User Reviews

In 1929-1930, Harry Langdon made a string of rather unfunny shorts for Hal Roach Studios---and this is the last of them. Later, he'd return to the studio as a gag writer and occasional supporting actor (such as with Oliver Hardy in "Zenobia") but in between he worked with studios like Warner Brothers and Universal and had lengthier stints at Columbia and Monogram. It seems that the old Harry Langdon magic of the 1920s was gone and this appeared to have a lot to do with his bouncing about from studio to studio.

In this short, Harry is the very wimpy and henpecked King. The Queen (Thelma Todd) spends much of her time bossing him and slapping him about in front of his subjects. Now not all of this is because she's just mean--he's a terrible womanizer (with Thelma as a wife?!). So, she decides to handcuff him to her so she can keep an eye on him--a plan that doesn't work particularly well.

While this is only a fair comedy, it and some of the latter ones from Roach had shown a lot of improvement. Sadly, however, as the last of these films he would not take advantage of this positive momentum.

Harry Langdon's final short for Hal Roach continues playing with elements of his 'Baby' character that we saw in his previous short THE SHRIMP. His performance here in the title role of THE KING is not the same royalty that he essayed in his Sennett short SOLDIER MAN (26), where he was classic Harry masquerading as a king. In that film a vamp attempts to seduce Harry in the royal bedroom but he is too distracted by a bowl of fruit!!! This king is a far cry from that Harry . He is still confused and distracted and stammers when he speaks but he is also a skirt-chasing, self-absorbed man-child. He spends his days avoiding the company of the Queen (the beauteous Thelma Todd) so that he may dally with the various court maidens. Miss Todd was cast in almost all of the Langdon-Roach shorts and just as curiously was under employed in every one of them. In this, their final appearance together, she was finally given a comedic role that justified her ability to support a great comedian. She plays a shrewish harpy but it doesn't take us long to figure out that more than likely she was turned into that by the antics of her errant husband. Since this womanizer is played by Harry it is not too surprising that he continually gets caught. There is a glorious moment when Thelma spies Harry in the arms of a young maiden and comes storming across the lawn, her royal train billowing into the wind as her bevy of hand maidens frantically try to keep up. The sight of the approaching Queen is enough to send the King's guards scurrying. As usual, Harry is the last to notice and when he finally does he plays tag with his wife as he ducks and dodges her and the mile long train.

Langdon is quite funny as both a flirt and as someone who enjoys his power. All of it is juxtaposed by the singular image he projects in his full regal glory. His Tudor garb of billowing sleeves and baggy white tights accentuates his doughy physique and makes his reputation of a lady killer all the more ridiculous. It is too bad that Langdon and Roach parted company after this film for, just as the other Roach series needed a short adjustment period getting use to sound, they were starting to hit a stride. As it is we are left with this sublimely, farcical film as a fitting tribute to Harry Langdon's year at the Hal Roach studio.

I have seen some VERY unfunny Hal Roach shorts. In fact when you leave the Laurel and Hardy list you drop down very low indeed. But The King seems like the rock bottom. Harry Langdon was long past his prime when he made this one. He went on to work for the studio as a writer and sometimes performer. He had much better success writing gags for Stan and Babe. Nothing funny going on here. Kinda sad and tragic.

I completely agree with the review by "lowbrowstudio". I absolutely do not understand the criticisms of this movie. It is hysterical. The more i think about it, the funnier it seems to me, and every time I re-watch it (I've seen it about 5 times now) it actually seems even funnier than the time before.

Thelma Todd is stunning, and shows herself to be a superb comedienne in her own right and an excellent comic partner for Langdon. All the supporting actors are funny. The sets and production-values are striking, with what looks to be a cast of at least a hundred in the opening shots, and huge sets both indoors and outside. And Langdon is at his peak. He still looks exactly like the Little Elf of the silent movies, and has plenty of energy.

The idea that Langdon was lost in the world of scripts and talking pictures is an idiotic myth promulgated by James Agee. And the idea that Langdon lost the magic of his persona in his sound movies is a canard derived from reading too much and thinking too little (and perhaps a deficient sense of the absurd?). Notably, in his book on Langdon, William Schelly makes a lot of negative observations that are so utterly inaccurate that I have to question whether or not he ever actually SAW the films he was criticizing.

So, to be completely at odds with all the authors who have commented about Langdon working best in silence, I think his voice and all his little improvised verbal infantalisms add a whole new layer of personality to his character, as well as being extremely funny. Hal Roach must have been deaf and dumb (REALLY dumb) at the time he said that Langdon "wasn't so funny articulate." I think Langdon is incredibly effective in sound.

This film is as funny and continuously amusing to me as any true classic like Laurel & Hardy's "Brats" or Charley Chase's "Movie Night". And it is also BETTER than many of Langdon's own silent shorts (I've seen all of them that are known to exist). In fact, it has more life and laughs than most of his BEST silent shorts.

Just to slap some sense into myself, I re-watched all the 1920s shorts on the DVD set "Harry Langdon, Lost and Found". I wanted to get a tangible feel for how his "classic work" compared to the Hal Roach talkies and vice versa.

Now, maybe it's partly the goofy, and sometimes creepy and inappropriate music by the Snark Ensemble, but I rarely laughed and at times felt a little unresponsive to what I was watching. "Boobs in the Woods", "Feet of Mud" and "The Luck O' The Foolish" held my attention the best.

The finest of these movies have stories that are well thought-out with real dramatic sweep, meaningful climaxes, strong character-building and well-planned endings, all of which results in a very satisfying movie experience. But they are also sometimes a little TOO much of all this, and are a bit hard to sit through. I yearned for the music, sound effects, voices and dialogue, and the non-stop jokes of the Hal Roach talking films.

"The King" may not have the architecture of a classically-constructed comedy narrative, but it is ALIVE. It's like watching a roller-coaster ride. I also find myself laughing all the way through it, and I laugh to myself even now whenever I reflect about how absurd it all is. What do you NEED from a short, funny movie, anyway?

Of course this short does not have the purposeful narrative of the silent "Fiddlesticks", but it is NOT THAT KIND OF A FILM. This is a vignette, a slice of life, a Saroyan (…well, maybe that's going a bit too far, BUT it is that style…). And it's way funnier than "Fiddlesticks".

So why would I recommend this short to anyone? Why on earth not?? It's Harry Langdon and Thelma Todd at their best, and it's relentlessly fast and funny.

By whatever means, try to find this movie. Let's hope someday someone releases pristine prints of all the Hal Roach shorts; and, too, that ALL of Langdon's movies can be made available in high-quality prints. I will bet there are some other gems out there.

King, The (1930)

** (out of 4)

Fair short from Hal Roach has a King (Harry Langdon) being terrified of the Queen (Thelma Todd) who is constantly abusing him. He ends up kissing another woman but he doesn't know that she's really married to his crazy adviser and the rest of the film has the King trying to keep the husband from finding out. THE KING isn't the best Langdon-Roach comedy but Lord knows it's certainly far from the worst. This isn't the worst movie out there but when you consider how many better shorts are out there it's really difficult to find a reason to recommend this to anyone. This was the third short that Todd appeared in with Langdon and it's actually the first to actually put her to good use. Her role here is certainly beefed up from previous films and you can tell she's starting to get her comic timing down and this is clear during one sequence where she chains herself to Langdon. Langdon, on the other hand, delivers the typical type of performance as he acts childish and pretends to be a 12-year-old boy. It was mildly entertaining seeing him playing a womanizer, although I'm sure many will doubt this. The pre-code elements of a married man kissing another married woman sets this film apart from many of the comedies from this era but in the end there's just not enough going for the film.

There are some pretty funny moments in "The King" that save it from a lower rating. Speaking of which, this is funnier than the low rating it now sports. I haven't seen a lot of Langdon's shorts but he plays the same character in the ones I've seen, a shy, childish innocent beleaguered by circumstances beyond his control. Here he is aided by Thelma Todd, one of the best of the early comediennes.

If you ever have a chance to see this one, do it. Langdon was funny, often better than the material he's working with, and, come on - how bad can it be? It's a film short.

6/10 ****** - Website no longer prints my star rating.