King Tweety

That did not work. At all. Some critics will complain that none of the story or the jokes remotely resemble Looney Tunes. That's not the actual problem. Looney Tunes Rabbits' Run had a distinct lack of old-school slapstick and mayhem too, but it was a great movie because the script was good and the jokes were funny. This movie seems to have an odd quirkiness to the weirdly slowly-paced jokes as if they are waiting for an applause line (that isn't coming) simply for being deliberately awkward. But they also aren't funny.

And raising questions over whether Granny can understand Sylvester and Tweety (troublingly enough, in this project she CAN) as well as having an entire kingdom of talking, sentient animals, is not just not in the best interest of Sylvester and Tweety. But raising those kinds of questions to the viewer also could potentially weaken the entire idea of the Looney Tunes franchise as a whole. Just saying.

The character designs were much maligned upon their reveal. What is my thought on them? I didn't like them, but really, they are irrelevant. If the script were tighter and the humor actually funny, nobody would say boo about those designs. Be Cool Scooby Doo was also entirely off-model, but it was okay because that show was well-written and hilarious. And yeah, it's amazing that for a movie that clocks in at an hour and 20 minutes that a LOT of it STILL seems padded. Looney Tunes IS a vey thin premise. Movies that work like Rabbits Run are the actual rarity there.

I knew I wasn't going to get into specifics in this review. Except for one thing: Bringing back Aoogah of all characters, the much maligned "New" character from an earlier failed Tweety Direct-To-Video movie, is the definition of a Looney Tunes Deep Cut. Yeah, I guess Tweety's High Flying Adventure WAS one of Tweety's biggest deals before this, but you'd figure this movie would leave that embarrassment in the rear-view mirror. They didn't exactly rehabilitate the character, but I have to confess I didn't actually mind her here.

But really I can't think of any good things in the movie to recommend. It's one of those movies that does little to nothing right. Easy candidate for Matt Zimmer's Zero Star grade, right?

No. I'm not giving it that. Why not?

I don't know if you'll understand this next opinion coming from me, considering how much crap I routinely bash. But it's true, and something I want you to keep in mind before this movie's poor quality makes you fly off the handle. I'm not giving it a zero because I believe bad movies have a right to exist. Now the movie did nothing right. But it also wasn't offensive or terrible enough to anger me. It simply didn't work. And you might need to keep this in mind the next time you see an underwhelming project. I would prefer for bad movies not to exist. But their creators are perfectly entitled to bring them out into the world. If they fail, that's a pity. But as long as the failed attempt was made in relative good faith (and I believe this midguided movie was) I am not putting it in the same category as sincerely bad stuff I have seen and reviewed (and trashed). I'm sorry if my refusal to say "This movie is the worst thing since blank" makes my opinion, and ultimately my review, boring to you. But the movie may have been a failure. But nothing in it actually pissed me off. Which is not nothing. *.