SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

GazerRise Fantastic!

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Lee Eisenberg Warner Bros. animation had passed their apex (or, to reference Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, is that acme?) by 1958, but they still turned out good stuff. One example was Robert McKimson's "Pre-Hysterical Hare", in which Bugs Bunny finds a reel of film from the Stone Age wherein a dimwitted hunter who just happens to resemble Elmer Fudd goes after a rabbit who just happens to look like Bugs, except with longer front teeth. Sure enough, Elmer's caveman ancestor turns out to be no match for Bugs's ancestor.As expected, Dave Barry's Elmer voice doesn't sound right. Nobody could voice the clueless hunter like Arthur Q. Bryan. Mel Blanc tried to after Bryan died, but not even the man of 1,000 voices could imitate that voice, so they discontinued the character. Otherwise, it's a funny cartoon. We can forgive the obvious plot holes (how'd the people in 10,000 BC know which year it was?) since this is a cartoon.'Twas always thus indeed!

John T. Ryan ACJIEVING AN OUTSTANDINGLT successful series such as Warner Brothers BUGS NUNNY is a difficult enough job. But maintaining a high level is even more so. In a sense, a character and series become a sort of victim of its own success and the expectations generated in the mind of the unsuspecting public.BY Putting YOUR surrealistic protagonist in a variety of situations and occupations you attempt to keep things fresh and original; at least as it can be expected to be. WHEN THE SERIES has enjoyed a long and successful run, it must by its very nature, begin to repeat, rework and turn to sequels. The next step is to look at previous episodes and look to do the opposite in terms of settings, circumstance and pursuit by the "enemy"/antagonists. (In this case, it would be either Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam.WE SUSPECT THAT this "through the looking glass" approach was the gateway that led to today's reviewee, PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE.DIRECTED BY VETERAN Robert McKimson, Bugs were certainly not in the hand of a neophyte or "hack". Mr. McKimson had certainly done many Bugs pictures before; along with colleagues like Bob Clampett, Tex Avery, Fritz Freleng and Chuck Jones.BUT THERE MAY have been other forces coming into play here. Was the competition from television cutting into budgets? Were the production members suffering a sort of malady akin to "Writer's Cramp?" Was there in inordinate desire to move on to new territory and push the envelope?OUR GUESS IS hat there was a certain amount of each of these negative factors. Coupling with the notion of the 'opposite setting', which probably was at the heart of this "throwback" setting.THERE HAVE BEEN other prehistoric themed cartoons in our memory. We recall one LOONEY TUNES/MERRIE MELODIES entry from circa 1940 that featured a Caveman who was a caricature of Jack Benny. Of course the Hannah-Barbera television series production, THE FLINTSTONES came along a year later. There was no similarity in any of the three; other than having Stone Age settings.AS YOU HAVE no doubt gathered by now, this is not a favourite with us. Although no Warner Brothers cartoon is without some share of chuckles and otherwise positives, this is not very memorable.TWO ** STARS.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) Even if this 7-minute short film from over 55 years ago includes cartoon legends Robert McKimson, Tedd Pierce and Mel Blanc, I thought this wasn't really too funny sadly. The prehistoric versions of Elmer and Bugs were only interesting for a couple seconds and the way they go against each other with Bugs always winning of course. It's basically a film within a film. After roughly 90 seconds in we switch to the prehistoric past and follow the two heroes' adventures back then. I must say I have seen many better and superior Warner Bros Looney Toons and I cannot really recommend this one. Still it's not a complete disaster either, it's just that the expectations were maybe too high, but then again, by 1958, these cartoons were already becoming a bit worse I think. Not recommended.

ianlueck The Looney Tunes series had very few complete clunkers. Unfortunately, "Pre-Hysterical Hare" was one of the few in that category. And it's not just mediocre; it's a total whiff.The first major problem is that the main premise (that is, prehistoric versions of Bugs and Elmer) takes a good two minutes to get started. By that time, there are room for only a few set pieces before the cartoon abruptly ends. And because the pacing of the gags was slower than in the 40's and early 50's shorts, there are even less gags overall. They really should have started on the prehistoric setting (perhaps with brief narration to describe that the characters are ancestors of the characters we know and love) instead of doing a pointless Bugs/Elmer chase in the present and Bugs discovering and setting up the film reel that showcases the prehistoric Bugs and Elmer.And what we do get is pretty old hat, even for 1958 when the cartoon came out. Ooh, a gag where Bugs blows into the opposite end of a dart gun so that Elmer swallows his own projectile. Seen that before. Then there's a gag where Bugs teaches Elmer how to load a rifle but puts a component on backwards so Elmer shoots himself. Again, nothing unique there. There was also no creativity to Elmer setting a rope trap but Bugs merely pulling the rope so Elmer falls out of the tree.But the worst offense of "Pre-Hysterical Hare" is that it's just boring. For starters, there's no energy to the cartoon. There are a few scenes where Bugs and Elmer just stand around, talking. How exciting. And even the gags themselves are executed in a very listless, tired manner. The other reason the cartoon's boring is that instead of Milt Franklyn's always enjoyable orchestral music, we get a series of stock music pieces chosen by John Seely which don't follow the on-screen action as closely. Bear in mind, I have nothing against stock music; for example, I love the music from Ren & Stimpy, and even some of the music used in the other Looney Tunes shorts with Seely's input is catchy (see "A Bird in a Bonnet" and "Weasel While You Work"). But what is used here is just bland, and doesn't accentuate the gags at all. Even the title card music could put you to sleep.Other problems with this short? There's some brief (yet pretty obvious and jarring) repeat footage from an earlier cartoon, someone else other than Arthur Q. Bryan playing Elmer (and doing a poor imitation at that), a prehistoric Bugs design that isn't really much different than the modern Bugs design (only changes are longer teeth, bad posture, and slightly more shaggy fur), and a glaring goof where Bugs doesn't move his mouth when saying a line. No, I doubt it's an internal monologue, because his lips were moving just a couple seconds earlier.There's one decent joke in this cartoon, and that's Bugs mocking Elmer's trademark laugh. But it comes at the very end of the short, so by then, it's too little, too late. Overall, "Pre- Hysterical Hare" has a "phoned in" feel that doesn't even come close to taking advantage of its prehistoric setting, which is a shame because Bugs cartoons are often some of the best in the classic cartoon library, and Robert McKimson (who directed this) has done better with the character than this. Worth a look for morbid curiosity, but definitely not one you'll be re- watching over and over.