'Stan & Ollie' is a genuinely touching movie.

When it comes to my knowledge of the Laurel & Hardy comedy duo from the classical Hollywood era, I didn't know much about them. Even though I had seen many of their films, I didn't know almost anything about them as human beings or about their personal lives.

After all, pretty much all that I knew about Stan Laurel / Oliver Hardy was that they did slapstick movies when movies were still black and white. This was when the movie industry and the film technology was still developing and trying find itself.

Nevertheless, once I noticed that a biopic movie about these two was released, I had to see it. I wanted to see it because this way I would get to learn more about these two and there was also a good chance that the movie would be pretty entertaining.

Having now seen 'Stan & Ollie' a couple of days ago with my friend, I have to say that I'm happy that we gave the film a chance. The movie as a whole delivered, even though there were some problems with its screenplay that need to be addressed.

In any case, when it comes to the film, the story in 'Stan & Ollie' is basically about Laurel and Hardy's last tour together in the UK. It's about them trying to find an audience for their theatrical act and the duo trying to get their final film financed.

Not surprisingly, over the course of the film's story, things don't always go the way one would expect. There are struggles in the film (personal, financial, health) and how their dream about their 'Robin Hood' comedy doesn't seem to materialize.

So when it comes those things that I like about the movie, one of the best things about 'Stan & Ollie' is that it looks amazing. The way the film is shot takes us right back to the era of classical Hollywood movies (it takes place during the late 30s and mid 50s).

After all, when I watched the film, I couldn't help but to be in awe about how authentic everything looked. Everything from the set designs and make up to sounds & to music was great and it felt like we were living with these characters again.

Another really good thing about the movie has to do with its characters and acting in it. There's no question that pretty much every actor in 'Stan & Ollie' does a really good job over the course of the film (none of them are particularly unlikable).

Yet, especially when it comes to Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly as Laurel & Hardy, they did a great job here. The chemistry between them is great and they manage to portray the duo with dignity without ever going over the top in their mannerisms.

At the same time, even though the movie is mostly really solid, it has to be said that there were some minor problems in it. These minor problems with 'Stan & Ollie' had to do with its story and its screenplay (the movie is roughly 90 minutes in length).

After all, at least in my opinion, the script clearly lacked direction and purpose during its first act and its first half. It felt like the writers didn't pay enough attention to the film's catalyst, which lead to the structure of the story feeling a bit off in some parts.

Fortunately, once the movie gets past its problems in its first half and gets to its more dramatic parts in its second half, it manages to take off. This is when the story gets really emotionally involving and you can't help but to feel for the characters.

In that sense, when I look at the film as a whole, it's clear that even though are some minor problems with the story, as a whole 'Stan & Ollie' delivers. It manages to keep you entertained and respects these two comedians and their lives.

After all, the movie not only shows the talent and the professionalism of these two, but it also gives us a chance to look at them as human beings. The film makes you understand why Laurel & Hardy worked so well together and how much they appreciated each other.

So in the end, if you haven't seen the movie yet and didn't know that much about Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, you should definitely give 'Stan & Ollie' a go. You should watch the film and get to know more about these two wonderful characters.

After all, even though these two made movies almost 100 years ago, that doesn't mean that their material has gotten old. You shouldn't be thinking that just because movies were black & white and grainy those days, they didn't know what they were doing.

On the contrary, even by today's standards, especially their theatrical acts are really clever slapstick comedy that feels fresh. It feels fresh and shows that comedy that is based on the right stuff and is made with care is timeless and will never become outdated or too old.

Why most sitcom pilots are really that awful.

When it comes to sitcom pilots, it's not exactly a secret that most of the pilots that get produced aren't really any good. In most cases, the producers haven't been able to come up with a pilot that would be good enough and that could entertain us. 

The biggest reason for this lack of quality in pilots has to do with the show's lacking premise. The 'concept' and the 'premise' for the series in most shows is not good enough, which means that the series just doesn't have potential to be any good.

In order to give you an example of a bad pilot, let's look at a recent sitcom called 'Abby's'. This comedy about 'an unlicensed backyard bar' and its characters started running some weeks ago on NBC as a mid-season replacement for the network.

When it comes to Abby's as a series, the premise for the show isn't necessarily that original. The main concept for it was more or less taken from 'Cheers', a popular and critically well received sitcom from the 80s, about a bar owner and its regular customers.

Based on the massive success of 'Cheers' (it went on for eleven whole seasons), it wasn't that surprising that someone tried to 'copy' the show. What could go wrong with imitating a concept that during its run managed to win multiple Emmys?

Unfortunately, when it comes to 'Abby's', the show simply doesn't work at all. Unlike Cheers, a classic quality show that really knew what it was about, pretty much nothing about this new sitcom feels even remotely natural or organic.

For example, when it comes to the basic premise of the show, the setup in 'Abby's' feels painfully illogical. It just doesn't feel believable - storywise at least - that someone would come up with an illegal backyard bar like they did here.

In practice, the problem with not having a solid premise is that if you don't have one that makes sense, it's impossible to care about anything that happens on the show. You can't take the characters seriously, because the whole thing feels just implausible.

In comparison, one of the reasons that 'Cheers' worked is that it took place in a regular bar that had its owner and its regular customers. There wasn't anything in the premise that would make you think that it wasn't plausible and that it couldn't happen in real life.

Furthermore as a whole, 'Cheers' was also genuinely well written. It respected its down to earth characters that you were able to relate to (Ted Danson's & Shelley Long's especially) and the storylines that the writers managed to come up with were creative.

On the other hand, when it comes to 'Abby's' pretty much nothing in it works or is even remotely logical. The premise is just too contrived and the characters (at best cardboard cut outs) and the storylines (non-existent) aren't even remotely well thought out.

In that sense, it's pretty clear that had the producers paid even a little bit more attention to the show's premise, things would have been at least a bit better. In that case there would have been at least a chance that the show would make a tiny bit more sense.

After all, had those behind the show done their work, 'Abby's' wouldn't have been so unfocused and so all over the place. There wouldn't have been so many idiotic things about it (like the bar keeper having hundreds of arbitrary 'rules' for the customers).

In the end, when you put it all together, even though I'm not saying that coming up with good pilots certainly isn't easy, it shouldn't be that hard. It shouldn't be completely impossible to be able to come up with a premise that has at least some potential.

After all, if one has even a tiny bit of talent when it comes to knowing what makes sense and what has potential, coming up with a solid premise should be doable. It should be possible to come up with story & characters that wouldn't be completely awful.

Unfortunately for us, in the case of 'Abby's', the writers simply didn't do their jobs. They did not pay enough attention to making sure that the premise would be even remotely plausible and that it would make at least some sense.

On the contrary, instead of coming up with a solid premise, they came up with an awful one. They came up with a awful one in which the show didn't have enough potential and in which it didn't have any of the elements that made 'Cheers' so good during its run.

You need to be critical of yourself as a writer.

When it comes to being a talented writer, one of the most important aspects of the craft is that you need to be critical of yourself. No matter who you are, you shouldn't think that you're above making mistakes and that you can't screw things up.

After all, the reality is that the more confident you get about your abilities as a writer, the easier it becomes to make mistakes. The more certain you become of your craftiness, the easier it becomes to make mistakes that sometimes cannot even be fixed.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that lately I've ran into cases where writers simply did not do their jobs. They didn't question whether their ideas were good enough and whether they had the abilities to pull their story off.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I managed to - after spending like a month or so - finish a book that had recently won a prestigious literary award in my country. This book was supposed to be the real deal and a pleasure to read.

However, the problem with this novel (about a kid and a reverend at St. Helena island in the 1600s) was that it just wasn't any good. The book was actually so awful that it was perhaps the worst novel that I have ever read in my life.

In practice, the worst thing about this 500 page monstrosity was that there was no real story in it. Even though the book was billed as 'an adventure', there wasn't really anything in it (it lacked story structure) that would have made you think that way.

In reality, the structure in it was so lacking that it took like 200 pages before anything even happened in it. The first 200 pages mostly consisted of a seven year old kid giving tedious monologues that went on and on (the kid sounded at least 40 years old) and on.

Later on, when there actually happened something, the writer simply kept forgetting what he had written earlier in the book. This lead to him either repeating earlier chapters (again and again) or writing random stuff that was full of plot holes and continuity errors.

So not surprisingly, after I finished the book, I couldn't help but to wonder how there were so many problems in it (story, dialogue, continuity etc.). How was it possible for an acclaimed author to screw things up so badly like he did (he wrote it for 30 years)?

After all, had he or the publisher paid even a tiny amount of attention to its problems and had they taken a critical look at it, this disaster could have been avoided. Had they done their jobs, this embarrassment wouldn't perhaps have happened.

In that sense, when I think about this particular case and writing in general, it's clear that (I would say most) writers don't pay enough attention to what they're doing. They don't focus on the basics and the fundamentals of the craft as much as they should.

After all, even though they and the critics - who many times are sycophants - might think otherwise, there are so many problems with how most of these authors write. They just don't understand that not everything that they write makes sense or works.

In that sense, if you want to be a solid writer that writes good stuff, you absolutely do need to be aware of things like the story structure. You need to know the fundamentals so that you could have a solid idea of how stories are supposed to be written.

After all, if you know the basics well enough, then you can start focusing on writing your story. That is when you get to come up with the premise, the characters and the storylines that might interest you and that might fascinate your readers too.

In the end, if you'll work hard enough and keep your mind focused on the task, there's a pretty good chance that good things might happen to you. As long as you're willing to keep pushing and won't give up easily, things might turn out good for you.

On the other hand, if you're not willing to pay attention and be critical of yourself, things won't work. In these cases, you won't be able to come up with good stuff, no matter how much critics might think otherwise and no matter how much they might praise your work.