Edgar Allan Pooh . . . begins by recycling the lame title ballad from the earlier animated short. The cigar-chomping Bunny Parker has one foot in the grave, judging by her habitually pained expression. No doubt she has some Stogie-induced form of oral cancer, precluding her from eating any of the pointy orange vegetables she and partner Claude filch. Yet Bunny continues to egg on Mr. Barrow to illegally appropriate ever greater quantities of the nutritious root, leading to the GREAT CARROT-TRAIN ROBBERY. Big screen railroad heists have fascinated Americans since the 1890s, since they often involve high-speed fights fought atop box car catwalks. CARROT-TRAIN is no exception, and the pursuing sheriff is in for more exercise here (with less shooting) than he experienced in episode one of BUNNY AND CLAUDE. Still, Warner Bros.' animation of the 1960s is a pale imitation of their work from 20 years earlier, and it's only gone further downhill since Richard III hunched his way out of the White House. I don't recall Bunny doing anything recently, so I assume she's long gone (done in by her nicotine addiction). Fortunately, Claude now has the right to marry if he hits it off with Bugs--even in every county of Kentucky!

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.