Who's Cookin Who?

. . . though this would APPEAR to be the 17th episode of the original Woody Woodpecker Show, the ACTUAL 17th episode aired on Jan. 23, 1958--NOT June 24, 1946. Furthermore, Episode #17 included 100 PYGMIES AND ANDY PANDA, KITTEN MITTENS and THE COO COO BIRD. In other words, it did not offer WHO'S COOKING WHO? However, the NEW material featured was an entry in the "Behind the Scenes with Walter Lance" series running 109 seconds, titled "The Inking Department." Lance, Woody's creator and producer, reveals that a felt stick can be used to erase mistakes made by an ink girl. He points out that an ink outline appears on one side of each cell, and the paint is applied by the ink gals to the opposite side.

. . . the sort of social skills necessary to survive in this Our Modern 21st Century, do NOT expose them to WHO'S COOKING WHO? This film seems to be a product of the National Socialist Party's "labor camp" program, which had been recently curtailed by Allied Troops shortly before this brief horror film's release. Popular contemporary themes, such as Famine, Starvation, Inhumanity and Death are prominent here. Minute-for-minute, WHO'S COOKING probably is far more violent than Quentin T.'s INGLORIOUS GUYS-BORN-OUT-OF-WEDLOCK. Of course, this is what you would expect from Universal's FRANKENSTEIN MUMMY DRACULA Horror Machine.

In one of his earliest cartoons, "Pantry Picnic" (1941), Woody is starving because he ignored advice to travel south for the winter. As a result, he's now starving and willing to eat anything. Soon, another character shows up and this ultra-violent cartoon consists of the pair trying to eat each other. Well, only five years later, Universal is already remaking the cartoon--with results that aren't quite as good as the original. While the original was among the best Woody cartoons, this one is pretty limp because it lacks originality--but at least it does have a healthy dose of sadism!

The quality of this cartoon is clearly inferior to the stuff coming from Looney Tunes at the time. While the style is pretty similar (with a smart-alec animal outwitting another), the art style is more rubbery and lower quality. The backgrounds are also cheaper looking. Additionally, the gags are decent but not quite up to the Looney Tune standards of the day. Well worth watching but second-rate.

Was very fond of Woody Woodpecker and his cartoons as a child. Still get much enjoyment out of them now as a young adult, even if there are more interesting in personality cartoon characters and better overall cartoons.

That is in no way knocking Woody, because many of his cartoons are a lot of fun to watch and more and also still like him a lot as a character. It is true that 'Who's Cookin Who?' is lacking originality, with similarities to 'Pantry Panic', and it may not quite have the sharp timing of that cartoon. With that being said, it's still entertaining, and Woody Woodpecker should get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

While there may be cartoon characters with slightly more interesting personalities, Woody is still at his best incredibly funny, never obnoxious and very lovable self, summing him up in one word it would be wonderfully nuts. By now, whereas they were still evolving in 'Pantry Panic', Woody's design is closer to the character design he's best known for and his personality is better established.

As ever, the animation in 'Who's Cookin Who?' is great. The characters are well drawn, but even better are the rich colours, meticulously detailed backgrounds and smooth backgrounds.

Another standout quality is the music. It's characterful, lushly orchestrated and is not only dynamic with the action it even enhances it. The writing is suitably witty and raises a number of chuckles, while the never less than amusing and beautifully timed sight gags are even more impressive.

Supporting characters are good support for Woody, you're shocked at the vicious, but thankfully never overly-sadistic that it'll make one uncomfortable, lengths they go to against one another.

Voice acting is typically solid.

In conclusion, unoriginal but colourful and entertaining. 8/10 Bethany Cox