgotten" them and didn't appreciate their type of humor any more. This film is merely a stitched together series of some of the old gags used in their earlier shorts and features but without any direction or cause and effect. W. Scott Darling certainly was not a good choice at all for doing the writing considering his background in writing for the Sherlock Holmes series or the screenplay of "Ghost of Frankenstein". How did they figure that he would be adept at writing comedy for such a great team? It would be like John Huston writing something for Abbott & Costello immediately after he finished "The Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". NON SEQUITOR. Stan & Ollie really should have realized how much things had changed in Hollywood by the early forties and just quit while they were ahead with their "Saps At Sea" or "A Chump At Oxford", both from 1940. This film is only interesting from the viewpoint of watching what the "big studios" could do to a person's career. Sort of a "post mortem" effect.