It's a cliche that the French love Jerry Lewis so much. They like Woody Allen too. Surprisingly both are or were extremely popular in the US before getting to France where they have their own comics that they love.

As for MHH yes it is a string of gags. It was 1953 after all and kind if a silent film throwback. Once something is aclaimed as a film masterpiece it is hard to see it as anything else by the kind of people who go on about film masterpieces.

@ZurichGnome said:

I think I see why Jerry Lewis is France's favorite comedian. I guess they like goofy, slapstick sight gags. A few were somewhat amusing, but most were not. I'm frankly surprised that this 1953 film got into the Criterion Collection.

Don't forget that The Criterion Collection includes Michael Bay's Armageddon. (!) Upon watching Holiday, I hesitantly rated it 7/10; after reading your post today, I changed it to a 6/10.

They need to sell titles like Armageddon to make up for all the obscure artsy titles that don't sell.

@znexyish said:

They need to sell titles like Armageddon to make up for all the obscure artsy titles that don't sell.

I know. I'm just suggesting that the poster I responded to doesn't hold every title that Criterion sells to the same expectation.

Just because film buffs have established a canon of supposedly great films doesn't mean they are right about them.

I didn't say they were "right" about them. The "canon" is a bunch of opinions that are neither right nor wrong.

@Satch_the_man said:

I didn't say they were "right" about them. The "Canon" is a bunch of opinions that are neither right or wrong.

Correction - "Opinions that you may or may not agree with" 😀

Each to his own. There's no accounting for individual taste. But I have a similar gripe w/the Turner Classic Movie channel. In recent years they've relied way too much on films I'd hardly call classics, some from only a couple of decades ago, and not usually all that good.

Yes, it's "just a stream of ... sight gags." So what? What did you expect? It's what he was famous for. Likewise such celebrated clowns and comedians as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Jackie Gleason, the Marx Brothers, Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, etc. I don't see the point of posting only to say that.

If such comedy is not to your taste, then you'll know in the future not to watch movies like this.

Of course. If I tried to type out a comprehensive list, my hand would cramp up.

The point is that truly top-notch slapstick is a delight. Possibly some people sneer at it because there is so much of it on view that's shoddily done.

@Invidia said:

Imo, Anyone who could watch the CLASSIC COMMEDIANS that you've listed and NOT LAUGH at them …

and/or then also COMPLAINS about what they've seen …

isn't even someone who is worth paying attention to.

Agreed!

Maybe it's a culture difference or a generational difference. I remember when my nephews (who I love very much and who are normally highly intelligent), then teenagers, were shown Blazing Saddles for the first time. They hated it. All they saw was something that looked to them like racism and bigotry, and they couldn't even SEE the humor. Sad, really.

My point in my OP was that the sight gags mostly weren't very good--certainly not up to the quality of other comic actors such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, and Laurel & Hardy.

As for Abbot and Costello, I don't think most of their stuff is very funny. "Who's on first" is about the only routine of theirs that I like. I certainly wouldn't put them in the same class as these others. Gleason was good in "The Honeymooners," but those episodes weren't full of sight gags; they were more traditional sitcom.

@ZurichGnome said:

My point in my OP was that the sight gags mostly weren't very good--certainly not up to the quality of other comic actors such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers, and Laurel & Hardy.

As for Abbot and Costello, I don't think most of their stuff is very funny. "Who's on first" is about the only routine of theirs that I like. I certainly wouldn't put them in the same class as these others. Gleason was good in "The Honeymooners," but those episodes weren't full of sight gags; they were more traditional sitcom.

I happen to agree w/you, Gnome. And anyone who would lump Abbott and Costello in w/the Marx Brothers or Chaplin lacks discrimination.

@SueDNim said:

Yes, it's "just a stream of ... sight gags." So what? What did you expect? It's what he was famous for. Likewise such celebrated clowns and comedians as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Jackie Gleason, the Marx Brothers, Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, etc. I don't see the point of posting only to say that.

Wow, I just stopped by after seeing the movie being discussed here. (I happen to agree w/the OP.) And it seems to me that several people here are missing the point and/or distorting what the OP said. Zurich Gnome was commenting on one performance in one film. Yet some folks here are implying that the OP doesn't like anything that has slapstick in it, which is not what was originally said at all.

Also, since when are these forums supposed to be noncritical cheer-leading sessions for movies? When you said. . .

I don't see the point of posting only to say that.

. . . you seem to be ignoring that fact that these forums can also be used to express negative critical opinions as well as positive ones. Quit trying to be the Thought Police.

And as PT100 said, anyone who lumps Abbott and Costello in w/folks like the Marx Brothers, etc., lacks discrimination.