ultramatt2000-1 With footage taken from CAVEMAN INKI, it is basically the same old Bugs Bunny versus Elmer Fudd story, only this time it is set in prehistoric times. While Elmer Fudd has hair and a unibrow, Bugs Bunny has a long buck tooth. Here is a fact, there is such thing as a prehistoric rabbit. It is called a Palaeolagus, which looks like a rabbit, but smaller on the years. It is pretty fun to watch and it is directed by Robert McKimson. In one scene there is a narrator that sounds like Hanna-Barbera cartoon character, Captain Caveman. All in all, give it a watch, it is highly enjoyable. Not rated, but a G-rating will work.

Edgar Allan Pooh . . . with "inspiring" the later plagiarized rip-off by a rival film studio, THE FLINTSTONES. About two minutes into PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE, the narrator introduces viewers to a character named "Elmer Fuddstone." The remainder of PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE documents the fact that Mr. Fuddstone's I.Q. is in the 80s range, which would be exactly where "Fred Flintstone" later tested when he was reassessed during his application process to get his old job back at the gravel pit (Episode #129). Though the copycats may have added a few lame frills to the basic outline of PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE (such as spouses, kids, pets, and foot-powered cars), this "padding" was more the result of Umpteen Hours of Boob Tube screen time to fill than any true sparks of genius. When push came to shove, it's a crying shame that the SCOTUS copyright case of FUDDSTONE vs. FLINTSTONE came down more to which corporation had the best lawyers rather than "For which side are Our Better Angels pulling?" However, the Truth will always out, so some year a Day of Reckoning is coming in regard to PRE-HYSTERICAL HARE being shafted.

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.

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.