I rented this movie today. I thought it was OK, but the main problem was the company that produced it. Warner Bros. Animation hasn't been the same since 2002, when Sander Schwartz took over and ruined everything. The company mostly focused on cartoons featuring the DC superheroes ("Justice League Unlimited," "Teen Titans," "The Batman"), crude Flash-style cartoons that try to bring in humor ("Mucha Lucha," "Xiaolin Showdown"), and some other action shows. They also tried taking over production on Scooby-Doo, and totally killed the magic of the show with changing the voices and sound effects and animation style ("What's New, Scooby-Doo?," "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," "Aloha Scooby-Doo"), and also completely changed Tom and Jerry (with "Tom and Jerry Tales," which looks even worse than the Gene Deitch and Chuck Jones T&J cartoons!). Despite turning out all this mediocre product, the studio tried a couple of times to produce Looney Tunes cartoons in the old spirit, with poor-quality shorts like "Museum Scream," "Hare and Loathing in Las Vegas," etc., and ultimately, "Looney Tunes: Back in Action." But when the latter flopped at box-office (hey, it was a bad idea, "Finding Nemo" was poisoning the other animated flicks of that year!), the future of Looney Tunes was at stake. Termite Terrace churned out "Baby Looney Tunes," "Duck Dodgers" and "Loonatics Unleashed," which are NOWHERE near the quality of the classics, even nowhere near the quality of the cheap late 1960s Warner-Seven Arts cartoons! This current addition to the Looney Tunes filmography, "Bah Humduck!," is the latest attempt by Warner Bros. Animation to do a Looney Tunes cartoon. The current staff at the animation department had no or barely enough experience with the classic (but near-obscure) Warner Bros. cartoon characters. Gossamer and Marvin the Martian and Hubie and Bertie and a few others are poorly drawn here, and the music is NO MATCH for Carl Stalling (or even Milt Franklyn.) Heck, even Bill Lava could do better music than that. If they wanted Carl Stalling-style, they could've hired Steven Bernstein, music composer for "Animaniacs" and "Pinky and the Brain," as well as the 1994 Animaniacs-esquire Hanna-Barbera special, "Arabian Nights." Also, Wile E. Coyote is always treated like that he is always silent or deaf or doesn't know how to talk, and that he can only use signs. I know Wile E. Coyote. He talked a couple of times. And you know what? I actually LIKED his voice! Mel Blanc gave him a great British-sounding voice that matched really well with him. But alas, Mel Blanc has gone, but there are many others out there. They could've hired Kevin Michael Richardson, whom voices Tech E. Coyote (who, unfortunately, sounds NOTHING like Wile E. Coyote!) Also, Billy West does a good Elmer, but a bad Bugs Bunny! I LOVE Billy West's Fry from "Futurama," as well as his Stimpy (but his Ren wasn't the best Ren voice though). Speedy Gonzales's voice is also really bad, too. He is designed in the same style as you see on most merchandising. The best Speedy Gonzales design out there was the 1955-1967 Speedy.

But anyways, it shows that the Looney Tunes are still struggling to make it into today's culture. If they do, and the quality improves or Sander Schwartz leaves the studio, it could lead into a Looney Tunes renaissance!

After the Walt Disney characters and The Muppets, it was the turn of the Looney Tunes stable to tackle the popular Yuletide tale revolving around the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge; coming so late in the game (i.e. way past the Warners Animation Studios' prime), it is no surprise that this emerges as the least effective rendition of all! The grouchy Daffy Duck is the natural choice for Scrooge: with the premise updated to modern times, many of the familiar Looney Tunes figures turn up – atypically – as submissive employees in Daffy's department store (that said, Bugs Bunny is his usual independent self, though he serves no particular function here except to further harass Daffy!). On the other hand, Porky stands in for Bob Cratchit, Sylvester is "Jacob Marley" and, as the Christmas Ghosts, we have Granny and Tweety(!), Yosemite Sam and the Tasmanian Devil. Even at a mere 46 minutes, the film is mostly a drag – since the comedy is generally forced, thus unfunny, and the quality of the animation extremely poor when compared to the dazzling imagination displayed by the form in its heyday.

When I first heard about this film, I knew I had to have it when it was released. The Looney Tunes were always my favorite cartoon characters and A Christmas Carol is among my favorite tales. Needless to say, I had high expectations. Did this film meet them? Definitely.

From the beginning, this is a classic. The opening theme is simply beautiful, but the jazzy score is one of the many high points of the film. This film is full of fun, mayhem, adventure, and cheer. You'll love it.

All of the characters fit into their roles perfectly. You all know the story, so why should I repeat it here? Among the best and funniest are Daffy as Scrooge (complete with the classic Daffy sarcasm) and Yosemite Sam as The Ghost Of Christmas Present.

If you are expecting a pacifist cartoon, look elsewhere. The original cartoons are often targeted by specific groups for being violent, politically incorrect, blah, blah, blah. Don't expect that to change here. There is violence and political incorrectness (the use of Speedy Gonzales and the use of the word Christmas instead of holidays), and Porky still has his stutter. These cartoons have been hits since the early '30s. If you don't want to see the "violence" on shows like this, Popeye, and Tom and Jerry, turn it to Teletubbies.

In conclusion, no, this is not as great as the Rankin-Bass classics or A Charlie Brown Christmas, but it is as good as the specials featuring The Flintstones, Garfield, and Alvin & the Chipmunks. Therefore, it is definitely worth adding to your collection.

Enjoy and Merry Christmas.

When you've got a mere 46 minutes to tell a highly condensed version of a classic Xmas story then it's obviously a good idea to cram as much story in there are possible and try your hardest to create a cosy, Xmas atmosphere. There's not much of that to be had in Bah Humduck! Cartoon writers have been milking the Christmas Carol goat for years. Modern spins on the story rarely work (Scrooged being a meta-fictional exception) and Bah Humduck distances itself from the source material so much that it is barely recognizable. Daffy stars as the boss of a huge department store who loves exploiting people in order to make many Xmas dollars. The Ebeneezer Scrooge story is shoehorned into this setting, but the colour schemes are far too high key and bright to evoke a true Xmas feel. Almost the entire feature is set inside this bland environment.

Far too much time is given to hijinks utterly void of comic timing. The first 11 minutes, which establish Daffy as a bad boss, are really nothing but him flying across the screen and smashing into various things. It's not funny in the slightest.

I feel that the people who made this were only interested in churning out a quick, easy product and had no interest in making it something special. A Charlie Brown Christmas was half the length and has been consistently popular for well over forty years. Bah Humduck will disappear without a trace.

This was so good. I admit- I was hesitant to watch. Sometimes when a "newer" rendition of the Looney Tunes is presented, it tends to let down. But this was true to the Looney style.

The re-telling of a Christmas Carol with the faithful characters of the Looney Tunes was great! Making Daffy the Scrooge was inspired and the twists that the writers added to give that Dickens flavor was refreshing.

Bottom-line: my young kids loved it, my teenager loved it, I loved it... even my hubby was laughing.

Grab the popcorn, wrangle the family in and get ready to enjoy a holiday moment with Bah Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas.

Charles Dickens' ghost story of Christmas is the greatest work of fiction ever. That's my opinion.

Any Studio, Actor, Musician, Animator, or other performer that retells or adapts this story spreads the hope of Christmas to another audience. Humduck is not my favorite 'Carol. It does however faithfully enough follow the original storyline. The thrill of seeing a Scrooge, whether man, woman, duck, or dog, reach redemption never grows old.

Daffy is one of the most severe and greedy Scrooge characters I've seen. I can think of only Cecely Tyson's malevolent portrayal as more wicked. Scrooge does not have to be so evil. The Looney Tunes model had them include physical elements that weren't in the original story. That's the way they told the story.

I ask producers and publishers to keep the tale alive.

Nic

The fact that it was less than an hour didn't really help. It could have been really funny and good, but I felt they rushed the majority of it to fit in under an hour. But of course these are classic cartoons and you can't dislike them! The comical humor and the slapstick comedy helped keep the classics alive.

I liked how they the locations a lot more unique than in the normal renditions. They had it at a shopping mall and it was a very interesting twist.

I rate it 6/10, although it could have been longer and not rushed as much.

. . . to have its own page on this site. In case you're a June Foray "Completist," her narration of FRANK TASHLIN'S STORYBOOKS: LITTLE CHICK'S WONDERFUL MOTHER (found as a "Bonus Feature" on Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 4, Disc 2) covers the conflict between America's Blacks and Asians with an efficiency seldom seen previously. The main character of this tale, "Little Chic," has been born out of wedlock (as are 71% of Black U.S. babies Today), and lives in a cardboard box (representing the Watts slums). His father is Missing in Action, and his Mom has abandoned him to fend for himself. Next door to Little Chic lives a large clan of yellow peepers, lording it over their Black neighbor in a McMansion complete with an attentive Dad and Mom for every youngster (reflecting the Reality of Southern California demographics, and the fact that 98% of Asian Americans are born into Traditional Nuclear Families). As Little Chic fantasizes about having what the flock next door is enjoying, his increasingly desperate efforts to model their success is met with ridicule, mockery, and bullying. Since this story originated between the inception of McDonalds and the advent of chicken McNuggets, you can probably imagine what comes next. It's not necessarily a pretty sight.

Because Charles Dickens' classic story, A Christmas Carol is so popular, it's of no surprise that Warner Brothers decided to finally make their own Christmas Carol with their very own beloved characters, the Looney Tunes. And to get to the point, this adaptation is funny and great to watch. The difference between this movie and other Dickens film adaptations are that it takes place in the present. Playing the "Scrooge-like" character is none other than Daffy Duck. This is a wise choice because Daffy is usually a self-centered character and loves money to begin with.

And just to show how wealthy Daffy is, the introduction will then move to an over-exaggerated, multi-complex, multi-floored shopping mall called the "Lucky Duck Mall". Working for Daffy are almost all the Looney Tunes characters and they all have their own problems. Elmer Fudd is sleep deprived, Coyote's starving, Marvin longs to go back to Mars and just like Bob Cratchit, the troubled parent who's honest enough to confront Daffy is Porky Pig. These scenes are hilarious to watch because each individual has their own screen time (though it isn't much).

And don't worry Bugs Bunny is in here too. Even though he is not as involved with the story as you would think, he's still there and his presence is much appreciated. From what I viewed, screenwriter Ray De Laurentis looked like he had his heart in the right place. There are actually some truly touching moments in this movie no matter how ridiculous Daffy behaves by himself or around his employees in other scenes. A few examples of this would be when Daffy visits the past and sees himself as a child or when Marvin wishes to go back to Mars. The right emotions are there for these scenes and it shows.

The animation is clear and solid, and the colors were bright and vibrant. Even the musical score by Gordon Goodwin was great. Goodwin's score definitely displays to his audience that he knows what a Looney Tunes film requires. Plus within this, you'll hear a lot of Christmas themed songs with jazzy tones. My only issue with the movie is that it's under one hour. Because of that, it feels rushed due to less time. I don't understand why the producers limited themselves to 45 minutes and that annoys me. With the time shortened, there's less time to expand and explore different components of each character.

Instead we get the bare bones minimum of each character. However, I won't let this flaw ruin my rating. The Looney Tunes bunch is fun to watch for any reason and because nothing was changed with the characters, I have nothing to be mad over. For the most part, all the voice-actors from Looney Tunes Back in Action (2003), plus some extras (that are well known too) like Jim Cummings lend their voices to make this Christmas special enjoyable for all audiences.

It may irk fans that the film is less than one hour, but this Looney Tunes Christmas special is amusing enough to overcome that weak point. Gordon Goodwin's musical score is one to remember as well; very festive.

First off, I will advise you not to expect high quality like any Rankin'/Bass special or How The Grinch Stole Christmas! but it is a decent effort. Of course it isn't as irreverent or as ingenious as the Looney Tunes cartoons that we all grew up with, and in some cases still love. And while the voice acting is good, particularly Joe Alasky in numerous roles such as Daffy, I don't think they quite have the energy that the immortal Mel Blanc(a major part of the success of the original cartoons) brought to the proceedings. It is also too short, so one or two of the jokes didn't work as well as it should. But overall, it is decent and well worth the watch. Despite the story being used countless times before(Muppets, Disney, Peter Pan and the Pirates, Scrooge(1951), Scrooged, the recent Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey etc.), and the danger of it being too clichéd, the story about Daffy being a Scrooge-like character and being visited by three spirits, is a nice if condensed twist on the timeless Dickens story. The animation is in general beautiful and traditional, the music is lovely and the writing is sharp. Plus while Bugs was badly underused, it was nice to see our favourite cartoons on screen again. There are some funny moments, Daffy being visited by Granny and Tweety was one of the funnier moments, particularly the image of Daffy getting hit on the head by a candy cane. Another hilarious part was anything to do with Yosemite Sam. And there are some poignant ones too, Porky with Prisilla certainly but I am principally talking about young Daffy in the orphanage and he says "I just want to have a family". All in all, decent effort but if you are looking for anything exactly like the original cartoons, you will be a tad disappointed. 7/10 because it was very enjoyable and was a nice twist on the classic story. Bethany Cox

How many studios have to remake the "Scrooge" tale, but with different characters playing the parts? Disney did it, of course, but it was flat and quite unentertaining to say the least. So Warner Brothers decides to do it as well. It was better, but it still wasn't as good as a Hollywood remake could do.

The Daffy Duck spin with the duck jokes and Taz had little laughs. I know there was a chance it could have been good, given it had good lines. Instead, all we got was below average Warner toon interpretations. Yes, going back to Mars for Christmas is a nice little touch, but it doesn't have the same value as Billy Murray going crazy in "Scrooged".

It could have been done better. But it wasn't as bad as the Disney version. "C-"