Recensioni degli utenti

This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years.

This very unusual early teaming of Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny (long before he found his "voice") is of interest to hardcore fans, though it would be a while before they became the well-oiled machine...

Probably the two main significances of "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" are that the wacky leporid featured in "A Wild Hare" now has a name, and that he utters his famous "Of course you realize this means war!" for the first time. Mostly, the Termite Terrace crowd was still trying to figure out what exactly to do with this long-eared rascal. It's certainly a must-see for hard-core fans of this genre, but others will probably have little reason to take interest.

But make no mistake, it's quite hilarious what Bugs Bunny does to the eternally gullible Elmer Fudd. Clear shades of things to come abound throughout the cartoon. I recommend it.

Love animation, it was a big part of my life as a child, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes, Hanna and Barbera and Tom and Jerry, and still love it whether it's film, television or cartoons. Actually appreciate it even more now through young adult eyes, thanks to broader knowledge and more interest in animation styles and various studios and directors.

Chuck Jones deserved, and still does deserve, his status as one of animation's most legendary, greatest and most important directors/animators. He may have lacked the outrageousness and wild wackiness of Bob Clampett and Tex Avery, but the visual imagination, wit and what he did with some of the best-known and most iconic characters ever were just as special. 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is not one of his best representations, it's a decent, fun and above average cartoon certainly though with some unusual oddities.

With the slower and not as lively pace as to usual, there is a deceptive sense that Jones was still finding his feet when actually he did a lot of cartoons before 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' and in some of his previous efforts there wasn't as much of that sense.

'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' features the legendary pairing of Bugs and Elmer and one can see definitely what was so great about the pairing. It is very witty and fun. Elmer does fare better of the two characters, but while Bugs is entertaining and likeable he does sound and act like he was still evolving, which is strange considering this is not even his debut and the look, voice and personality were better established then.

Arthur Q. Bryan does a great job voicing Elmer. Mel Blanc surprisingly is more troubling, he was a master of voice acting and Bugs is one of his best achievements but here it sounded like he was experimenting because his voice work for Bugs is distractingly odd and like others here it doesn't do it for me.

The animation is as always bright and colourful, with lots of smooth movement, imaginative detail in the gags and rich and meticulous detail in the backgrounds. Carl Stalling's music score is as ever high in energy, liveliness, character, lushness and whimsy, and not only is dynamic and fits effortlessly with the action but enhances everything.

What's more, 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is entertaining, with some wild looniness, wit (if not always razor sharp) and sardonic bite shining enough in the dialogue. Plus there are some beautifully timed and animated and imaginative sight gags, that contain enough surprises.

In summary, decent but not the best of representations of Jones, Elmer and Bugs paired together (it would become even wittier and funnier later) and Bugs. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I agree with a lot of the comments: this Bugs is different. After "A WILD HARE" by Tex Avery, this cartoon seems to be presenting some sort of "cousin" to Bugsy rather than the real thing. I noticed something very weird here: No BUCK TEETH!!! Not to mention this guy spoke in a different voice. Elmer is lovable and actually so is this strange bunny who wears yellow gloves, not white. He has some really funny moments. He does his share of highjinks and heckling, but still, this just isn't the Bugs we all know. So I have a suggestion: either they were still not sure who he was, or maybe he was trying to have some "range" of character!!!

Not a terrible member of the body of work I love, but not my fave either.

One would think that after the theatrical success and response the first Bugs Bunny cartoon, "A Wild Hare," generated that the Termite Terrace boys would follow it up with something even--pardon the pun--"wilder" for their new star.

However, that does not seem to be case with "Elmer's Pet Rabbit." Unlike the first encounter between Bugs and Elmer in which Bugs knows from frame one how it will end, in this one the control between the two characters shift back and forth. In one scene Bugs has one-upped Elmer, in the next Elmer is throwing him out. Bugs seems less confident, which at times makes it hard for the audience to really root for him.

This is most surprising when one considers that it was scripted by Rich Hogan, who wrote the previous "A Wild Hare." Not surprising, however, is that this slow ordeal was directed by Chuck Jones. Sure, he has conceived some of Bugs' grandest films in the 1950's, but at 1941 Jones was still concentrating on micro-directing...slowing down every action to a crawl so that you pick up every detail, every twitch and expression, and every aside. 1941's Jones was not the man to follow wildman Tex Avery.

And of course, Bugs is still growing into his true self at this point. It could be speculated that "Pet Rabbit" was in production before or at the same time of "A Wild Hare," because how else can one explain the slushier pre-Bugs baritone voice Mel Blanc uses for the wabbit?

As a Bugs cartoon, this one is only for completists. As a non-Bugs cartoon, it is simply slow and pointless.

I just finished watching this on MeTV Toons and I just have to say: why, Chuck Jones? Just why? In the opening sequence, it said "Featuring Bugs Bunny; when I heard him, it sounded NOTHING like him at all in terms of voice AND in character. Sure, he stayed Looney throughout, but that was not the Bugs Bunny that I know and love.

And look, Chuck Jones is one of my inspirations, but that was by far in my opinion his worst cartoon yet. I love the classic Looney Tunes cartoons, but the fact that I have to be honest and spread my negative opinion on this cartoon breaks my heart so much. I hope I never have to do this to a Bugs Bunny cartoon again.