Can't wait for the movie. I grew up on Roadrunner cartoons (among others, most notably Top Cat and Scooby Doo), and some of my earliest childhood drawings are elaborate diagrams of traps to catch the Roadrunner, with detailed if implausible Rube Goldberg mechanics. The Coyote might have nudged me towards engineering, not even joking.
Reading these replies and you'd think HN'ers have no fun (or feelings) at all. The movie is funny, clever, clean (good for families/kids), emotional, and has important lessons and metacommentary that adults will enjoy. Not to mention the irony of the plot with what happened to the movie in real life. Go see the movie.
Princess Mononoke & Spirited Away (and also Kiki's Delivery Service because it was a package. Not that it's bad, but not as important to me as the other two)
Into the Spider-Verse, for breaking away from the 3D animation movie style
I'll have to rewatch Princess Mononoke; I haven't seen it since it was in the theater in the US. I remember not liking it as much as the other Miyazaki I've seen, but I'm a different person today.
My 5 year old spent the whole time laughing. We have the expression "grow up!" that we tell kids. Sometimes I think we need the opposite expression for adults who are peeved when cartoons don't make them laugh.
To me, this seems to be an expectations issue. I thought it was going to suck. It's a live action and cartoon mix about looney tunes, itself a broad and very meh cultural artifact IMO. Compared to my expectations, it was funny and good. It seems that you had very high expectations for it to "elevate the genre", which ... I struggle to understand why.
I watched it on release day because a friend wanted to go, I had no expectations and wasn't even aware of the film before.
But it was definitely one of the most fun films I've seen this year. Honestly if I had to choose a film to rewatch, I'd rewatch Coyote vs Acme instead of Nolan's The Odyssey.
Depending on just how uninclined to rewatch The Odyssey you are, you may enjoy the hell out of Emily Wilson's review. For a taste: "It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible."
Did wonder about the review, it probably sold well in the news papers and part of me thinks that the Odyssey team might even agree with her, but IMHO it's mostly overblown?
The movie is good an wildly successful, and maybe I've gotten less jaded, but felt like her criticism did not land ( saying that as someone who loves to poke holes at things and reading a good polemic).
Not a huge fan of the movie (largely because I think the story is rather meh and played out, sometimes classics can stay in the academy and are no longer fresh enough to merit a big budget retelling), but it had one major redeeming factor of not being as un-fun as that review.
Watching it in the theater was a fun experience. It seemed like most of the audience were containing their laughter, but me and one other guy were just belting out laughing. It'd be fun to go see again simply to get a sense for how many people will be less reserved with their laughter.
I expected the movie to be crap, but a friend went and enjoyed it a lot and I trust their judgement. He also shared with me the idea that Wile E. Coyote was basically what inspired him to get into engineering as a kid, and I think he's probably not the only one.
The best times were chilling out with my grandmother watching Roadrunner and other looney tunes.
She always felt bad for the coyote... not in a root-for-the-bad-guy kind of way, but because it was always stacked against him.
I know the movie is about Acme selling him defective goods, but I wonder how they'll address the way that his entire world including it's physical properties seemed to conspire against him.
I really enjoyed the movie. Had some really, really funny moments. I was hoping for more of the legal aspects to be explored, but that doesn't happen :)
It's a bit disappointing, I'm sorry to say. It's just not as funny as it looks. I went to the movie with the whole family and, despite loving Road Runner, it felt repetitive and stale.
Not too bad, but not great either. If you lower your expectations you may enjoy it more than we did.
It was a good popcorn movie. My family and I loved it and thought it was funny. The story line itself was predictable and repetitive as you said but the throwbacks, cameos, and nostalgia was very fun.
I personally liked it a lot (although I don't think it's "great" either), because I find it very funny to see cartoon characters in roles that are far from their canon. I've even found moving the scene where Wiley shows the value of persistence.
The Looney Toons Show from 2011 - I thought the same about role changes, but the show is an absolute gem, at least the second season when they got the characters to gel.
My kids (9 yr old girl, 11 y/o girl, 13 y/o boy) said it was the best movie they have ever seen. They are not super familiar with Looney Tunes. It isn't uncommon that they would see something and immediately it becomes their favorite movie, but the discussions afterward were different.
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
I loved macgyver growing up (unusual I know) and I found macgruber just incredibly mean spirited, like, it wasn't a parody that loved its source material and audience, it felt like it hated it.
My kid (9yo) had seen a couple of Roadrunner cartoons on Youtube, no more than that. e.g. I don't think he's ever seen a Sylvester-Tweety cartoon. It didn't matter, he enjoyed the movie a lot. Beyond the very basics of Coyote and Roadrunner, which everyone picks up very quickly- and if you don't they do a great modern version in the opening minutes to bring you up to speed- the movie doesn't need deep knowledge of the WB cartoon universe. It's not like the MCU that way.
And the fact that it reinforced a message his mom and I have been trying to teach him (about the importance of not letting failure keep you from trying again) was a bonus for us.
I took my 7- and 10-year old and they enjoyed it, especially the 10yo. We watched a couple hours of Looney Tunes compilations on YouTube the day before to introduce them to the characters.
I didn't find the original R.R. particularly funny like the other Looney characters, I was more drawn in by the cleverness or "what is going to happen next?".
It's just might be the first negative word I've heard about it. I saw it opening weekend and it was a blast. Not groundbreaking, Roger Rabbit style, but a strangely wholesome, funny flick.
I thought it was reasonably good. A few moments were laugh-out-loud, a few were touching, a few surprise reveals, a few plot holes. Worth watching once, but not spectacular.
But not worth watching in a theater. The big turn-off to me wasn't the movie itself. (Yeah, this is going a bit off topic.) I got in the theater ten minutes early. Eight minutes before the start time, they started showing ads for popcorn and soda. Ad after ad after ad after ad. Those ads continued until twenty five minutes after the scheduled start time. Total ads: thirty three minutes. Attached to a movie that I paid for. If theaters wonder why people don't go to movies any more, that's why. Or at least, it's a big part.
If you buy tickets online from AMC, they now show a disclaimer that tells you the movie starts around 25 minutes after the listed show time, though usually it starts 30+ minutes after.
I can't complain. I live near a small city that was showing this film at a small and intimate cinema downtown and and at a multiplex at the mall. So there's competition and at the downtown cinema I showed up at the start time saw a few trailers and enjoyed the feature.
Is it going to be streaming? On which platform? With the "HBO canceled it, wouldn't even release it to streaming" already in its history I am very unsure that it will even end up on streaming, and so decided to see it in the theater.
And I hit a Sunday matinee with my 9 year-old so it was $10.75/person, which felt worth it to me.
the price for movie tickets in america are insane too. I went to see the odyssey in malaysia. It was less than half the price for an equivalent experience.
I wonder if ads (not 20+ minutes straight of ads!) would be less annoying if they were diverse and even moderately entertaining.
E.g., have a customer standing in front of the concession stand saying "Man, the popcorn costs an arm and a leg." followed by an alien with many arms and legs saying "Here, I'll pay." detaching an arm and a leg. The original speaker leaves with his popcorn and the alien buys itself some popcorn (another arm and leg taken off), takes a taste and says "Mmmm. Worth it!" (That might not be a great ad, but I am not that clever at advertising. However, I think that would at least make me smile if not laugh, and a professional should be able to find better concepts and execute them well.)
Having modestly different versions (like openings for The Simpsons) could be a cost effective way to made different versions that could actually draw attention by trying to see what is different and to see Easter eggs for movies for frequent theater goers (or those staying for a double feature).
With big time movies, the movie production company could provide one or two generic ads with various small variations (like a character from the movie being shown or being promoted with a earlier trailer sitting down next to someone in a theater "watching" a trailer who says "I clearly got here too early." to which the character says "That's why took the time to stop by the concession stand" and waves his box of Milk Duds (or other item from the concession stand) while holding a drink in the other hand.
I think there are so many ways to make advertising less annoying. However, even with no repeats and interspersing ads with trailers and shorts (possibly with some product placement, i.e., subtle advertisement), twenty five minutes sounds painful. Entertaining, or at least mildly interesting, advertisement also requires more effort and some appreciation of the audience. Why bother when one has a captive audience? Even with good targeting information, there is also the problem that those wanting to buy the movie goers time/attention may not be selling something of interest (though I could enjoy a clever car ad even though I do not drive and have a slight anti-car bias). With low effectiveness of ads (and so selling price), their number would be increased to compensate for individual ineffectiveness even if the theater is not especially greedy. Driving away movie goers with more ads, then means even more ads need to be shown to compensate for the reduction in eye count.
I have not gone to a movie for about a decade — Interstellar, which was released in 2014 — and I did not really enjoy the experience. Beside problematic aspects of the movie, the sound volume was not comfortable, the social environment was not comfortable, and I went because my host family urged me to go. However, there was not a long feed of ads, so that experience was relatively good. Anyway, I may not be the best person to ask about the contemporary movie going experience.:-)
For me I actually like seeing trailers before the movies. Personally I feel like the trailers are part of the experience and I can’t help but feel some disappointment when a movie starts with no trailers in front of it.
Trailers have been a big part of the movie-going experience as long as I've gone to theatres. Coca-cola, Ford and Government of Canada ads? Not so much.
I feel like all Looney Tunes movies are that: not too funny and drawn out.
A complete aside: nothing wrong with that. A forgettable afternoon entertainment is also fine. And it ahouldn't be delegated to Illumination near-monopoly on it.
Years ago, I worked on some equipment from a company called Acme Packet that made Session Border Controllers for the telco IP voice space and was just trying to remember why they called it ACME and it's interesting to trace the history of the term from the classical Greek (Apex) to the pejorative "A Company Making Everything".
Acme is just a way of calling your company "Best Brand" or "Peak Product" while being just a tiny bit less pretentious about it (and, conveniently, getting yourself listed before "American Anything" in lexicographically sorted lists).
It was only a matter of time before company names like that would be mocked.
That said, Best Buy is still a thriving business / brand (as are American Apparel and AAA).
1. Re: complaint (1) the court should be aware of clear video evidence that, contrary to the claimant’s statement that a “rocket sled” was delivered via parcel post, that in fact the delivery was twofold: one 33” acme jet motor and a set of acme handlebars.
2. That the claimant used these to construct their own “rocket sled” is clearly outside any realms of liability for the defendant, who has not ever warranted that these two products be safely combined into a makeshift vehicle on the grounds that it would patently unsafe to use an acme jet engine for anything other than its intended purpose.
Technically the 2023 film. It's delayed release to theaters was an interesting debacle of Hollywood Accounting. Given it claims to be "Based on a True Story" the biggest implication is that Discovery did not want you to see this film.
We saw it over the weekend and had a blast. There were a lot of easter eggs and cameos that we saw but we know we missed a fair number of them. Not enough to see it in theaters again but at home with freeze frame.
You could tell the people who made this movie really loved doing it. That's the real thing about it.
Its also commentary on corporate media, that the execs tried to kill it only tells on them.
Bob is a genius, sure, and has a little voice acting, and yes dark comedy, but why would he have been especially fitting for Looney Tunes style silliness?
His voice acting in Tim & Eric regarding the Cinco line of products seems to go right along with the humor of the iconic Acme brand. I think he'd be great at this.
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.
Sometimes people join a community and believe the rules are wrong and that they can convince others of it. (And sometimes they believe they shouldn't have to do the work to convince others.)
it sounds like we can't all agree, but frankly I also think the writing on the wall is that there won't be much out there that isn't paywalled, and much of that will have a bunch of ads.
It's not as good as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is the obvious comparison, but it's legitimately fun.
Into the Spider-Verse, for breaking away from the 3D animation movie style
Decent, not amazing.
It was not a good movie.
Here's an example of Looney Tunes elevating the genre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_Opera,_Doc%3F
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1w58qjb/hi_reddit_i...
My favourite is his answer to being compared to an actual coyote catching an actual road-runner: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1w58qjb/comment/p7d...
But it was definitely one of the most fun films I've seen this year. Honestly if I had to choose a film to rewatch, I'd rewatch Coyote vs Acme instead of Nolan's The Odyssey.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-unco...
She always felt bad for the coyote... not in a root-for-the-bad-guy kind of way, but because it was always stacked against him.
I know the movie is about Acme selling him defective goods, but I wonder how they'll address the way that his entire world including it's physical properties seemed to conspire against him.
Not too bad, but not great either. If you lower your expectations you may enjoy it more than we did.
It's pretty much constant jokes except for a few emotional bits that actually work, surprisingly.
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
I know it is silly and the jokes are juvenile. But, he is so fully in the character for the entire movie, and it is a joy to watch.
And the fact that it reinforced a message his mom and I have been trying to teach him (about the importance of not letting failure keep you from trying again) was a bonus for us.
Only one way to find out.
But not worth watching in a theater. The big turn-off to me wasn't the movie itself. (Yeah, this is going a bit off topic.) I got in the theater ten minutes early. Eight minutes before the start time, they started showing ads for popcorn and soda. Ad after ad after ad after ad. Those ads continued until twenty five minutes after the scheduled start time. Total ads: thirty three minutes. Attached to a movie that I paid for. If theaters wonder why people don't go to movies any more, that's why. Or at least, it's a big part.
And I hit a Sunday matinee with my 9 year-old so it was $10.75/person, which felt worth it to me.
E.g., have a customer standing in front of the concession stand saying "Man, the popcorn costs an arm and a leg." followed by an alien with many arms and legs saying "Here, I'll pay." detaching an arm and a leg. The original speaker leaves with his popcorn and the alien buys itself some popcorn (another arm and leg taken off), takes a taste and says "Mmmm. Worth it!" (That might not be a great ad, but I am not that clever at advertising. However, I think that would at least make me smile if not laugh, and a professional should be able to find better concepts and execute them well.)
Having modestly different versions (like openings for The Simpsons) could be a cost effective way to made different versions that could actually draw attention by trying to see what is different and to see Easter eggs for movies for frequent theater goers (or those staying for a double feature).
With big time movies, the movie production company could provide one or two generic ads with various small variations (like a character from the movie being shown or being promoted with a earlier trailer sitting down next to someone in a theater "watching" a trailer who says "I clearly got here too early." to which the character says "That's why took the time to stop by the concession stand" and waves his box of Milk Duds (or other item from the concession stand) while holding a drink in the other hand.
I think there are so many ways to make advertising less annoying. However, even with no repeats and interspersing ads with trailers and shorts (possibly with some product placement, i.e., subtle advertisement), twenty five minutes sounds painful. Entertaining, or at least mildly interesting, advertisement also requires more effort and some appreciation of the audience. Why bother when one has a captive audience? Even with good targeting information, there is also the problem that those wanting to buy the movie goers time/attention may not be selling something of interest (though I could enjoy a clever car ad even though I do not drive and have a slight anti-car bias). With low effectiveness of ads (and so selling price), their number would be increased to compensate for individual ineffectiveness even if the theater is not especially greedy. Driving away movie goers with more ads, then means even more ads need to be shown to compensate for the reduction in eye count.
I have not gone to a movie for about a decade — Interstellar, which was released in 2014 — and I did not really enjoy the experience. Beside problematic aspects of the movie, the sound volume was not comfortable, the social environment was not comfortable, and I went because my host family urged me to go. However, there was not a long feed of ads, so that experience was relatively good. Anyway, I may not be the best person to ask about the contemporary movie going experience.:-)
A complete aside: nothing wrong with that. A forgettable afternoon entertainment is also fine. And it ahouldn't be delegated to Illumination near-monopoly on it.
https://remosince1988.com/blogs/stories/acme
It was only a matter of time before company names like that would be mocked.
That said, Best Buy is still a thriving business / brand (as are American Apparel and AAA).
2. That the claimant used these to construct their own “rocket sled” is clearly outside any realms of liability for the defendant, who has not ever warranted that these two products be safely combined into a makeshift vehicle on the grounds that it would patently unsafe to use an acme jet engine for anything other than its intended purpose.
3. On this material inaccuracy alone we move that the claim be immediately struck out. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JuVMoGj6fE&t=180
New Yorker magazine article the 2026 film Coyote vs. Acme is based on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme)
You could tell the people who made this movie really loved doing it. That's the real thing about it.
Its also commentary on corporate media, that the execs tried to kill it only tells on them.
In other news, I am old.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QeG-noRMPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZ9_NPWww
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.