Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

SnoopyStyle In 1945 Las Vegas, Frank Harris (Brad Pitt) returns from fighting in Italy. He rides his motorcycle won in a poker game with his mother. They get into an accident and his mother is killed. Frank gets pulled into the animated "Cool World" by Dr. Vincent Whiskers who's trying to escape into the real world using his spike. It's 1992. Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) is in prison for killing his wife's lover. He's a cartoonist who created "Cool World". His creation Holli Would (Kim Basinger) pulls him into the animated world before he returns back to his cell.This is a really outlandish "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" world. Director Ralph Bakshi is more concerned with creating a crazy world than a compelling story or interesting performances. Pitt is stiff not reacting to the cartoon craziness. Byrne seems lost trying to act opposite cartoon characters. Holli is whiny. It's the kind of flashy chaos that distracts from the story or the characters. It's like watching a movie with a light shining into your eyes. This really wants to be cool but it's too crazy for its own good.

A_Different_Drummer In the highly specialized world of liveaction-cartoon mixes (a category which actually has over 100 entries to date!) this high-octane treat is, depending on your POV, either one of the best or one of worst. Although I usually try, in my IMDb reviews, not to go head to head with other reviewers, in this case I want to draw the reader's attention to the earlier review posted here which insisted, absolutely and without wavering, that this was simply a ripoff of Roger Rabbit. THAT is a wonderful real-time example of why no one really gets this film. Let's compare and contrast, shall we? On the one hand, in WKRR, you have one of the most tightly controlled Hollywood productions of all time, with none other than Robert Zemeckis, an A-lister, at the helm. The buzzword here, folks, is control. We may never know all the details of what happened during the shooting of WKRR -- one of my favourites, by the way -- but from history, we can safely draw two reliable conclusions. First, an excellent film resulted. Second, regardless of the first conclusion, no one in Hollywood was particularly interested in doing a sequel, and this is a town where, if someone's wedding footage looks especially promising, at least two agents will immediately start discussing "sequel." Which brings back to COOL WORLD. While I could list dozens of obvious "differences" between the two productions, I will list only one, and then rest my case. Bakshi. I say again, in case anyone missed it. Bakshi. The core difference between Zemeckis at the helm, and Bakshi, is that you hire the former, you unleash the latter. Honestly, you have to wonder if any of the suits had ever seen FRITZ before they greenlighted this deal? I totally love COOL WORLD, but I love it for the completely opposite reasons I love WKRR. ROGER RABBIT is a refined and polished production. COOL WORLD is insane. It should be shown in theatres with rubber walls. The core story is insane (no spoilers -- but Bassinger does something no actress has done before or since, she sells "sexy" both in her live and animated versions) and the animation is so intense that it should come with a warning about operating heavy machinery after you see it. Look, folks, Bakshi is the real deal, a creative genius who never seeks results, only possibilities. If you are fortunate enough to see this film more than once, and really watch the animation taking place in the corners of the frame -- not in the foreground! -- you will see things taking place you may wish you had never seen. And this tradition is not new, by the way. Around the WW2 period, the animators at Warner, to relieve tension, starting sticking odd cells in mainstream toons, and many were never discovered until much later. (In the 60s a smart entrepreneur did a tour with reels of the "banned" Bugs Bunny cartoons!) I said that critics either loved or hated COOL WORLD. I loved it. I think it will stand the test of time.

davidsawyer-me This movie had a lot of promise but fell flat on it's face. It had a great premise, in fact I think it was a fantastic premise at the time (long before movies of today which are similar in that they use CGI which is similar to a glorified cartoon). I also liked some of the sound track and David Bowie's Real Cool World song & video actually made this movie look 10 times better than it really was. The video really over sold the movie, in fact the song Real Cool World really extremely and utterly over sold this terrible movie. At times the movie was a real snore and the acting was so lame at times it was boring. Even though it had action and a hint of mystery it was rather empathy and limp. This movie reminds me of an analogy of when a child sees a bar of bakers chocolate and asks mommy for a piece. When the mom says "it's not what you think you wouldn't like it" the child thinks that she's lying. The child is dismayed when he or she bites into the chocolate only to find that it's slightly bitter with no sweetness at all. The child is confused and grossed out... But unlike the bitter bakers chocolate there was no one around to warn us just how horrible this movie is. The trailer and the music video makes this movie look like a fantastic colorful treat full of wonder and adult themed delights. It's like opening a door to the world of possibilities in a supernatural way. It was advertised to seem a lot like the adult cartoons you'd rent at a local porn theater yet you know that it was going to be tastefully done with it's mysterious plot and premise. Yet, when you actually watch the movie it's one big let down. It's a huge disappointment and one can't help feel but ripped off. I actually lost respect for David Bowie for being part of this misleading advertising. Which coincidentally was about the time in the 1990's when Bowies once great popularity started to slip, however I can only guess that this was just a correlation. I'm not saying Bowie didn't crank out anything good after the early 90s but to tell you the truth his career is a lot like this movie. But this isn't a review of Bowie's decline since the 90s so I digress. Cool World has got to be one of the worse movies that were ever made using what was a fantastic premise. Usually a movie fails because the premise was lame to begin with but this movie had no charm, no substance, no depth, and even the shallow parts weren't even interesting. Have you ever been eating something that your cat or dog wanted just because you were eating it? But when you put a bit of it on the floor they give this puzzled look after they realize that it isn't good after all. Or perhaps you go to the store to buy a computer off the shelf and it's one of those cheaper brands - on paper it has everything that the real brands have, all the latest software. But when you get it home you keep getting the blue screen of death? Well if this movie did use "blue screen" I'm sure if you look close enough you can see an systems failure notice. It's like they were trying to ride on the coattails of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but cared nothing about plot, script, character development or remotely making this movie good. They did it just for the quick cash. And they spend more time in overselling this movie to viewers. It reminds me of the story about PT Barnum when he charged people to see the "Egress" written in fancy letters and over sold to an unsuspecting audience. Only to find out they were paying for nothing but the exit, which most people looked for half way through this movie. I guess you can sell any movie if you spend more effort on the trailer, advertising, and getting Bowie to write a song that makes the movie look a ton better than it really was. I'm not blaming Bowie entirely as I know that when he writes a song he puts his all into it, he uses it as an artistic outlet - however I wonder how could he show so much enthusiasm after seeing the movie? It seemed that he too was trying to keep his deflating balloon from slowly sinking by selling out. As a Bowie fan this really tore a hole in my respect for him. Also being a lot younger at the time in 1992 this was one of the first movies that disillusioned me. And I understand not all movies can be good it's just that this movie opened my eyes to the fact that Hollywood was rapidly becoming a rip off. In fact I think the last 20 years movies in the US have been real stinkers. I've seen better films from other countries than the diarrhea that oozes out of Hollywood or the Record industry in the US these days. Leaning on CGI (glorified cartoon images) like a crutch and auto-tuned singers singing cliché' and seeming deep sounding songs that sound like they were made from some handbook formula NO wonder people find peoples home made Youtube videos more entertaining. Heck I found FRED Figglehorn clips more interesting and FRED is over rated.

TheLittleSongbird I had heard that this film was messy and awful and everything, but as I am a huge animation fan I was thinking maybe I should give it a chance, maybe it wouldn't be that bad. Cool World wasn't absolutely awful, it had its saving graces, but there is a lot wrong as well that makes it a major disappointment. This has been compared to other live-action films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, I'll keep the comparison brief; Cool World isn't as fun, innovative or as original as WFRR, and I will admit I wasn't expecting it to be.PROS: The animation is not bad at all. The backgrounds look like paintings, the characters are drawn reasonably well and the colours are beautiful. The soundtrack is pretty good too, the score is wonderful and the songs are fun and suitably upbeat. I like the character of Holli Would, she is sensual and sexy, yet she is very selfish and cruel, that makes her intriguing. Personally I thought Kim Bassinger did a decent job playing her. Plus the live action sequences were well shot.CONS: Whereas the animation sequences and the live action sequences are fine individually, merged together they don't quite gel, in fact they are quite jarring-the live action considerably duller than the animation and the human characters are incredibly stiff. While I was fine with Kim Bassinger, the other acting is not great at all I feel. Gabriel Byrne is given little to do and struggles, while Brad Pitt(who has actually given some good performances in some good films, ie. Se7en) speaks in a constant monotonic drawl to the point he's boring. The script is very unfocused, derivative and confused, and the story is incomplete and meanders all over the place. Complete with very pedestrian pacing, badly underdeveloped characters and a WTF? ending, and you have a pretty disappointing film overall.All in all, has its moments, but out of the Ralph Bakshi films I've seen, this is my least favourite, a film that had promise but failed to deliver. 4/10 Bethany Cox