catradhtem Reviews

Undefeatable (1993)

How do you expand on "train wreck?"

[1/10 · 12 August 2002]

When you watch Cynthia Rothrock films, you're supposed to know going in that you're not going to see "Citizen Kane" (or even "Citizens on Patrol," for that matter), but this one....ugh, I don't know. Is "mind-numbingly awful" too vague?

"Undefeatable" tries to blend the two direct-to-video genres of "Martial Artist Exacts Revenge on Those Who Killed Their Relative/Buddy" and "Tough Girl Beats Up Everyone," between the two of which Cynthia has made approximately 120 movies. But I do believe that this could be the worst of either genre.

The movie exists in that great alternate universe in which EVERYONE knows martial arts....cops, waitresses, shrinks, gym regulars, random guys in parking lots, beekeepers, etc. Despite the unintentional humor in being able to smell a fight scene coming from a mile away, this movie is completely without any merit. Moronic, contrived plot, LOUSY, wooden acting, uninteresting characters, a villain about as intimidating as a garbageman, bad direction, slapped in music, and...worst of all for this kind of movie...boring, ill-conceived fights.

Stay far away from this turkey. It's about as exciting as C-SPAN.

Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth (2000 Video)

They forgot one vital parody rule...

[3/10 · 9 February 2002]

I really wanted to like this film. I love horror, and I especially love horror satire and parody. And I can usually cut writers of parodies a lot of slack when something isn't outrageously funny. I write parody humor, so I know how hard it can be to hit your mark. But nonetheless, this was pretty bad.

Of course, the urge to compare it to Scary Movie is very hard to resist. It simply boils down to the fact that the Wayans were trying to add some wit to Scary Movie in addition to making fun of horror movies. The makers of Shriek..., on the other hand, thought that simply visually copying a scene from a horror movie is inherently funny on its own, with no need to write actual gags to go along with it.

And of course, all of the overused cliches in parody humor are present...being a lesbian is supposed to be funny, being a virgin is supposed to be funny, drug use is supposed to be funny, being overweight is supposed to be funny, etc. But again, they are simply presented, and not used to incite humor. Asking a Wiccan-esque girl if she was a lesbian *may* have been funny on its own, say, a decade ago when every high school didn't have its own Wiccan chapter, but now it takes a little more insight to make that stereotype funny.

Even the one more-recent cliche, being a big-busted woman actually having implants is supposed to funny, is rolled out almost as an unfunny non-sequitur. The exact same joke is done as an actual punchline in Scary Movie. But as I said, I'm trying to avoid comparison.

You can just tell the writers and director didn't really know how to handle this style of comedy. They obviously are trying to emulate the movies of the Zuckers (you know you're in trouble when a character in a parody mentions a funnier parody), but at the same time they didn't understand what made them hilarious. It's perhaps the cinematic equivalent to listening to a Beatles cover band. You can tell they know the music and have a real love for what they're doing, but there's no magic behind it.

The writers even try to explain what they feel is the parody "formula" by having the lead girl list the "rules" to survive a parody. The rules she gives seem more fitting for a Problem Child sequel or a fourth-season episode of Ren and Stimpy. As far as I know, Airplane! didn't have Hanna-Barbera sound effects or misleading sex shots.

The movie seems to have overlooked the only real rule to survive a parody: Make it Funny!

Any Bonds Today? (1942)

First Bugs musical

[6 November 2001]

What's particularly interesting about "Any Bonds Today?" is that it's the first Bugs Bunny musical. When one considers all of the big Bugs song numbers in cartoons like "Hillbilly Hare," "What's Up, Doc?", "The Rabbit of Seville," and of course "What's Opera, Doc?", it's funny to hear this early, scratchy Bugs kind of drawl his way through the title song in this trailer.

This clip sometimes pops up in documentaries about Hollywood's involvement with World War II, and it's definitely a neat little piece of miscellania to check out.

Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt (1941)

Great start from Friz Freleng!

[7/10 · 6 November 2001]

"Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt" is Bugs Bunny's first film directed by Friz Freleng, and it's a wonderful sample of what Freleng would have in store for Bugs for the next 23 years.

Freleng already starts throwing a curveball into the standard Bugs formula by inserting Bugs into the story of Little Hiawatha. While there is not much difference in intelligence between Hiawatha and, say, Elmer Fudd, Freleng does a great job at making the new character look funny (particularly in Hiawatha's run, which causes him to trip over himself often).

Freleng also introduces a new traditional Bugs joke...having the wabbit climb into a boiling pot thinking it's a bathtub. This little sequence alone is also fun to watch, including the little puff of relaxing steam that comes out of Bugs' mouth once he gets both feet inside.

And although Bugs acts more confident in this picture than he has in the recent past, even he is not safe from foolish mistakes. At the end of one scene Bugs leaps into the air, intending to land into a rabbit hole, but just misses and smacks his head on the ground. He sheepishly crawls into the hole, looking apologetically at the audience. How can you not like this character??

Sadly, this cartoon is not seen often because it deals with a Native American character. But if you get the chance somehow, do sit down and watch this cartoon. It's one of the early Bugs' best.

Space Jam (1996)

Sheer ugliness

[4/10 · 9 July 2001]

This is a terrible movie, and the fact that Leonard Maltin likes it makes me wonder what happened to his brain cells since he introduced the Golden Jubilee series of Looney Tunes videos in 1985. If you want a good Looney Tunes film, check out any of the compilation flicks like "The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie."

To start the movie off, we're treated to a supposed-to-be-heartwarming scene in which a young Michael (you know, that classic Looney Tunes character Michael Jordan) is playing basketball outside and tells his dad about all the things he wants to do when he grows up. Yeah, like we need to know why a tall, bald, black guy is playing basketball thirty years later. It's definitely not the nine zillion he makes annually, but because it's his boyhood dream. Besides, one line of adult Michael's slushy-voiced dialogue reveals that he's probably not qualified for too many other professions.

After the obligatory scene in which the bad guys plot their evil scheme (and oh boy, someone got Danny DeVito to do the voice of the leader Swackhammer...I guess Tim Curry was unavailable), we're finally introduced to the Looney Tunes characters. Bugs Bunny acts like the annoying kid in the classroom with ADD and sounds like Stimpy (great, Billy West does some of the voices, like I needed another reason to hate this movie!) and is for some reason intimidated by these little alien creatures that Tweety would have no trouble kicking the behinds of. Anyway, Bugs & Co. challenge the aliens to a game of basketball, drag Michael to (shudder) "Looney Tunes Land" (shudder), and they win. Yay-freakin'-ay.

First, the special effects of combining Bugs and Michael are just passable but not great. There is no sense of wonder or real interaction like in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Perhaps the writers weren't very imaginative on how the characters could be more physical with each other, but Bugs looked more alive next to human co-stars in the 1948 movie "My Dream is Yours."

The Looney Tunes characters are pale imitations of their actual selves. A new unnecessary female rabbit named Lola is introduced (I guess the writers forgot about Honey Bunny, whom I would have loved to see turned into a main character for this flick). She is nothing more than a placeholder for the "token female" spot. And I'm sure Ivan Reitman thought the "Don't ever call me 'doll'" line was going to be springing from the lips of every young girl out there who didn't leave the theater in disgust at this point. Instead, it's just a stupid built-in merchandise slogan. Give me "Beep Beep" any day over that.

Daffy's in it, Porky's in it, Foghorn's in it, Sylvester's in it, and Elmer's in it (really, practically no other characters were given dialogue). They look ugly, they sound ugly, and their personalities have all been reduced to expansions on their vocal traits. Are we positive Disney wasn't secretly involved in hopes to ruin these great characters?

Then there is a very disturbing long sequence in which several Looney Tunes get hurt during the basketball game, followed by a long shot of some minor characters in various states of dying. Did someone actually think this is FUNNY?? I've never considered any cartoon violence as "gratuitous," but this is most certainly an ugly, witless scene of just pain. And this movie comes from the same man who did the fun, harmless "Ghostbusters??"

This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It's a ninety-minute Nike commercial. There's even a line of dialogue in which the sometimes-funny Wayne Knight tells Michael to support all of his endorsements ("Put on your Hanes(TM), we'll grab a Big Mac(TM)...," etc.). It's supposed to be disguised as self-parody, but comes off as pompousness. I guess promoting ninety different companies was also part of young Michael's boyhood dream. I would seriously doubt being in a second-rate Looney Tunes movie was, too.

Wabbit Twouble (1941)

Clampett's first Bugs is great

[23 June 2001]

Bob Clampett's first Bugs Bunny cartoon seems more like the kind of film that Tex Avery would have made if he stayed with the studio (not surprising, since Clampett inherited Tex's crew). Unwarranted troublemaker, casual asides to the audience, and a likable foil.

Clampett's style starts to break from Avery's and take its own in the facial expressions. Elmer's takes during the bear attack (either one) are priceless. And the goofy-scary design of the actual bear is a great blend...perfect for a cartoon.

This is also the first appearance of the "fat Elmer," a redesign Clampett wanted to use because he felt the character looked funnier...and so Elmer could more resemble his voice actor, Arthur Q. Bryan. To a point he does look funnier, but one can already see the future physical limitations it will set on the character (see "The Wacky Wabbit" for a good example of that).

All in all, a silly first Bugs cartoon for Clampett. Definitely one to see!

Tortoise Beats Hare (1941)

Funny Bugs misstep

[8/10 · 25 March 2001]

After Bugs' disastrous second outing, "Elmer's Pet Rabbit," to a point it's nice to see him back with his creative father Tex Avery. However, Tex seems to have forgotten what he did in his first Bugs cartoon to make him successful.

In this cartoon, which (and hopefully this isn't spoiling the should-be-obvious plot to anyone) concerns Bugs racing against the slow yet shifty Cecil Turtle, Bugs has changed roles. He is no longer the heckler but the heckled, constantly being outwitted by Cecil at every turn.

Perhaps Avery likes the idea of the littler, thought-to-be weaker guy being the wiseacre, regardless of the situation. Sadly, it just doesn't work here as far as sheer character. Of course the gags are hilarious, but Cecil is definitely and knowingly rotten. He makes asides to the camera affirming his cockiness, something Bugs didn't do in "A Wild Hare." In that film, the prey was heckling the hunter for private humiliation, whereas in this one the "prey" is confiding in the audience that he's humiliating his opponent for their benefit. It comes off as a little seedy, so one starts to even root for Bugs to win (even though his arrogance caused the situation in the first place).

But at this point Avery, like Chuck Jones before him, is still getting to know his new character and is still figuring out that the jokes work best when Bugs is pulling them on others. Both Tex and Bugs fortunately succeed soon in the future.

The Heckling Hare (1941)

Avery, Maltese, and Bugs...what a team!

[9/10 · 25 March 2001]

Tex Avery finally follows up 1940's "A Wild Hare" with a worthy sequel, in which a hunting dog is sniffing for some rabbit and comes upon a certain wabbit hole.

After seeing him in four previous films, the audience has become more familiar with Bugs, so Bugs naturally starts to confide in them with glances and asides ("What can I do t'dis guy next?"). It works better than when Cecil Turtle did the same kind of thing in the previous "Tortoise Beats Hare." We don't know this little green lizard...why should we trust him? Bugs, on the other hand, we know by now is all right...and we can definitely trust him.

Not to say that Bugs isn't sugar and spice, of course. He still has a cocky streak to him, and at the end of the picture even sasses the audience. Could Bugs be the first animated hero that shows contempt for the people rooting for him?

Mike Maltese introduces some great gags in this story, and it's only a shame that he didn't work on any more Bugs cartoons with Avery, as they could have come up with masterpieces.

Elmer's Pet Rabbit (1941)

Bugs Bunny, where are you?

[5/10 · 25 March 2001]

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.

All This and Rabbit Stew (1941)

Good last Avery/Bugs adventure

[8/10 · 25 March 2001]

Tex Avery's last Bugs-starred cartoon is actually pretty funny. Unfortunately though, few will be able to see it because of the black stereotype that has been used on this new hunter.

If one ignores the racial slur, the jokes throughout the film are hilarious (including one in which a group of bullets takes on a life of its own) and only makes one wonder what future Avery Bugs cartoons would have been like.

Hopefully all fans of animated cartoons will be able to see it one day in the proper historical context. When they do, they'll be in for a treat.

A Wild Hare (1940)

New future wabbit star?

[9/10 · 25 March 2001]

It is very hard to review "A Wild Hare" on its own solo merit after the sixty-plus years that followed and thus turned its central character into the biggest cartoon character ever. In comparison to the subsequent films that appeared until 1964, this very first official entry is tame but still a wonderful model for those that followed.

Let's say this was 1940 and If I saw this cartoon for the first time ever with absolutely no knowledge of Bugs Bunny, I would say that "A Wild Hare" alone is a fine cartoon, in which the hunter becomes the heckled. The prey is a slick "wabbit" character that starts in on him at the very beginning, knocking on the wisping hunter's bald head to get his attention.

It is no wonder that this cartoon is directed by Fred Avery, who only three years ago directed a similar cartoon called "Porky's Duck Hunt," in which Porky's prey evolved into the current Looney Tunes star Daffy Duck. Should we be keeping our eyes on this "wabbit?"