Les Looney Tunes passent à l'action

I really like Jenna Elfman (Kate) as a comedienne. She generally does pretty well. She started off great in Looney Tunes searching for Daffy Duck to get him back to the studio, because her job depended on it. But then the plot morphs into Brendan Fraser (Drake) looking for his father and Elfman becomes simply a spectator in the second half of the movie. She becomes a prop on the set, rather than a character having something to do with the action.

After her trip to Las Vegas in the film, Kate serves pretty much as a prop rather than as a character. She does throw a monkey wrench and puts a piece into a puzzle. But after the trip to Las Vegas, Ms. Elfman is mostly just a prop on the set. When the camera goes to her, she is simply standing there watching at Brendan Fraser (Drake) do his part. Fraser does pretty well. He does act through out, but in the second half of the film Elfman is simply a prop.

I went to see this film as a fan of Ms. Elfman's. I heard Ms. Elfman on TV state that she wanted to do more films with Fraser. That will probably be a good thing. I know she can act as I have seen her in other films doing a great job. I think Elfman & Fraser will make a good pair, but Elfman has got to do more acting and less spectating. The definition of "act" is "do", not "spectate" or "watch".

I give the first half a 7 and the second half a 3 for an average of 5. After the first half I was just hoping it would end.

Forget "Roger Rabbit", but forget also "Space Jam". It is so sad when three great actors like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Steve Martin blatantly "do it for the > money" (or the carrots, or whatever they pay Daffy with). All three of them do a really poor standard performance... The human villain thinks it's enough to act stupid to look like a cartoon, the two toons seem to justify wooden acting with pretending to be human. A recent Hollywood fashion is an attitude like "Hey, let's get something that worked in the past, cut some stupid expenses like a decent screenwriter, and let's be back in the big bucks again! Just put in some expensive-looking effects and the morons won't notice!" - Matrix 2.1 and 2.2 as a case in point. And the effects are marginally under standard, too. Bottom line, I definitely didn't like it; make it 5/10, and just thanks to the only true professional there: Vile E. Coyote, great as usual (and quoting himself, they pay him WAY too little).

The real fun of this movie is to see if you can catch all the gags in it such as the show frog eating flys and the man sneaking away with him as in the cartoon. I'll have to watch it again to catch them all. It was also fun to see them use stuff from other films and shows such as the Daleks saying "exterminate, exterminate" What a hoot. The movie is so so, good, not great IMNHO and they did give plenty of safe eye candy for the men in the audience.

An almost total mess, and no-one wanted to like it more than me.

The live action sequeces are flat emotionally, photographically, dramatically and every other way: Dante seems have done the impossible by making Brandon Frase, Jenna Elfman, Steve Martin and Joan Cusack plus various culty walkongs (Roger Corman, Mary Woronov) unfunny, unbelievable, and uninteresting.

The model, curiously, is not so much Who Killed Roger Rabbit as Rodriguez's Spy Kids movies -- but without the heart or the inspired originality and ingenuity. Instead, it's mindsplitting, unrelentingly meta, carpetbombing the audience with more movie quotes than Tarantino has in "Kill Bill." You say, "Sure, I remember that cartoon well, and it was a helluvalot better than this."

What the film needs -- particularly since it's gotta be pointed at least partially at kids -- is some kid characters, interesting ones. Instead, it just has lame Hollywood jokes, lame Las Vegas jokes, lame Paris jokes, and lame movie auteur jokes that had my seven year old son wondering when it was going to be funny. Sure, it was sometimes: if you go to the well that often, you'll find water somewhere.

The one exception to the general sloppy anarchy is a wonderful sequence with Bugs and Daffy chasing through the Louvre, into painting after painting after painting (most of them not at the Louvre, but so what). I'd love to have it on a loop, with the rest of the film surgically removed.

I'm a huge Looney Tunes fan, if not a major cartoon fanatic alone, so when I found out this movie was being made, I jumped for the chance to see it. First off, I was thrilled to see that the creators stuck to the "Roger Rabbit" technique, in which the cartoons were all hand-drawn and computers are only used to add color and depth (to give the 3D appearance of the characters). Second, I thought that the cartoons themselves were great. Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn, Speedy Gonzales, Elmer... they all stuck to the same characteristics that I grew to love watching Bugs Bunny cartoons on Saturday morning. The only real draw-back of this movie was, without a doubt, the live-action actors. Brendan Fraser is good, but he can't live up to his past movies (especially "The Mummy" saga). The same goes to Jenna Elfman, who's talent is severly wasted as she comes across as the most serious character in the whole movie. Timothy Dalton, as usual, is flawless (and if you look closely, you can actually see how closely Fraser and Dalton look alike). Steve Martin, meanwhile, makes one of the worst performances of his career, and acts WAY too over the top, even for an eccentric villain.

The movie is good, but only is you are a truly devoted cartoon-lover (if you are, then you'll get a huge kick out of the opening sequence alone). Overall, come for Bugs, leave for Martin.