SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

ultramatt2000-1 With footage taken from CAVEMAN INKI, it is basically the same old Bugs Bunny versus Elmer Fudd story, only this time it is set in prehistoric times. While Elmer Fudd has hair and a unibrow, Bugs Bunny has a long buck tooth. Here is a fact, there is such thing as a prehistoric rabbit. It is called a Palaeolagus, which looks like a rabbit, but smaller on the years. It is pretty fun to watch and it is directed by Robert McKimson. In one scene there is a narrator that sounds like Hanna-Barbera cartoon character, Captain Caveman. All in all, give it a watch, it is highly enjoyable. Not rated, but a G-rating will work.

Lee Eisenberg Warner Bros. animation had passed their apex (or, to reference Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, is that acme?) by 1958, but they still turned out good stuff. One example was Robert McKimson's "Pre-Hysterical Hare", in which Bugs Bunny finds a reel of film from the Stone Age wherein a dimwitted hunter who just happens to resemble Elmer Fudd goes after a rabbit who just happens to look like Bugs, except with longer front teeth. Sure enough, Elmer's caveman ancestor turns out to be no match for Bugs's ancestor.As expected, Dave Barry's Elmer voice doesn't sound right. Nobody could voice the clueless hunter like Arthur Q. Bryan. Mel Blanc tried to after Bryan died, but not even the man of 1,000 voices could imitate that voice, so they discontinued the character. Otherwise, it's a funny cartoon. We can forgive the obvious plot holes (how'd the people in 10,000 BC know which year it was?) since this is a cartoon.'Twas always thus indeed!

John T. Ryan ACJIEVING AN OUTSTANDINGLT successful series such as Warner Brothers BUGS NUNNY is a difficult enough job. But maintaining a high level is even more so. In a sense, a character and series become a sort of victim of its own success and the expectations generated in the mind of the unsuspecting public.BY Putting YOUR surrealistic protagonist in a variety of situations and occupations you attempt to keep things fresh and original; at least as it can be expected to be. WHEN THE SERIES has enjoyed a long and successful run, it must by its very nature, begin to repeat, rework and turn to sequels. The next step is to look at previous episodes and look to do the opposite in terms of settings, circumstance and pursuit by the "enemy"/antagonists. (In this case, it would be either Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam.WE SUSPECT THAT this "through the looking glass" approach was the gateway that led to today's reviewee, PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE.DIRECTED BY VETERAN Robert McKimson, Bugs were certainly not in the hand of a neophyte or "hack". Mr. McKimson had certainly done many Bugs pictures before; along with colleagues like Bob Clampett, Tex Avery, Fritz Freleng and Chuck Jones.BUT THERE MAY have been other forces coming into play here. Was the competition from television cutting into budgets? Were the production members suffering a sort of malady akin to "Writer's Cramp?" Was there in inordinate desire to move on to new territory and push the envelope?OUR GUESS IS hat there was a certain amount of each of these negative factors. Coupling with the notion of the 'opposite setting', which probably was at the heart of this "throwback" setting.THERE HAVE BEEN other prehistoric themed cartoons in our memory. We recall one LOONEY TUNES/MERRIE MELODIES entry from circa 1940 that featured a Caveman who was a caricature of Jack Benny. Of course the Hannah-Barbera television series production, THE FLINTSTONES came along a year later. There was no similarity in any of the three; other than having Stone Age settings.AS YOU HAVE no doubt gathered by now, this is not a favourite with us. Although no Warner Brothers cartoon is without some share of chuckles and otherwise positives, this is not very memorable.TWO ** STARS.

TheLittleSongbird I know that sounds harsh, but considering Bugs and Elmer were here I expected better than this. Granted, this is not the worst Looney Tunes have done, and it is not their only bad cartoon, there are about five or six others that range from mediocre to crud-worthy(Devil's Feud Cake and See Ya Later Gladiator are two of those). But, that is little consolation. For me, the only redeeming qualities were Mel Blanc and Bugs mocking Elmer's laugh, that's it. The animation is dull in the colours, lacking finesse in the backgrounds and the characters especially Bugs look really odd. The music is tepid and annoying, and I hated how it sounded too, canned music can work but I have heard too many cases when it doesn't and this is one of them, while the pace has no energy, the writing is unoriginal and tired with gags that suffer from poor timing and the story is too thin a premise, takes far too long to start and finishes abruptly. Another big disappointment was the voice of Elmer, which to be honest was really quite poor and felt too imitative. Overall, a huge disappointment. 2/10 Bethany Cox