Movie: Winnie the Pooh (2011)
Jul. 16th, 2011 05:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmcirvinThe new Winnie the Pooh feature is utterly charming and very funny, almost surprisingly so. It's also very short, even with the unrelated short subject at the beginning; it was the first movie I've seen in years to leave me wanting more. Admittedly, that was probably a good decision given the probable age of the target audience. Jorie loved the movie but was ready to bolt when the closing credits rolled.
It's an adaptation of several additional chapters from Milne's Winnie the Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, but the adaptation is as loose and rambling as those in the Sixties/Seventies Disney shorts (as it happens, Jorie and I recently read some of the source material), and Milne purists who hate those won't like this one any better. But it shows no sign of the manifold forms of damage Disney's done to the Pooh franchise in various media since then; the style is as close to the old shorts as they could get, including the metafictional "storybook" and narrator gags.
It's done mostly in hand-drawn traditional animation, or a digital approximation of same, with a few obviously CGI additions like the swarms of bees. One visual difference that took a little getting used to is that the old shorts were very much from the scratchy-line era of Disney animation (which I think was a response to the technical limitations of early xerography), and the new animation has a much cleaner line, more like what Disney was doing in the Forties and Fifties. Tigger's animation team seemed to be trying to scratch up the lines a little, but Pooh looks more cleanly geometric than he used to.
While the theater wasn't packed (Disney's marketing for this has been very low-key, downright subdued compared to Cars 2), the audience seemed to contain a surprising number of adults and older kids. I hope more people take their little kids to see this, because they'll like it and it's much less obnoxious than much of what's out there for them.
It's an adaptation of several additional chapters from Milne's Winnie the Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, but the adaptation is as loose and rambling as those in the Sixties/Seventies Disney shorts (as it happens, Jorie and I recently read some of the source material), and Milne purists who hate those won't like this one any better. But it shows no sign of the manifold forms of damage Disney's done to the Pooh franchise in various media since then; the style is as close to the old shorts as they could get, including the metafictional "storybook" and narrator gags.
It's done mostly in hand-drawn traditional animation, or a digital approximation of same, with a few obviously CGI additions like the swarms of bees. One visual difference that took a little getting used to is that the old shorts were very much from the scratchy-line era of Disney animation (which I think was a response to the technical limitations of early xerography), and the new animation has a much cleaner line, more like what Disney was doing in the Forties and Fifties. Tigger's animation team seemed to be trying to scratch up the lines a little, but Pooh looks more cleanly geometric than he used to.
While the theater wasn't packed (Disney's marketing for this has been very low-key, downright subdued compared to Cars 2), the audience seemed to contain a surprising number of adults and older kids. I hope more people take their little kids to see this, because they'll like it and it's much less obnoxious than much of what's out there for them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-17 01:19 am (UTC)It's kind of amusing, considering his show is way past prime time and full of cussing, although most of the cussing is bleeped.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-17 01:47 am (UTC)There are a couple of songs sung by Zooey Deschanel, to continue in the vein of Zooey Deschanel-related research. I personally don't think she's that great a singer, but they're pleasant enough.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-17 03:22 am (UTC)