Pre-Hysterical Hare
Pre-Hysterical Hare
| 01 November 1958 (USA)
Pre-Hysterical Hare Trailers

Bugs discovers a Micronesian Film Documentary in "Cromagnonscope" showing Elmer Fuddstone and a sabertooth bunny in 10,000 BC.

Reviews
Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable
SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."
KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.
Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
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.
TheLittleSongbird I know that sounds harsh, but considering Bugs and Elmer were here I expected better than this. Granted, this is not the worst Looney Tunes have done, and it is not their only bad cartoon, there are about five or six others that range from mediocre to crud-worthy(Devil's Feud Cake and See Ya Later Gladiator are two of those). But, that is little consolation. For me, the only redeeming qualities were Mel Blanc and Bugs mocking Elmer's laugh, that's it. The animation is dull in the colours, lacking finesse in the backgrounds and the characters especially Bugs look really odd. The music is tepid and annoying, and I hated how it sounded too, canned music can work but I have heard too many cases when it doesn't and this is one of them, while the pace has no energy, the writing is unoriginal and tired with gags that suffer from poor timing and the story is too thin a premise, takes far too long to start and finishes abruptly. Another big disappointment was the voice of Elmer, which to be honest was really quite poor and felt too imitative. Overall, a huge disappointment. 2/10 Bethany Cox
Markc65 I love the Looney Tunes cartoons, but this isn't one of the good ones. The pacing and humor are subpar, which for a Warner Bros. cartoon is a great disappointment.There were some problems that plagued the production of this cartoon; maybe that's why it didn't come out so good. The first problem you'll notice is that canned music is used from John Seely Assc. instead of a full orchestrated score. The music used is rather tepid, and doesn't sync to the action on screen like the best of Carl Stalling's scores did for the Looney Tunes. The second really noticeable problem is when Elmer Fudd speaks. The original voice of Elmer Fudd, Arthur Q. Bryan, didn't work on this cartoon, probably because he was ill. (He died the year after this cartoon was released.) Dave Barry took over the job of providing Fudd's voice, and he doesn't sound anything like the character should. Another problem adding to the overall mediocrity is the fact that the animators in director Robert McKimson's unit, at the time of this cartoon, had little experience animating. Combine that with the tighter budgets the crews had to work during the late 50's and the animation really suffers. It's limited and very dull -- the characters mainly stand around and talk. There's very little slapstick like in the better cartoons from the 40's and early 50's. I say avoid this one, unless you're curious to see how low a once great cartoon series could sink.