Markc65
A rejoint le juin 2001
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges4
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis32
Note de Markc65
I love the Looney Tunes cartoons, but this isn't one of the good ones. The pacing and humor are subpar, which for a Warner Bros. cartoon is a great disappointment.
There were some problems that plagued the production of this cartoon; maybe that's why it didn't come out so good. The first problem you'll notice is that canned music is used from John Seely Assc. instead of a full orchestrated score. The music used is rather tepid, and doesn't sync to the action on screen like the best of Carl Stalling's scores did for the Looney Tunes.
The second really noticeable problem is when Elmer Fudd speaks. The original voice of Elmer Fudd, Arthur Q. Bryan, didn't work on this cartoon, probably because he was ill. (He died the year after this cartoon was released.) Dave Barry took over the job of providing Fudd's voice, and he doesn't sound anything like the character should.
Another problem adding to the overall mediocrity is the fact that the animators in director Robert McKimson's unit, at the time of this cartoon, had little experience animating. Combine that with the tighter budgets the crews had to work during the late 50's and the animation really suffers. It's limited and very dull -- the characters mainly stand around and talk. There's very little slapstick like in the better cartoons from the 40's and early 50's.
I say avoid this one, unless you're curious to see how low a once great cartoon series could sink.
There were some problems that plagued the production of this cartoon; maybe that's why it didn't come out so good. The first problem you'll notice is that canned music is used from John Seely Assc. instead of a full orchestrated score. The music used is rather tepid, and doesn't sync to the action on screen like the best of Carl Stalling's scores did for the Looney Tunes.
The second really noticeable problem is when Elmer Fudd speaks. The original voice of Elmer Fudd, Arthur Q. Bryan, didn't work on this cartoon, probably because he was ill. (He died the year after this cartoon was released.) Dave Barry took over the job of providing Fudd's voice, and he doesn't sound anything like the character should.
Another problem adding to the overall mediocrity is the fact that the animators in director Robert McKimson's unit, at the time of this cartoon, had little experience animating. Combine that with the tighter budgets the crews had to work during the late 50's and the animation really suffers. It's limited and very dull -- the characters mainly stand around and talk. There's very little slapstick like in the better cartoons from the 40's and early 50's.
I say avoid this one, unless you're curious to see how low a once great cartoon series could sink.
I've never seen a cartoon from the 40's as bad as this one. Usually, cartoons from that era had a high standard of quality, but it's as if the artists who made this cartoon didn't even bother to try.
A parody of travelogues, it is filled with nothing but bad puns one can see coming a mile away. (Travels? Mile? There's a bad pun there somewhere. If I could figure it out, I could write for Columbia.) The pacing is slow and dull, and there is actually very little in the way of character animation. Most of the cartoon consists of some object animated over live action photographs for backgrounds, to illustrate yet another excruciating pun. One starts to feel that the people responsible for this cartoon were somnambulists or at least addicted to morphine at the time.
Columbia/ Screen Gems had a poor track record in terms of producing good cartoons, and this is their worst effort by far. In fact, it's the worst cartoon from that era, period.
Watch it only if you are interested in the history of Hollywood cartoons from the golden age, and how some animators could go so very far astray. Otherwise, avoid.
A parody of travelogues, it is filled with nothing but bad puns one can see coming a mile away. (Travels? Mile? There's a bad pun there somewhere. If I could figure it out, I could write for Columbia.) The pacing is slow and dull, and there is actually very little in the way of character animation. Most of the cartoon consists of some object animated over live action photographs for backgrounds, to illustrate yet another excruciating pun. One starts to feel that the people responsible for this cartoon were somnambulists or at least addicted to morphine at the time.
Columbia/ Screen Gems had a poor track record in terms of producing good cartoons, and this is their worst effort by far. In fact, it's the worst cartoon from that era, period.
Watch it only if you are interested in the history of Hollywood cartoons from the golden age, and how some animators could go so very far astray. Otherwise, avoid.