This prequel to the initial movie features a different cast and is almost as enjoyable. While critics often criticize both live-action "Flintstones" films, and their IMDb ratings are surprisingly low, the first one was a major success in 1994—and rightfully so because it's a good film for what it aims to be. The second installment arrived six years later in 2000 with a new cast, which makes sense considering it’s a prequel, set when the main characters are young adults and romance develops between the couples. Although Mark Addy as Fred isn't quite as strong as John Goodman was, he is an acceptable replacement, especially since Fred is younger in this story. Stephen Baldwin even surpasses Rick Moranis in his portrayal of Barney. Jane Krakowski also does a better job than Rosie O’Donnell did as Betty—she’s one of the most beautiful women you'll ever see. As for Wilma, Kristen Johnston isn't technically as good as Elizabeth Perkins because Perkins perfectly captured Wilma's appearance, and Johnston is noticeably taller; however, she makes up for it with her unique charm that’s hard to beat. And who could have been a better choice to replace Elizabeth Taylor in the role of Fred’s stepmother than Joan Collins? Both "Flintstones" movies are easy targets for constant negative reviews because they're based on a 1960s cartoon. So what? The important question is whether they work as films, and the answer is a definite “yes.” Movies should be judged according to their intentions, not by what they aren’t. For example, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" is a silly comedy and deserves to be evaluated on those terms. Compared to "Apocalypse Now," it's disposable, but how does it measure up against other comedies of its kind? The same applies to both “Flintstones” movies—how do they compare to other live-action adaptations of cartoons? Are they amusing? I’ve always liked Gazoo and he’s effectively brought to life in "Viva Rock Vegas." The sets and special effects are top quality and still impressive today. As a prequel, it's logical to assume the producers reduced the budget, but that wasn’t the case. The original cost $45 million while this one cost a substantial $83 million; however, the first film earned $360 million worldwide, whereas this one only made $60 million. Like its predecessor, this movie has heart and explores relatable themes. Consider Fred and Barney's friendship—they’re best friends whose personalities complement each other, something you see in real life. My own best friend is similar to Barney in some ways, while I tend to be more like Fred. The first two parts of "Viva Rock Vegas" are just as entertaining as the previous film, but the third act doesn't have quite as many laughs because the plot wraps things up. It’s not bad—the third act is eventful and funny—but there simply aren’t as many jokes as in the earlier sections. Nevertheless, “The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas” remains entertaining from beginning to end as a live-action movie based on the cartoon and wisely doesn't overstay its welcome at 91 minutes. Filming took place at Vasquez Rocks, Santa Clarita and Parmount Ranch, Agoura, California, and Page, Arizona. GRADE: A-

Source on TMDB