John Byner

John W. Dunn

Hawley Pratt

Ants in the Pantry

Pest control

&apos;The Ant and the Aardvark&apos; &quot;Ants in the Pantry&quot; (1970)

Opening thoughts: DePatie-Freleng Enterprises&apos; output may have been inconsistent but all of their output was also worth watching at least once, even the mediocre ones (and they were there). Some theatrical series were better than others, but none of their cartoons were irredeemably unwatchable or among the worst cartoons really out there. The seventeen Ant and the Aardvark cartoons made between 1969 and 1971 certainly don&apos;t fit under either of those distinctions and the best cartoons of the series belongs among the studio&apos;s best work.

&apos;Ants in the Pantry&apos; though is not one of the best Ant and the Aardvark cartoons. This is not meant in a derogatory way at all, but all of the previous cartoons (&apos;Technology, Phooey&apos;, &apos;Dune Bug&apos; and &apos;Scratch a Tiger&apos; being the best) were very enjoyable to great and for me &apos;Ant in the Pantry&apos; was in the good if unexceptional category, for that point of the series (quite far in it has to be said) that was a touch disappointing.

Bad things: There was nothing really done catastrophically in &apos;Ants in the Pantry&apos;. There are a lot of good merits and the best qualities seen in the previous Ant and the Aardvark cartoons still shine and most of it is executed well. It just needed more freshness and spark, everything is there and correct but somehow there was something missing and it was those things.

If there was a little more variety in the storytelling, as even with the different setting it is fairly more of the same and formula-wise there is not an enormous amount of difference from most of the previous cartoons, &apos;Ants in the Pantry&apos; would have been even better than it was. Would have liked to seen a little bit more of the ant and some of the drawing could have been smoother.

Good things: Had very little problem with the animation otherwise. The backgrounds in DePatie-Freleng&apos;s output always did intrigue, because of the stylised/abstract look. Some may find that cheap and understandably, did think it was on the cheap side in their later output, but when done it is quite striking. The rich and varied use of colour helped make them interesting as did the simple but never cheap-looking designs for the ant and the aardvark and the expressions and reactions for the aardvark. The music as ever is superb, from the opening note of the very memorable main theme it really puts you in a good mood. It works perfectly with the action but also would work well on its own.

The Ant and the Aardvark cartoons never failed to be funny, despite being nothing special on a story level and feeling it lacked freshness &apos;Ant in a Pantry&apos; still delivered on the deliciously irreverent humour. Although the Ant and the Aardvark series always excelled in the physical and verbal comedy, it&apos;s the latter that has always shone more (there is one frequent kind of gag that can get a bit on the repetitious side but it has seldom been to unfunny effect). The smart ant line did make me laugh and made me think &quot;can see what you did there&quot;.

Although the ant could have been used a little more, it is not as if he is wasted. The aardvark though is always compelling and has great comic timing, with the best lines. Great chemistry between the characters, that has always been a given with the series and it doesn&apos;t disappoint on that front. With the voice acting, it was a vast majority of the time a one man show (although with others involved from time to time, such as Marvin Miller as the tiger in &apos;Scratch a Tiger&apos;) and John Byner&apos;s voice work played a big part in the series&apos; appeal as it is a case of having more than one character but giving individual voices and personalities to them. For me, one of the best examples of voice acting in cartoons of anybody who wasn&apos;t Mel Blanc.

Closing thoughts: On the whole, good and entertaining but there was room for it to be better.

7/10.

'The Ant and the Aardvark' "Ants in the Pantry" (1970)

Opening thoughts: DePatie-Freleng Enterprises' output may have been inconsistent but all of their output was also worth watching at least once, even the mediocre ones (and they were there). Some theatrical series were better than others, but none of their cartoons were irredeemably unwatchable or among the worst cartoons really out there. The seventeen Ant and the Aardvark cartoons made between 1969 and 1971 certainly don't fit under either of those distinctions and the best cartoons of the series belongs among the studio's best work.

'Ants in the Pantry' though is not one of the best Ant and the Aardvark cartoons. This is not meant in a derogatory way at all, but all of the previous cartoons ('Technology, Phooey', 'Dune Bug' and 'Scratch a Tiger' being the best) were very enjoyable to great and for me 'Ant in the Pantry' was in the good if unexceptional category, for that point of the series (quite far in it has to be said) that was a touch disappointing.

Bad things: There was nothing really done catastrophically in 'Ants in the Pantry'. There are a lot of good merits and the best qualities seen in the previous Ant and the Aardvark cartoons still shine and most of it is executed well. It just needed more freshness and spark, everything is there and correct but somehow there was something missing and it was those things.

If there was a little more variety in the storytelling, as even with the different setting it is fairly more of the same and formula-wise there is not an enormous amount of difference from most of the previous cartoons, 'Ants in the Pantry' would have been even better than it was. Would have liked to seen a little bit more of the ant and some of the drawing could have been smoother.

Good things: Had very little problem with the animation otherwise. The backgrounds in DePatie-Freleng's output always did intrigue, because of the stylised/abstract look. Some may find that cheap and understandably, did think it was on the cheap side in their later output, but when done it is quite striking. The rich and varied use of colour helped make them interesting as did the simple but never cheap-looking designs for the ant and the aardvark and the expressions and reactions for the aardvark. The music as ever is superb, from the opening note of the very memorable main theme it really puts you in a good mood. It works perfectly with the action but also would work well on its own.

The Ant and the Aardvark cartoons never failed to be funny, despite being nothing special on a story level and feeling it lacked freshness 'Ant in a Pantry' still delivered on the deliciously irreverent humour. Although the Ant and the Aardvark series always excelled in the physical and verbal comedy, it's the latter that has always shone more (there is one frequent kind of gag that can get a bit on the repetitious side but it has seldom been to unfunny effect). The smart ant line did make me laugh and made me think "can see what you did there".

Although the ant could have been used a little more, it is not as if he is wasted. The aardvark though is always compelling and has great comic timing, with the best lines. Great chemistry between the characters, that has always been a given with the series and it doesn't disappoint on that front. With the voice acting, it was a vast majority of the time a one man show (although with others involved from time to time, such as Marvin Miller as the tiger in 'Scratch a Tiger') and John Byner's voice work played a big part in the series' appeal as it is a case of having more than one character but giving individual voices and personalities to them. For me, one of the best examples of voice acting in cartoons of anybody who wasn't Mel Blanc.

Closing thoughts: On the whole, good and entertaining but there was room for it to be better.

7/10.

bappamtv

Ants in the Pantry

🎭 Top Cast

🎬 Technical Specs

🎯 Categories

⭐ Featured Review

📖 Synopsis