Superior Duck (1996)

Сюжет кино: It is sad really, speaking as a huge Looney Tunes fan and seeing as the idea seemed good. To me, a good number of the later 80s-and-after Looney Tunes cartoons have been enjoyable, if not a patch on the classics, but Superior Duck is down there among the weakest.
What it does have that is noteworthy is the superman cameo at the end, which was a lot of fun and makes one wish that the rest of the cartoon was as inspired (a couple of the verbal mistakes were reasonably amusing). Apart from some character designs lacking in smoothness, the animation is bright and colourful with the colours being pleasantly vibrant and the backgrounds lively, detailed and fluid if not exactly imaginative. The voice acting is also decent, with Eric Goldberg having the lion's share and doing very well, Thurl Ravenscroft has a very distinguished narration voice and Jim Cummings is spot on as Taz.
There is one exception however and that is Frank Gorshin as Foghorn (he is pretty good as Daffy though), who sounds far too abrasive and harsh that the sharp wit of the character is completely lost. The dialogue here is not much to write home about, with serious need of more sharpness and wit. As aforementioned, a couple of the verbal mistakes early on were reasonably amusing but got increasingly predictable and rather groan-worthy, while the gags are somewhat pale and less-well-timed retreads of one from previous (and much better, we're talking classics like Duck Amuck) Looney Tunes cartoons. With the timing not as imaginative, the humour not as sharp and the notable (and much-missed) absence of Mel Blanc they just feel limp.
Story-wise, Superior Duck is rather messy. The pacing feels rushed, with a constant hasty feel to it as a result of the cartoon being far too short, and it was not very focused, instead feeling pointlessly random and never feeling sure what the real story is supposed to be. The music doesn't really fit, not as annoying or as discordant as a lot of Bill Lava's scores for the 60s Looney Tunes cartoons but it does overbear the cartoon stylistically and lacks energy. Even more disappointing is the treatment of the Looney Tunes characters, here they are saddled with cameos varying in length (most of the time far too brief) and with at least half of them they're pointless (something that few other 80s-and-after Looney Tunes did), the things (like their personalities) that makes them so famous and so great as characters just doesn't come through.
In summary, not a complete waste of time, but rather uninspired late effort. 4/10 Bethany Cox