Diagonaldi Very well executed

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) In this short film which came out briefly after World War II, Bugs goes against an evil scientist (where did he go in the end) and his giant, furry, sneaker-wearing monster. The director is Chuck Jones as always and the voice acting is Mel Blanc of course. Writer isn't Michael Maltese this time, it's Tedd Pierce. Jokes in here include manicure, a rabbit hiding in a lamp, a mechanical female rabbit, a painting and a Peter Lorre reference I would not have recognized if I hadn't read it in the credits. All in all, I enjoyed this short film and like the two antagonists. Quite a shame they do not appear in more of these 7-minute cartoons. Still, I wouldn't say it is one of the best Warner Bros. cartoons. Nonetheless, recommended.

TheLittleSongbird There are so many reasons why I loved this cartoon. One significant reason is the characters, I loved all of them. Bugs is great here, he is drawn well and he has some great lines, but this is one instance when he is overshadowed by not one but two characters. One is the monster who looks very like the one in Water Water Every Hare, he is scary at first, but he is very fuzzy and cute as well. The other is the scientist, he looks and acts exactly like Peter Lorre, and he is priceless, his looks, his voice, everything. I also loved the animation, it isn't the very best looking of all the Looney Tunes cartoons, but the opening sequence is suitably atmospheric and there are some nice backgrounds, lovely simple colours and crisp character features. The music is great too, I always look for this and I wasn't disappointed, it had some haunting moments but it was also fun. The dialogue is inspired and really funny, the story is well constructed, the visual gags are just as funny as the dialogue and the pacing is fine. Oh, and Mel Blanc's vocals are superb. Overall, a wonderful Looney Tunes cartoon. 10/10 Bethany Cox

phantom_tollbooth Chuck Jones's 'Hair-Raising Hare' pits Bugs Bunny against a genuinely disturbing Peter Lorre scientist caricature and his huge orange monster. The monster (later named Gossamer and also featured in Jones' luscious sequel to this short, 'Water, Water Every Hare' under the name Rudolph) is an extremely memorable villain who, despite his size, never poses much real threat to Bugs once he turns on his heckling. Although it is not as visually luscious as 'Water, Water Every Hare', Tedd Pierce has turned in a great script which includes some viciously amusing eye-poking, a priceless scene involving a suit of armour and the best "What's up, Doc" joke you'll ever hear. Bugs' wisecracks are top drawer ("Don't go up there, it's dark") and the high energy level is kept up throughout. It's also the only cartoon in which you'll get to hear Gossamer speak. All in all, then, 'Hair-Raising Hare' is a blast and makes a cracking double bill with its less gag-driven sequel.

bob the moo Bugs Bunny is enticed out of his home by a mechanical girl robot, which he then follows into the castle of a mad scientist. Trapped in the castle, the scientist lets his monster out to feed, leading to a chase around the castle.Just before I watched this short I had the pleasure of seeing `Birth of A Notion'. Both cartoons have a character based on actor Peter Lorre. `Birth' has great animation whereas here that character is awful and the voice work is poor too. This is one example of it, but the animation here is quite poor – Bugs looks basic and the monster itself is about as easy to draw a creation as you could imagine! Happily this doesn't feed through the whole cartoon in a bad way. The material is better than the animation and it is actually quite funny.Bugs may look average but he does his usual stuff well here. The scientist character is poor and is happily not used very well, but the monster needed to be good and, sadly, isn't at all. It's just like having a ginger haystack in the movie – and it's never given more personality than that either!Overall this cartoon lacks imagination and spark. It's lack of real quality can be best seen in the animation but happily it doesn't ruin the whole thing. It may only be average but it is still Bugs Bunny and it is still pretty amusing.