Great moment in cinema, weak lead rabbit and all

Rating: 10/10 (14 July 1999)

I loved it, but I'm going to nit-pick for a few moments. Do you mind?
It was set in 1941, yet you'll notice the appearance of one or two characters (notably Droopy) who were unknown at that time. (Of course, "unknown" doesn't mean "non-existent".) The Goofy cartoon we see in the cinema wasn't made until 1949. (I looked it up: but I didn't have to look it up to know it was later than 1941.) Jessica Rabbit was a good femme fatale caricature, but somehow just wasn't sexy. And Roger Rabbit is (as subsequent shorts have shown) a terrible cartoon character - how he could possibly have sustained a career even without a scandal looming over his head is beyond me.
Ah, well. The film was MADE for nit-pickers, or at least for those people who eagerly watch for glimpses of the elusive toon life of 1941. And creating a short cartoon leading character on demand, as many have said, just can't be done - especially when the art is dead. Roger Rabbit somehow manages to transcend his limitations and become a good foil for this particular film.
Look, it was great. The implications of the living toons were for the most part thought through clearly (contradictions neatly and brazenly ignored). The special effects were fantastic - among the best of all time, up there with "2001", "Star Wars", "Jurassic Park". And who could turn down the duet between Daffy Duck and Donald Duck? It clearly ought to have been longer. If need be they could have made time by cutting out the dutiful homage to Mickey Mouse (who had little more to live for in 1941) and Bugs Bunny (who was never very good). Damn, I'm nit-picking again. Ignore me.