ThiefHott Too much of everything

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

tavm Just watched this on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from Daily Motion. It's one of the last cartoons from the Warner Bros. Studio made on a regular schedule during the last part of the '60s. This was the second-and last-cartoon that starred Bunny and Claude, a carrot-stealing couple that were a rabbit-spoof of the Warren Beatty-Faye Dunaway picture made for the studio, Bonnie and Clyde. With suitable hillbilly-sounding music provided by William Lava and an inept sheriff chasing them, The Great Carrot-Train Robbery is no great shakes but with direction by last holdout from the Golden Age, Robert McKimson, there are some pretty funny sight gags especially when the sheriff has trouble getting in his running car with his horse sitting along! Along with veteran Mel Blanc, Pat Woodell-perhaps best known as the first Bobbie Jo on "Petticoat Junction"-is the other voice here. So to anyone curious about all things Warner animation, The Great Carrot-Train Robbery is worth a look.

Akbar Shahzad (rapt0r_claw-1) Robert McKimson, one of the golden age directors of Termite Terrace, has been reduced to creating Bunny and Claude cartoons, a humorless, witless, worthless piece of crap. And from a great director, and formerly the world's greatest animated short studio! The irony of it all makes me sick. At best, the DePatie-Freleng studios were able to provide a passing smile, and only because you see Daffy Duck or Speedy Gonzales in a somewhat similar situation to the great ones we're used to.The cartoon is utterly humorless, the bravest efforts for a joke fail miserably. And the story couldn't interest a one-year-old. Generally, kids fall in love with anything that has a hand-drawn outline or a cartoony shape. But I'm pessimistic that this horrible travesty of an animated short could interest a toddler. Are the Sheriff and his horse supposed to be likable but inept characters we can laugh goodheartedly at? Apparently. Did it work? NO! They're stupid hindrances to a cartoon that is a stupid hindrance to the Looney Tunes Show. And Bunny and Claude? They disgust me. How could something so terribly unfunny be the creation of a man with an innate sense of what's hilarious, why it's hilarious and how it can be recreated in future? Does anyone have an answer? And the animation is ... don't be that shocked, but here it comes ... WORSE THAN 60'S AND 70'S TELEVISION-ONLY HANNA-BARBERA! I never thought I'd have to say that. All this cartoon has is a bunch of dummies, not moving, no change of facial expression, just a moving mouth and a poorly dubbed, annoying voice that doesn't match the mouth movements. It's unbelievable! But it's true. Advice: Never EVER watch this cartoon. If you see that horrible travesty of the Warner Bros. logo distorted into DePatie-Freleng style, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

slipjig It saddens me to know that someone like Robert McKimson, after decades of directing some brilliant work for Warner Brothers, had by 1969 been reduced to making fourth-rate imitations of sixth-rate Hanna-Barbera TV dreck. Bunny and Claude, apparently, were an attempt to create a new franchise for WB Animation (a good idea, since shorts from that period starring Porky, Daffy, etc. had pretty much lost sight of who those characters were). They did their best, even attempting to inject a little of the spirit of the actual "Bonnie and Clyde" into the mix; I'm thinking of Bunny reclining on a pile of carrots in a boxcar and simpering, "Come here, Claude," in what is the closest to a seduction scene as you'll ever see in a WB cartoon.There are two problems, however. The first is that the animation is depressingly cheap. This I can forgive, since budgets for theatrical animated shorts were drying up very quickly. The second I cannot forgive: it's not funny. Not even in passing. Not even a titter's-worth. I absolutely cannot reconcile in my head the fact that the same studio produced such phenomenal works as "Duck Amuck" and "What's Opera, Doc" only 15 years earlier. Just goes to show you that you can never go home again. Sigh...My rating: 1 out of a possible 10.

dootuss This was the 2nd cartoon short that is based on the Bunny and Claude cartoons (apparently, this was also the last one ever made), and like the first one, it's pretty good. It's funny, and loaded with the usual humor that cartoons way back when had, which of course now are cliches. Like the other cartoon, it has campy music, which isn't a good thing. Frankly, despite this was the last Bunny and Claude short ever made, it's still pretty good. 9/10.