The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas

Joan Collins

Pearl Slaghoople

**A prequel to the first movie with a different cast and almost as good** While critics love to bash the two live-action versions of "The Flintstones" and the ratings at IMDb are surprisingly low, the first film was a huge hit in 1994 and fittingly so because it's a great movie for what it is. The second one came out six years later in 2000 and features a different cast, which is appropriate since the story is a prequel, taking place when the four main characters are in their late teens or early twenties and romance blossoms between the couples. Although Mark Addy as Fred isn't as good as John Goodman, he's a more-than-acceptable substitute and, besides, Fred is much younger here so it's fitting. Stephen Baldwin is even better (slightly) than Rick Moranis as Barney. Jane Krakowski is also better than Rosie O'Donnell as Betty, not to mention one of the most beautiful women to walk the planet. As for Wilma, Kristen Johnston isn't technically as good as Elizabeth Perkins because the latter had Wilma's 'look' to a "T" and Johnston is noticeably too tall, but she makes up for it with her goofy charisma that can't be beat. Lastly, who better to replace Elizabeth Taylor as Fred's stepmother than Joan Collins? Both Flintstones movies are easy prey to incessant panning because they're based on a 60's cartoon. So freaking what? The question is, do they work for what they are and the answer is a resounding "yes"! Movies must be critiqued and graded according to what they are and aspire to achieve, not according to what they aren't. For instance, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" is a goofy comedy and should be reviewed on that level. Compared to the original "Apocalypse Now" it's a throwaway flick, but how does it stack-up to other silly comedies? It's the same thing with both Flintstones movies – how do they stack up to other live-action versions of cartoons? Are they amusing? I always loved Gazoo and he's effectively brought to life in "Viva Rock Vegas." The sets and F/X are top-of-the line and hold up to this day. Being a prequel, it's natural to think that the producers lowered the budget, but this wasn't the case at all. The original cost $45 million while this one cost a whopping $83 million; but, while the first film raked in $360 million worldwide, this one only made $60 million. Like the first movie, the story has warmth and offers realistic and worthy themes. Take, for instance, Fred and Barney's bond. They're best friends and their personalities balance each other out. You'll see this in real life. My best friend, for example, is similar in some ways to Barney while I more fit the Fred role. The first two acts of "Viva Rock Vegas" are just as entertaining as the previous film, but there aren't as many laughs in the third act as the plot busily ties things up. Don't get me wrong, the third act is eventful and amusing, but there simply aren't as many laughs as the first two acts. Nevertheless, "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas" is entertaining from beginning to end as a live-action cinematic rendition of the cartoon and wisely doesn't overstay its welcome at 91 minutes. The film was shot at Vasquez Rocks, Santa Clarita and Parmount Ranch, Agoura, California, and Page, Arizona. GRADE: A-