Bah Humduck!: A Looney Tunes Christmas (2006 Video) User Reviews

OK, but Sander Schwartz has got to go!

[wile_E2005 · 6/10 · 2 December 2006]

I rented this movie today. I thought it was OK, but the main problem was the company that produced it. Warner Bros. Animation hasn't been the same since 2002, when Sander Schwartz took over and ruined everything. The company mostly focused on cartoons featuring the DC superheroes ("Justice League Unlimited," "Teen Titans," "The Batman"), crude Flash-style cartoons that try to bring in humor ("Mucha Lucha," "Xiaolin Showdown"), and some other action shows. They also tried taking over production on Scooby-Doo, and totally killed the magic of the show with changing the voices and sound effects and animation style ("What's New, Scooby-Doo?," "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," "Aloha Scooby-Doo"), and also completely changed Tom and Jerry (with "Tom and Jerry Tales," which looks even worse than the Gene Deitch and Chuck Jones T&J cartoons!). Despite turning out all this mediocre product, the studio tried a couple of times to produce Looney Tunes cartoons in the old spirit, with poor-quality shorts like "Museum Scream," "Hare and Loathing in Las Vegas," etc., and ultimately, "Looney Tunes: Back in Action." But when the latter flopped at box-office (hey, it was a bad idea, "Finding Nemo" was poisoning the other animated flicks of that year!), the future of Looney Tunes was at stake. Termite Terrace churned out "Baby Looney Tunes," "Duck Dodgers" and "Loonatics Unleashed," which are NOWHERE near the quality of the classics, even nowhere near the quality of the cheap late 1960s Warner-Seven Arts cartoons! This current addition to the Looney Tunes filmography, "Bah Humduck!," is the latest attempt by Warner Bros. Animation to do a Looney Tunes cartoon. The current staff at the animation department had no or barely enough experience with the classic (but near-obscure) Warner Bros. cartoon characters. Gossamer and Marvin the Martian and Hubie and Bertie and a few others are poorly drawn here, and the music is NO MATCH for Carl Stalling (or even Milt Franklyn.) Heck, even Bill Lava could do better music than that. If they wanted Carl Stalling-style, they could've hired Steven Bernstein, music composer for "Animaniacs" and "Pinky and the Brain," as well as the 1994 Animaniacs-esquire Hanna-Barbera special, "Arabian Nights." Also, Wile E. Coyote is always treated like that he is always silent or deaf or doesn't know how to talk, and that he can only use signs. I know Wile E. Coyote. He talked a couple of times. And you know what? I actually LIKED his voice! Mel Blanc gave him a great British-sounding voice that matched really well with him. But alas, Mel Blanc has gone, but there are many others out there. They could've hired Kevin Michael Richardson, whom voices Tech E. Coyote (who, unfortunately, sounds NOTHING like Wile E. Coyote!) Also, Billy West does a good Elmer, but a bad Bugs Bunny! I LOVE Billy West's Fry from "Futurama," as well as his Stimpy (but his Ren wasn't the best Ren voice though). Speedy Gonzales's voice is also really bad, too. He is designed in the same style as you see on most merchandising. The best Speedy Gonzales design out there was the 1955-1967 Speedy.

But anyways, it shows that the Looney Tunes are still struggling to make it into today's culture. If they do, and the quality improves or Sander Schwartz leaves the studio, it could lead into a Looney Tunes renaissance!

Underwhelming

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 5/10 · 16 December 2009]

When you've got a mere 46 minutes to tell a highly condensed version of a classic Xmas story then it's obviously a good idea to cram as much story in there are possible and try your hardest to create a cosy, Xmas atmosphere. There's not much of that to be had in Bah Humduck! Cartoon writers have been milking the Christmas Carol goat for years. Modern spins on the story rarely work (Scrooged being a meta-fictional exception) and Bah Humduck distances itself from the source material so much that it is barely recognizable. Daffy stars as the boss of a huge department store who loves exploiting people in order to make many Xmas dollars. The Ebeneezer Scrooge story is shoehorned into this setting, but the colour schemes are far too high key and bright to evoke a true Xmas feel. Almost the entire feature is set inside this bland environment.

Far too much time is given to hijinks utterly void of comic timing. The first 11 minutes, which establish Daffy as a bad boss, are really nothing but him flying across the screen and smashing into various things. It's not funny in the slightest.

I feel that the people who made this were only interested in churning out a quick, easy product and had no interest in making it something special. A Charlie Brown Christmas was half the length and has been consistently popular for well over forty years. Bah Humduck will disappear without a trace.

It was okay, but felt a bit rushed

[robyn-710-767167 · 6/10 · 31 December 2011]

The fact that it was less than an hour didn't really help. It could have been really funny and good, but I felt they rushed the majority of it to fit in under an hour. But of course these are classic cartoons and you can't dislike them! The comical humor and the slapstick comedy helped keep the classics alive.

I liked how they the locations a lot more unique than in the normal renditions. They had it at a shopping mall and it was a very interesting twist.

I rate it 6/10, although it could have been longer and not rushed as much.

Funny, entertaining and enjoyable

[SmallTownSim · 22 December 2007]

This was so good. I admit- I was hesitant to watch. Sometimes when a "newer" rendition of the Looney Tunes is presented, it tends to let down. But this was true to the Looney style.

The re-telling of a Christmas Carol with the faithful characters of the Looney Tunes was great! Making Daffy the Scrooge was inspired and the twists that the writers added to give that Dickens flavor was refreshing.

Bottom-line: my young kids loved it, my teenager loved it, I loved it... even my hubby was laughing.

Grab the popcorn, wrangle the family in and get ready to enjoy a holiday moment with Bah Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas.

Low budget or low conviction?

[kerorogio · 6/10 · 5 May 2023]

It cannot be said that the world lacks representations of Dickens' Christmas story, occasionally even with some variations, as in this case. Indeed, "Bah Humduck" is more reminiscent of the 1980s film parody "Scrooged" with Bill Murray than the 19th century book.

Daffy is a decent choice for Ebenezer Scrooge and the modern setting has been given adequate time to showcase a good number of the underused Looney characters and to show some regret as well. Unfortunately however, with the three ghosts we went at great speed, and although with the Looneys there are no claims of excessive seriousness, this still damages Daffy's repentance.

With the ghost of Christmas past, which allowed greater freedom, a single memory is decidedly ridiculous. As for the ghost of Christmas Present, as well as for Bob Marley, the choice of character is perplexing. That scoundrel Yosemite Sam can't call anyone a miser and it's ironic to think that in a 1979 special the role fell to him. An exchange of roles with Sylvester (or at least Elmer) would have made more sense. Choice made perhaps to stay close to the villosity of the cheerful original character.

Another sour note is Bugs. Even if he admonishes Daffy he's not a paragon of Christmas soul, he's just himself, and while he's not necessarily bad, remains a useless presence in this halfhearted parody.

Adding twenty minutes of running time might have made all the difference, however it cannot be said that they used the available time to the fullest. It's not a bad product, technically it does its duty without flashes or disasters, but it is without passion. A missed opportunity, because after all the sympathy of the Looneys is always there and Porky and his sweet daughter are quite fitting for the role, even without the tiny Tim's poor health.

My impression is that there have been some changes during the making. In any case, the older Disney special, with half the time available, is definitely better... and not just that.

Nice twist on the classic story

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 23 December 2009]

First off, I will advise you not to expect high quality like any Rankin'/Bass special or How The Grinch Stole Christmas! but it is a decent effort. Of course it isn't as irreverent or as ingenious as the Looney Tunes cartoons that we all grew up with, and in some cases still love. And while the voice acting is good, particularly Joe Alasky in numerous roles such as Daffy, I don't think they quite have the energy that the immortal Mel Blanc(a major part of the success of the original cartoons) brought to the proceedings. It is also too short, so one or two of the jokes didn't work as well as it should. But overall, it is decent and well worth the watch. Despite the story being used countless times before(Muppets, Disney, Peter Pan and the Pirates, Scrooge(1951), Scrooged, the recent Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey etc.), and the danger of it being too clichéd, the story about Daffy being a Scrooge-like character and being visited by three spirits, is a nice if condensed twist on the timeless Dickens story. The animation is in general beautiful and traditional, the music is lovely and the writing is sharp. Plus while Bugs was badly underused, it was nice to see our favourite cartoons on screen again. There are some funny moments, Daffy being visited by Granny and Tweety was one of the funnier moments, particularly the image of Daffy getting hit on the head by a candy cane. Another hilarious part was anything to do with Yosemite Sam. And there are some poignant ones too, Porky with Prisilla certainly but I am principally talking about young Daffy in the orphanage and he says "I just want to have a family". All in all, decent effort but if you are looking for anything exactly like the original cartoons, you will be a tad disappointed. 7/10 because it was very enjoyable and was a nice twist on the classic story. Bethany Cox

The more the merrier

[n-ebsen · 7/10 · 6 December 2008]

Charles Dickens' ghost story of Christmas is the greatest work of fiction ever. That's my opinion.

Any Studio, Actor, Musician, Animator, or other performer that retells or adapts this story spreads the hope of Christmas to another audience. Humduck is not my favorite 'Carol. It does however faithfully enough follow the original storyline. The thrill of seeing a Scrooge, whether man, woman, duck, or dog, reach redemption never grows old.

Daffy is one of the most severe and greedy Scrooge characters I've seen. I can think of only Cecely Tyson's malevolent portrayal as more wicked. Scrooge does not have to be so evil. The Looney Tunes model had them include physical elements that weren't in the original story. That's the way they told the story.

I ask producers and publishers to keep the tale alive.

Nic

BAH HUMDUCK!: A LOONEY TUNES Christmas (Charles Visser, 2006) (V) **

[Bunuel1976 · 4/10 · 24 January 2010]

After the Walt Disney characters and The Muppets, it was the turn of the Looney Tunes stable to tackle the popular Yuletide tale revolving around the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge; coming so late in the game (i.e. way past the Warners Animation Studios' prime), it is no surprise that this emerges as the least effective rendition of all! The grouchy Daffy Duck is the natural choice for Scrooge: with the premise updated to modern times, many of the familiar Looney Tunes figures turn up – atypically – as submissive employees in Daffy's department store (that said, Bugs Bunny is his usual independent self, though he serves no particular function here except to further harass Daffy!). On the other hand, Porky stands in for Bob Cratchit, Sylvester is "Jacob Marley" and, as the Christmas Ghosts, we have Granny and Tweety(!), Yosemite Sam and the Tasmanian Devil. Even at a mere 46 minutes, the film is mostly a drag – since the comedy is generally forced, thus unfunny, and the quality of the animation extremely poor when compared to the dazzling imagination displayed by the form in its heyday.

A Looney Adaptation of the Dickens Classic

[rocknrollrebel · 10/10 · 24 November 2006]

When I first heard about this film, I knew I had to have it when it was released. The Looney Tunes were always my favorite cartoon characters and A Christmas Carol is among my favorite tales. Needless to say, I had high expectations. Did this film meet them? Definitely.

From the beginning, this is a classic. The opening theme is simply beautiful, but the jazzy score is one of the many high points of the film. This film is full of fun, mayhem, adventure, and cheer. You'll love it.

All of the characters fit into their roles perfectly. You all know the story, so why should I repeat it here? Among the best and funniest are Daffy as Scrooge (complete with the classic Daffy sarcasm) and Yosemite Sam as The Ghost Of Christmas Present.

If you are expecting a pacifist cartoon, look elsewhere. The original cartoons are often targeted by specific groups for being violent, politically incorrect, blah, blah, blah. Don't expect that to change here. There is violence and political incorrectness (the use of Speedy Gonzales and the use of the word Christmas instead of holidays), and Porky still has his stutter. These cartoons have been hits since the early '30s. If you don't want to see the "violence" on shows like this, Popeye, and Tom and Jerry, turn it to Teletubbies.

In conclusion, no, this is not as great as the Rankin-Bass classics or A Charlie Brown Christmas, but it is as good as the specials featuring The Flintstones, Garfield, and Alvin & the Chipmunks. Therefore, it is definitely worth adding to your collection.

Enjoy and Merry Christmas.

A Looney Christmas Carol

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 December 2021]

Daffy Duck is the rich greedy arrogant owner of a big superstore. Bugs Bunny warns him to be nicer in this Christmas time. He is the Scrooge in this version of A Christmas Carol. He is visited by three ghosts and learns his lesson. This is new animation. I don't like the crass consumerism style of the cartoon although I understand the need for it. The animation looks alright. It doesn't have the beautiful old classic look but it's good enough. All in all, it's a fine version of the Christmas Carol. I would put this on a second tier. There are many better versions even if one select only the kiddie versions. At least, this isn't recycle old cartoons.

"A Christmas Carol", over and over again.

[filipemanuelneto · 4/10 · 31 December 2022]

I've lost count of the versions, adaptations, rereadings and reconstructions I've seen of Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol". I've heard it said that, with this tale, Dickens invented Christmas. I am not able to go that far, but I recognize that the tale changed the way we face this season: instead of being just a religious festival, it became a family celebration, much more secular and almost returning to its pagan roots. This is just another movie based on the tale.

For that reason, I won't waste my time talking about the script, we know how it ends. And perhaps because of this condition, I felt that this film lacks an additional dose of irreverence and humor, which tends to be more evident whenever the Looney Tunes are called. Here, the humor is essentially based on the amount of aggression, slaps and deformations that poor Daffy Duck can withstand for forty-five minutes. This ends up tiring after a while. I also felt that Bugs Bunny is lefting in the film, he acts almost like a "jiminy cricket", a voice of conscience, and not like a plot character.

The film is technically very good and features several well-known voices for those familiar with the Tunes. Joe Alasky and Bob Bergen are especially good, however they are masters of the task at hand and I doubt this film was too challenging for them. Visually, the film is very elegant. I don't know if it was made using digital animation, I believe so, but the truth is that it seems to respect the aesthetics and traditional appearance of the dolls we grew up with.

June Foray made another Looney Tune in 2006, but it's too controversial . . .

[oscaralbert · 8/10 · 2 August 2016]

. . . to have its own page on this site. In case you're a June Foray "Completist," her narration of FRANK TASHLIN'S STORYBOOKS: LITTLE CHICK'S WONDERFUL MOTHER (found as a "Bonus Feature" on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 4, Disc 2) covers the conflict between America's Blacks and Asians with an efficiency seldom seen previously. The main character of this tale, "Little Chic," has been born out of wedlock (as are 71% of Black U.S. babies Today), and lives in a cardboard box (representing the Watts slums). His father is Missing in Action, and his Mom has abandoned him to fend for himself. Next door to Little Chic lives a large clan of yellow peepers, lording it over their Black neighbor in a McMansion complete with an attentive Dad and Mom for every youngster (reflecting the Reality of Southern California demographics, and the fact that 98% of Asian Americans are born into Traditional Nuclear Families). As Little Chic fantasizes about having what the flock next door is enjoying, his increasingly desperate efforts to model their success is met with ridicule, mockery, and bullying. Since this story originated between the inception of McDonalds and the advent of chicken McNuggets, you can probably imagine what comes next. It's not necessarily a pretty sight.

Very good...

[Thanos_Alfie · 5/10 · 26 December 2021]

"Bah Humduck!: A Looney Tunes Christmas" is an Animation - Comedy movie in which we watch a greedy duck who hates Christmas getting visited by three ghosts in the middle of the night. These visits are very important and they will change everything.

I enjoyed this animation movie because it combined very well the original story with Looney Tunes and the result was both enjoyable and interesting. The direction which was made by Charles Visser was good and he created a festive feeling along with the pleasure of watching Looney Tunes be a part of it. Lastly, I have to say that "Bah Humduck!: A Looney Tunes Christmas" is a nice animation movie to watch and I am sure you will enjoy it very much.

Too many ducks, not enough bunnies.

[freakfire-1 · 4/10 · 24 February 2008]

How many studios have to remake the "Scrooge" tale, but with different characters playing the parts? Disney did it, of course, but it was flat and quite unentertaining to say the least. So Warner Brothers decides to do it as well. It was better, but it still wasn't as good as a Hollywood remake could do.

The Daffy Duck spin with the duck jokes and Taz had little laughs. I know there was a chance it could have been good, given it had good lines. Instead, all we got was below average Warner toon interpretations. Yes, going back to Mars for Christmas is a nice little touch, but it doesn't have the same value as Billy Murray going crazy in "Scrooged".

It could have been done better. But it wasn't as bad as the Disney version. "C-"

Great for as a Looney Tunes special but feels rushed

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 9/10 · 28 December 2012]

Because Charles Dickens' classic story, A Christmas Carol is so popular, it's of no surprise that Warner Brothers decided to finally make their own Christmas Carol with their very own beloved characters, the Looney Tunes. And to get to the point, this adaptation is funny and great to watch. The difference between this movie and other Dickens film adaptations are that it takes place in the present. Playing the "Scrooge-like" character is none other than Daffy Duck. This is a wise choice because Daffy is usually a self-centered character and loves money to begin with.

And just to show how wealthy Daffy is, the introduction will then move to an over-exaggerated, multi-complex, multi-floored shopping mall called the "Lucky Duck Mall". Working for Daffy are almost all the Looney Tunes characters and they all have their own problems. Elmer Fudd is sleep deprived, Coyote's starving, Marvin longs to go back to Mars and just like Bob Cratchit, the troubled parent who's honest enough to confront Daffy is Porky Pig. These scenes are hilarious to watch because each individual has their own screen time (though it isn't much).

And don't worry Bugs Bunny is in here too. Even though he is not as involved with the story as you would think, he's still there and his presence is much appreciated. From what I viewed, screenwriter Ray De Laurentis looked like he had his heart in the right place. There are actually some truly touching moments in this movie no matter how ridiculous Daffy behaves by himself or around his employees in other scenes. A few examples of this would be when Daffy visits the past and sees himself as a child or when Marvin wishes to go back to Mars. The right emotions are there for these scenes and it shows.

The animation is clear and solid, and the colors were bright and vibrant. Even the musical score by Gordon Goodwin was great. Goodwin's score definitely displays to his audience that he knows what a Looney Tunes film requires. Plus within this, you'll hear a lot of Christmas themed songs with jazzy tones. My only issue with the movie is that it's under one hour. Because of that, it feels rushed due to less time. I don't understand why the producers limited themselves to 45 minutes and that annoys me. With the time shortened, there's less time to expand and explore different components of each character.

Instead we get the bare bones minimum of each character. However, I won't let this flaw ruin my rating. The Looney Tunes bunch is fun to watch for any reason and because nothing was changed with the characters, I have nothing to be mad over. For the most part, all the voice-actors from Looney Tunes Back in Action (2003), plus some extras (that are well known too) like Jim Cummings lend their voices to make this Christmas special enjoyable for all audiences.

It may irk fans that the film is less than one hour, but this Looney Tunes Christmas special is amusing enough to overcome that weak point. Gordon Goodwin's musical score is one to remember as well; very festive.

Duck Scrooge

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 25 December 2023]

I'm always kind of interested in when a cartoon revises its characters to become characters from A Christmas Carol. Daffy Duck, yes, I buy him as Scrooge, now running a big store called Lucky Duck and ruining the lives of the other Looney Tunes. Also, because there aren't all that many Looney Tunes to go around, this has to go deep cut and include characters like Playboy Penguin, Priscilla Pig, Egghead Jr., Henery Hawk and Barnyard Dawg Jr. Along with the characters that everyone knows.

Porky is Bob Cratchit, Sylvester the Cat is Jacob Marley, Granny and Tweety are the Ghost of Christmas Past, Yosemite Sam as the Present and Tasmanian Devil is the Future. As for other characters, most of them - Pepé Le Pew, Speedy Gonzales, Marvin the Martian, Elmer Fudd, Wile E. Coyote, Road Runner, Foghorn Leghorn, The Three Bears, Sam Sheepdog, Claude Cat, Charlie Dog, Miss Prissy, Gossamer, Barnyard Dawg, Mac, Tosh, Hippety Hopper, Beaky Buzzard, Pete Puma, Hubie and Bertie - all work in the store.

Bugs Bunny just starts the whole thing off and keeps coming back to upset the duck. This doesn't get into the sadness of the Charles Dickens story to the level that A Flintstones Christmas Carol gets into. I mean, that leans into death like no cartoon I've seen outside of Japanese ones.

But you know, if you want to put on a modern Looney Tunes and see how they'd treat a classic, here it is. I know that this is where as old man I need to mention that I grew up on the originals and how much better they would be than this, but man, all these battles against the fact that things are always worse and that this was made 17 years ago and there have been worse things since then has diminished my fighting edge.