DoctorStrangelove

I saw this movie a long time ago. Let's say it was the mid '80s.

ALL (to camera): "It was the mid '80s."

That's the kind of kidding around you typically find in a Zucker/Abrams type comedy more than a Brooks venture (which this is not, but maybe as close as it gets)... and no matter your taste, I think we can agree this movie needed more of it. Sly and subtle worked much better on Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein" and it would've worked much better here as well.

The only thing I remembered about TAOSHSB from the first viewing so long ago (before seeing it again last night) was the ridiculous hopping song and the presence of Marty Feldman. And, with the exception of Albert Finney's cameo - which is the funniest bit in the movie, sadly, and not because of the writing - I'm hard pressed to remember anything else only one day after watching it again.

I can't imagine anyone really appreciating TAOSHSB - except a die-hard fan of the Wilder/Feldman/Kahn team-up who's already seen "Young Frankenstein" and really really wants to get this one under his belt. It's just not very funny at all. Most people should definitely avoid it... trust your instincts this time.

This is an interesting short from the WB gang, since it's message-driven. (See other comments below for plot descriptions from the fawning fans.) Frees' voice work is nice, and the characteristic Chuck Jones facial expressions on the bear are endearing, as usual... but "interesting" is about as far as I can go in praise of this 'toon.

With a sledgehammer's subtlety, the message is made clear about one-quarter of the way into this short. After that it's repeated... and repeated... and repeated. And then, a full minute in the middle is spent rehashing what you just watched while the theme song (from the opening credits) plays... yet again. Some of the animation here is done beautifully, like the birds; while other parts are strange and utterly unnecessary, like the bizarre floor-arrows. There are very few characters, none of which have any real characterization; and what little conflict there is (necessary to ANY story) simply vanishes about halfway. The predictable ending comes with almost zero difficulty, plot-wise, and has me completely puzzled as to why a story so simplistic had to be ten minutes long?

I'm a big big fan of classic WB and H&B animation, and I thought at first I was about to be exposed to a hidden gem; but it's pretty understandable why I've never heard of this short. I can only assume that it appeals to young children and the memories of those who saw it when they were very young. It probably deserves a 2-vote when compared to everything else Jones et al did, and a 6-vote when compared to other animation... so, on average, 4 out of 10.

DANGER! DANGER! IF YOU LOVE TOM AND JERRY, AVOID THIS!! This is one of those shorts that makes you wonder if watching three or four hours of cartoons a day might be a waste of your time. Clearly the people involved in the creation of this garbage were wasting their time, since they had no clue what they were doing. It's like a tone-deaf marmoset tried to compose an aria.

I recorded this in the middle of a Tom and Jerry marathon... it's so painfully awful, starring two characters with only a passing resemblance to the real T&J, that I hit fast-forward after about 90 seconds. An abomination that never should've seen the light of day.

One star for spelling "Tom" and "Jerry" correctly, and one for coloring within the lines.