Is Coyote vs. Acme genuinely impressive, or is it just a backlash against David Zaslav?
There’s a compelling case to be made that Coyote vs. Acme wouldn’t have garnered as much interest if it weren’t for the drama surrounding its near-cancellation. Warner Bros. Discovery’s attempt to shelve the film only highlighted their tendency to bury nearly finished projects for tax benefits.
The film has received generally positive reviews, and it truly stands out as one of the best Looney Tunes offerings in years. This bodes well for its box office potential and could serve as a cautionary tale about the studio’s poor decision-making. Ironically, the surrounding controversy adds to the film’s charm, making it an entertaining watch.
Inspired by Ian Frazier’s Coyote v. Acme piece, the movie follows Wile E. Coyote as he devises yet another outlandish plan to catch the Road Runner. Instead of relying solely on his usual array of gadgets, Coyote opts to sue Acme for their defective products. Although his lawyer, Kevin Avery, prefers a quick settlement from Acme’s representative, Buddy Crane, Coyote is convinced he can score a much larger payout in court, armed with numerous examples of Acme’s failures.
Coyote vs. Acme embraces absurdity in a world where humans and cartoon characters coexist. When Coyote isn’t scheming to catch his meal, he faces the mundane challenges of everyday life, including interactions with Avery’s niece, Paige. The film features a delightful array of Looney Tunes characters in everyday jobs, reminiscent of The Muppets, and cleverly critiques corporations that mislead customers with false promises by portraying Acme as a mix of major companies.
At its heart, Coyote vs. Acme is a quintessential Looney Tunes project, filled with outrageous gags. The screenplay, crafted by a talented trio, includes moments of camaraderie between Coyote and Avery, but primarily focuses on the chaos of a world where cartoon physics reign supreme. The film effectively showcases the creative team’s ability to blend traditional animation with live-action, though its predictable storyline may not leave viewers on the edge of their seats.
What’s intriguing about the narrative is how it portrays the studio as hesitant to poke fun at itself. You can almost sense the writers having a chuckle at the studio head’s expense when Foghorn Leghorn is introduced as Acme’s scheming leader. This self-referential humor could resonate with audiences, as the film doesn’t strictly cater to children, given its legal battle premise. Coyote vs. Acme suggests that the studio could better utilize beloved characters like Bugs Bunny and Granny. Had the film been released without the drama, it might have showcased the studio’s understanding of leveraging its legacy properties. However, any accolades it receives will likely be credited to the distributor that acquired its rights.
Given the box office performance of recent Looney Tunes projects, it’s unlikely Coyote vs. Acme will shatter records before it lands on a streaming service. Yet, when it debuts on August 28th, it will serve as a reminder of how readily the studio was willing to discard it. As the studio navigates a potential merger with another major player, this cavalier attitude toward creative work paints a picture of a company that may not prioritize artistic integrity. While this may not concern the studio head, who stands to profit regardless of the merger’s outcome, it certainly tarnishes the studio’s image as a key player in Hollywood.
