Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Release Date: July 15, 2011

Time Mike wanted to see it: About 6 months
Reason Mike procrastinated: I wanted to take my son Benji to see it, but trips to the movies have been disastrous in the past. And with his current obsession with dinosaurs, the need to rent it wasn't very high.

Category: Reboot/updated sequel

Mike says: I had a little anxiety about watching this movie for two reasons: First, I love Winnie the Pooh, and I treasure the original film (the following Pooh films through the years are cute but still inferior). Second, I watched this with my son, who hasn't watched any movie without a dinosaur for several months.

I was pleasantly relieved when I found that not only was I enjoying the film, but my son loved it as well! The film is super cute and clever, and I found myself chuckling through most of the movie. Winnie The Pooh is one of the recent films that reboots and updates a franchise, while still being a sequel. Think Fast & Furious, The Incredible Hulk, and Tron Legacy, but with cute stuffed animals.

I think the film succeeds in several ways. First off, the art is gorgeous. It really calls back to the original film while still utilizing modern methods. Second, they did a great job finding voices that come pretty close to the originals, and all the characters sound great.

The film is also really clever in its humor: All of the book gags are cute and funny, and Benji and I laughed every time something went awry in the pages of the book. Several of the gags and puns are also very clever, and the use of rhyme never really gets old.

From Benji's perspective, the film was perfect. While I really enjoyed the film and found it very cute, it did have a few flaws. Despite its best efforts, the musical numbers just aren't as catchy or fun as the original film. That the entire plot is built on a misunderstanding isn't new for the Pooh films, and is frankly silly (Benji, I should point out, thought it was brilliant). The over-arcing story is also something characteristic of the modern films. Which is fine, but I find myself missing the "story collection" format of the first film.

Probably the weirdest complaint I have is the subtle change in the type of humor used, where it's a little less innocent. Which is fine, but still a reflection of modern entertainment.

Overall, though, this is a very cute film, and does live up to the quality of the later sequels, if not quite meeting the original.

Kate says you know it is a Disney film when you have to watch 2 billion previews before you get to the movie.

Okay, that's a cheap shot. But true!


Winnie the Pooh (2011) does have a high standard to live up to. I was relieved that the film retained the lovely, classic look of the original. I was also impressed by the narrator choice. Could anybody be better than John Cleese?! The cool thing about John Cleese is that although he is frequently sardonic, he can do sweet and natural as well, and he does that in this film.

In general, the film is not as pop-culture-referential as many animated films are these days (think Shrek's references to Disney World, for instance) although there are a few (more, as Mike points out, than the original), including an odd little reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, I think the lack of references is actually a strength of the film and could have benefited from an entire lack. Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out that although parents prefer watching shows like Sesame Street because of the "adult" clever references, very young children actually prefer mind-numbingly boring shows like Blues Clues. That is, very young kids prefer literal, straight-forward, no-extra references humor.

Winnie the Pooh (2011) is, I think, aimed more at children than at their parents--which is unusual enough to make it really remarkable. (It is difficult to see, for example, how anyone not a teen or older could really "get" Tangled.)


And it is more interesting/watchable than Blues Clues. I agree with Mike that the songs are less catchy, but, as he states, the literal use of the "text" is very clever, and there are some other very literal, straight-forward, no-references humor sections that are surprisingly clever: the balloon's static electricity, the anchor (a number of physics lessons at work!), the "knot not" complication.


In fact, the film is probably stronger than it's initial impression. It is so light (with a lightly delivered message), its strength as an overall film is not readily apparent--sort of like how Olympic gymnasts make their contortions look easy when really they are the result of a 24/7 obsession.


And it is tough for those of us who have seen and remember the older film to fully appreciate the new. If I'd never seen the older film . . .


The one enormous thing in this film's favor is that the writers/producers obviously cared about the original. This, to me, makes a tremendous difference. I will excuse a lot of flaws in the Narnia movies, for example, because the writers/directors/producers care about the story. One of the neatest parts of Winnie the Pooh (2011) is at the end when the real stuffed animals are shown with household items that represent items in the movie. It reminded me of Toy Story 3's homage to the joys of child-play and imagination. Kudos!