Rocky and Bull
12 June 2001
The first time I saw Rocky and Bullwinkle I thought it was awful but Roger Ebert's review was glowing and Kenneth Longeran won a Writer's Guild award for another movie of his. So I saw it again with an open mind. It was still awful.

I liked the in-jokes like the process used by studios to choose scripts (throw away the intelligent ones). But other in-jokes seemed more designed to cover up bad plotting than give a laugh. For instance there is one exchange querying why they have to go by road to Washington - as time was of the essence - when going by plane would be a bit quicker. The answer is "it's a road movie". No, the answer is "take a bit more time coming up with a more convincing answer". The other example is why Rocky and Bullwinkle are still cartoon but the cartoon baddies take human form. A joke is made of this late on but by then it was far too late.

I'm not a grouch, really. I'm prepared to believe any world as long as it is set-up right. Even if the world involves a cartoon moose and flying squirrel wandering around it. Who Framed Roger Rabbit had a similar premise but it was consistent and so became an instant classic.

I admit that the characters in Rocky and Bullwinkle were consistent and good value but that wasn't nearly enough to compensate for such lame story-telling and plotting.

And for God's sake don't tell anyone I saw it twice.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed