WINNIE THE POOH (Stephen J Anderson & Don Hall, 2011).

WINNIE THE POOH (Stephen J Anderson & Don Hall, 2011).

Disney’s 5th cinematic feature-length venture into the Hundred Acre Wood acts as a direct sequel to the compilation feature The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Wolfgang Reitherman & John Lounsbery, 1977). Roughly separated into three sequences, the bulk of the movie concerns the search for the mythical Backson, a fearful creature to rival Heffalumps and Woozles, who Pooh and pals mistakenly believe has kidnapped Christopher Robin after misreading the phrase ‘back soon’ on a note from Christopher to Pooh.

Thematically Winnie the Pooh covers much of the same ground as the straight-to-video sequel Pooh’s Grand Adventure (Karl Geurs, 1997). However, where that movie was dark and at times somewhat depressing, this one is an inventive, humorous and warm-hearted delight.

Animated in handcrafted 2D, the movie is visually pleasing throwback to the original Pooh featurettes (the 3 shorts comprise ‘The Many Adventures... movie). It is more faithful to Milne and to Walt Disney’s original vision of Pooh than any of the intervening features or TV adaptations.

While Sterling Holloway will never quite be replaced as the voice of Pooh, nor Paul Winchell as Tigger, Jim Cummings does a decent job of imitating both. Likewise, John Cleese is a welcome choice of narrator, although perhaps not quite possessing the warm yet authoritative tone of Sebastian Cabot. However, to criticise a fine vocal cast for not replacing the childhood memory of now deceased actors in one’s mind would be churlish; younger audience members will neither notice nor care.

The subtle ‘hums’ of Richard and Robert Sherman are missed, although Frozen songsmiths Kristen Anderson Lopez and Robert Lopez’s more elaborate musical numbers are a satisfactory substitute.

At little under an hour before the end credits roll, the movie could stand being a mite longer. As it is, Winnie the Pooh is still a winning tribute to the Pooh movies of the past. A short and sweet old-school treat that should appeal to original Pooh fans as well as newcomers.

100+ movie reviews now available on my blog JINGLE BONES MOVIE TIME! Link below.

Movie number 51: The Hatton Garden Job aka One Last Heist (Ronnie Thompson, 2016). Proving that coming first doesn’t always make you a winner, The Hatton Garden Job, like last year’s King of Thieves (James Marsh, 2018), is based upon the true story of the Hatton Garden safe burglary of 2015. Arriving in cinemas a full 17 months before King of Thieves this bungled bank job of a movie is weaker than its competitor in every department.

While purportedly based on the actual crime, this version of events is largely fictionalised. The basic plot of a bunch of ageing criminals conniving to pull off one last job is the same, yet the involvement of the Hungarian Mafia and a corrupt ex-copper are entirely fabricated. This would perhaps be forgivable if the retelling had any entertainment value. How such an audacious real life story can be transformed into such a dull and insipid movie is anybody’s guess.

Matthew Goode, Larry Lamb, Phil Daniels and Joley Richardson prop up the otherwise less than stellar cast but are severely let down by stilted dialogue and lazy character development. The screenplay by Ray Bogdanovich and Dean Lines fails to draw upon the inherent humour of the situations while Ronnie Thompson’s bland direction is lacking style and imagination.

If you like geezer ladden crime movies that take themselves too seriously then maybe The Hatton Garden Job is for you. Otherwise you would be better off checking out the superior King of Thieves. #thehattongardenjob #onelastheist #ronniethompson #raybogdanovich #deanlines #matthewgoode #larrylamb #phildaniels #joleyrichardson #kingofthieves #hattongarden #london #britishfilm #britishcinema #everymovieiwatch2019

Happy birthday Audrey Hepburn!

WINNIE THE POOH: SPRINGTIME WITH ROO (Dir: Saul Blinkoff & Elliot M Bour, 2004).

A A Milne meets Charles Dickens in a weird hybrid from a time when Disney’s Pooh franchise had seemingly lost both direction and appeal. At least for anyone above pre-school age. Yes, this is Dickens’ A Christmas Carol re-told for Easter with, despite Roo’s billing, Rabbit as an Easter banning Scrooge.

Walt Disney first filmed Pooh in the animated featurette Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (Wolfgang Reitherman, 1966). Two more featurettes followed and were combined in the movie length compilation The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Reitherman & John Lounsbery, 1977). While some bemoaned the Americanization of Pooh and the replacing of Pooh’s hums with songs by Mary Poppins’ tunesmiths Richard and Robert Sherman, the original shorts were praised for their charming, whimsical nature, delicate storybook-esq animation and general faithfulness to Milne’s text. The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, an animated TV series not directly based on Milne, debuted in 1988. While a success, The New Adventures... marked a distinct change of tone for Pooh. Gone is the innocent charm of the featurettes and of Milne’s tales upon which they were based. Insecurity and doubt have crept into The Hundred Acre Wood. This is a new neurotic Pooh for the modern age. Sadly this mood continued through a series of theatrical and straight-to-video features, most notably the dark and downbeat Pooh’s Grand Adventure (Karl Geurs, 1997). Most of the latter Pooh movies are surprisingly melancholic as is this feature in which, after cancelling Easter, Rabbit is shown, via some heavy handed moralising, the negative impact his actions have on his friends.

At 65 minutes Springtime with Roo is mercifully short. The animation by DisneyToon Studios, while not up to the standard of the theatrical product, is bright and colourful but on the whole this movie is a rather joyless affair. Those wishing to indulge in Pooh would be best advised seeking out The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh or, better still, reading A A Milne’s original literary classics ‘Winnie the Pooh’ and ‘The House at Pooh Corner’.

100+ movie reviews now available on my blog JINGLE BONES MOVIE TIME. Link below.

Movie number 49: The Beloved Vagabond (Curtis Bernhardt, 1936).

A British made star vehicle for French actor/singer Maurice Chevalier, The Beloved Vagabond is a silly soufflé of a musical comedy.

Frenchman lodging in London Gaston de Nerac (Chevalier), forsakes the love of his life to a wealthy Count who will pay her father’s debts and save him from financial ruin. Returning to France with his lodger’s son in tow, he hooks up with a struggling musician (an early role for future star Margaret Lockwood) and the three of them traipse across the country getting mixed up in some foolhardy japes, the details of which will be forgotten by the time the end credits roll.

Chevalier is the only French actor in a mostly British cast. None of the other players (excluding Chevalier) even attempt a French accent and the end result feels patently fake.

Your enjoyment of The Beloved Vagabond will largely depend on your tolerance for Chevalier who, let’s be honest, is a little bit of an acquired taste. It’s an okay movie, somewhat submarined by its preposterous plot. It’s lighthearted with plenty of musical interludes but, ultimately, feels like it should be a lot more fun to watch than it actually is.

VENOM (Dir: Ruben Fleischer, 2018).

It is rare for a superhero villain to have the lead in a superhero movie. The disastrous Catwoman (Pitof, 2014) is one example, the upcoming Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019) is another. Then we have Venom.

You may recall Venom as Spider-Man’s nemesis, portrayed on screen by Topher Grace in 2007’s Spider-Man 3. In this latest adaptation Tom Hardy stars as Eddie Brock, the investigative journalist who, while attempting to take down corrupt scientist Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), is infected by an alien symbiote transforming him into super-strong, super-hungry super-villain Venom.

However, Venom isn’t really the bad guy here. Perhaps sensing that audiences would have trouble identifying with a baddie, the character is more ambiguous here, an anti-hero rather than an all out no-good. Gone is the white Spidey logo emblazoned across his chest and indeed any obvious connection to the world of the friendly neighbourhood arachnid. Although a future onscreen hook-up is said to be in the works.

As a Marvel character to which Disney does not hold the movie rights, Venom is not destined to be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in spite of the fact that Spider-Man is now part of the MCU. What this means for future films in the series is uncertain. What is certain is that Venom as a stand-alone movie is a lot of fun. Granted it is not particularly original or groundbreaking. This may account for its lukewarm critical reception. It is certainly no Black Panther (Ryan Coogler, 2018). However, the effects are top notch, the action set pieces are thrilling and the movie is genuinely funny, reminiscent of a somewhat moodier The Mask (Charles Russell, 1994). Tom Hardy is also great in the title role.

While the movie does not rank among the greatest superhero titles neither is it one of the worst. Its relatively short runtime (90 odd minutes if you discount the title sequences) means Venom is a fun, exciting action movie which never gets too dark and doesn’t outstay it’s welcome.

With a positive audience response and a worldwide box office exceeding $850 million a sequel is guaranteed. Venom 2 is set for release in Autumn 2020.

Visit my blog jinglebonesmovietime.blogspot.com for more movie reviews!