Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaBugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.Bugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.Bugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Mel Blanc
- Bugs Bunny
- (voce)
Arthur Q. Bryan
- Elmer Fudd
- (voce)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
The new Bugs Bunny script is in production, but Bugs finds that the animator on the picture is a difficult sort; he threatens to walk off the picture. However, as the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword and Bugs find himself at the mercy of the animator's imagination.
Ironically enough for a cartoon where the animator is (literally) the star, the actual animation here is only average. The plot is quite a good idea but it doesn't really work. The various little tricks that the animator pull just get a little dull after a while and, while it is different, it simply isn't very funny.
Worse still is the fact that Bugs isn't really himself his personality isn't really Bugs as we have come to know him and he could easily be any character at all. In fact, given that much of the action involves redrawing Bugs (or bits of Bugs) as something else, it never really feels like him. The animator may be given a face at the end but really he is a meaningless paintbrush for the most part and fails to be a part of the cartoon.
Overall this is a good idea but nothing is done with it that works. The gags tire after a while, the animation is average at best and there is a shocking lack of character in Bugs and the cartoon as a whole. Not really worth a look.
Ironically enough for a cartoon where the animator is (literally) the star, the actual animation here is only average. The plot is quite a good idea but it doesn't really work. The various little tricks that the animator pull just get a little dull after a while and, while it is different, it simply isn't very funny.
Worse still is the fact that Bugs isn't really himself his personality isn't really Bugs as we have come to know him and he could easily be any character at all. In fact, given that much of the action involves redrawing Bugs (or bits of Bugs) as something else, it never really feels like him. The animator may be given a face at the end but really he is a meaningless paintbrush for the most part and fails to be a part of the cartoon.
Overall this is a good idea but nothing is done with it that works. The gags tire after a while, the animation is average at best and there is a shocking lack of character in Bugs and the cartoon as a whole. Not really worth a look.
While not as iconic as Duck Amuck, Rabbit Rampage it's still a pretty great short on its own, being very funny to watch from beginning to end.
The gags are pretty effective and clever, and while the similarities with its predecessor are more than evident, but the formula still works here.
It's not uncommon for many artists to revisit some of their old ideas, giving them a new spin; rather than a "rip-off" it's more like another alternative take of the Duck Amuck premise.
The gags are pretty effective and clever, and while the similarities with its predecessor are more than evident, but the formula still works here.
It's not uncommon for many artists to revisit some of their old ideas, giving them a new spin; rather than a "rip-off" it's more like another alternative take of the Duck Amuck premise.
I think this cartoon was released to enhance the success that Daffy Duck's Duck Amuck (1953) achieved by using an even more famous and loved character in Bugs Bunny (better-loved for an unknown reason). It did not work. Though it's funny and I like it, Daffy is the kind of character that is supposed to do this kind of thing. Bugs just isn't himself when at the recieving end of torment. But I guess it shows his other side. But as always, you still get some Jones hallmarks, like the vivid use of colour, good verbal comedy and great animation and expression. The score complements all of that, but as Bugs takes on several forms through the animator's whim, he doesn't feel like Bugs except he continues to crunch his carrot even when he has been drastically modified. Duck Amuck was a better cartoon, much, much better. But this is entertainment, and a funny cartoon is a funny cartoon, I'll admit. So if you look for nothing but seven minutes of a good cartoon, I recommend this one. Good to see it's in print.
Sort of a re-imagining of "Duck Amuck", "Rabbit Rampage" has Bugs Bunny getting tormented by an unseen animator (whom he apparently recognizes at the beginning). Whereas the original cartoon made use of Daffy Duck's explosive personality, Bugs obviously can't do that. It seems to me that he behaves here more like Heath Ledger's version of the Joker in "The Dark Knight".
Overall, I can't quite figure out why Chuck Jones repeated the story from one of his greatest cartoons. It's not a bad cartoon, and we certainly shouldn't lower our opinions of Jones for it. But other cartoons were definitely better.
Overall, I can't quite figure out why Chuck Jones repeated the story from one of his greatest cartoons. It's not a bad cartoon, and we certainly shouldn't lower our opinions of Jones for it. But other cartoons were definitely better.
Even before reading the reviews on here, I could see a number of similarities to Duck Amuck. Duck Amuck is definitely superior to Rabbit Rampage; I consider Duck Amuck not only one of the Daffy's best cartoons but also one of the best Looney Tunes cartoons in general, while for Bugs I would put What's Opera Doc?, Broom-Stick Bunny, Rabbit Seasoning, Rabbit Fire, Rhapsody Rabbit and Water Water Every Hare over this.
In general, the animation was not too bad, Bugs himself looks somewhat odd, but the colours, backgrounds and visual tricks are very nice. In fact, like Duck Amuck what actually made Rabbit Rampage were the visual gags, they were clever and funny. That and Elmer's last line at the end, which I was not expecting. The music is also a nice touch, the dialogue is amusing, Mel Blanc is superb and the pacing is secure enough. Overall, not Bug's best by all means, but worth watching. 9/10 Bethany Cox
In general, the animation was not too bad, Bugs himself looks somewhat odd, but the colours, backgrounds and visual tricks are very nice. In fact, like Duck Amuck what actually made Rabbit Rampage were the visual gags, they were clever and funny. That and Elmer's last line at the end, which I was not expecting. The music is also a nice touch, the dialogue is amusing, Mel Blanc is superb and the pacing is secure enough. Overall, not Bug's best by all means, but worth watching. 9/10 Bethany Cox
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis short's plot is similar to Pennelli, rabbia e fantasia (1953), both of which involve a character being annoyed by an animator.
- Citazioni
Bugs Bunny: [Pointing to his tailless behind] All right, you vandal, put that tail back!
[a horse's tail is painted in place of Bugs Bunny's tail]
Bugs Bunny: That is a horse's tail, my friend. It belongs on a horse.
[the rest of Bugs Bunny is erased and replaced by an old nag of a horse. The horse immediately stands on its hind legs and starts munching on a carrot]
Bugs Bunny: [as a horse] Look, my contract CLEARLY STATES that I am always to be drawn AS A RABBIT!
- ConnessioniEdited into Fifty Years of Bugs Bunny in 3 1/2 Minutes (1989)
- Colonne sonoreAin't She Sweet
(uncredited)
Music by Milton Ager
Played when Bugs is wearing the flouncy hat with the bird
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 7min
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti