User Reviews

This early Terrytoon looks like a variation of a football cartoon like PIGSKIN CAPERS in which we get to see critters on their way to the stadium, then the cheerleaders, then the game. The primary distinctions seem to be that the background art indicates random classical ruins and the sight gags are a little more grotesque -- "Santa Lucia" is performed with a squeaky voice and one mouse doffs his ears and the top of his head to a female mouse. In doing so he reveals a hole in his skull, whence, it appears, his brains have been scooped out.

Given the random gags and their similarity to other Terry cartoons at the time, it's pretty poor.

The Terrytoons are oddly interesting, mainly for anybody wanting to see (generally) older cartoons made by lesser known and lower-budget studios. They are a mixed bag in quality, with some better than others, often with outstanding music and with some mild amusement and charm and variable in animation, characterisation and content.

Of their offerings up to this point of this very early stages, 'Roman Punch' is the weakest. Not awful, but it really does fail agreed to pack punch. While one never expects much exceptional with the early Terrytoons, and generally even (the only component to consistently be so is the music), 'Roman Punch' is the first less than watchable one and one of the most lacklustre of the 1930 offerings.

'Roman Punch's best asset, always the case with Terrytoons, is the music which predictably is outstanding. It is so beautifully and cleverly orchestrated and arranged, is great fun to listen to and full of lively energy, doing so well with enhancing the action.

The backgrounds for 1930 are remarkably detailed and there is some nice inventive visual detail, showing a studio that were aiming for ambition and succeeding in some aspects. Some synchronisation is neat.

However, like the previous cartoons and much of the ones since, the character designs are crude and don't match the amount of detail that went everywhere else in the animation.

Furthermore, the story is paper thin and thoroughly predictable, and doesn't have the natural charm or lively pacing (erratic here) to make up for it. Nor any good gags, which are too few and are far too random and short to make much impression. The characters are bland this time round.

In conclusion, bland and lacklustre. 4/10 Bethany Cox