Good start, but then it gets ruined

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Firstly, I'd like to begin by saying that like many others, I, too, grew up watching various, previous, other things related to Disney's Winnie The Pooh franchise. I had a VHS copy of Winnie The Pooh And The Honey Tree, still have The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh VHS tape, collected some of the volumes of The New Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh VHS series, had the Disney Classics Series book based on the package movie, etc. So I was somewhat in that phase of that being among the fixations I grew up on having. I saw some of the other movies too, like The Huffalump Movie. Pooh bear and pals have got to be among the most, if not just the most, recurring Disney characters in the company/studio's history. When I first heard about and saw the preview commercials promoting this latest movie starring the stuffed animal characters, I found that to be a surprise. But I wasn't in a rush to see it right away. After it hit theaters, I would watch this on a movie-based video site some time later. I was even more surprised at the simplistic title though. Whoever decided to go with that couldn't have called it Winnie The Pooh and The Backson instead? (Even though the viewers don't get to see the monster interacting with the other characters at all, but he still does make an appearance.) Why couldn't that had been done? It would've made it even more distinguished. Also, this just had to be included in the Disney animated features canon list. I don't think it should be, since The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh is already a part of it. Most of the other movies in that list aren't paired with sequels or follow-ups (save from The Rescuers with The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia with Fantasia 2000). Why someone felt the need to add this? Why make another movie featuring long-established characters and make it a part of it? Anyway, I wasn't feeling it. I didn't care for this one all that much. As a few of the other reviewers mentioned on here already, I, too, consider the animation to be one of the very few, bright spots in this. The writing isn't as well done. The characters were made even more simple than usual to the point that they're true simpletons. Like after everyone falls into the pit that they set up as a trap for the Backson, Piglet manages to escape, but (I forget how he got it exactly) he has a rope which he's supposed to extend down the hole for the others to grab onto, so they can be pulled out the hole and be free, as Rabbit repeatedly urges him to do. However, Piglet misinterprets this and he pulls the rope into five pieces instead. I don't know why this moment was incorporated into the story other than I guess somebody simply considered that to be funny, especially for the kids. As for the voice acting, the talent for most of the characters are replaced, which is another thing I found unexpected (save for the voice actors for Roo and Christopher Robin). Jim Cummings did fine as usual voicing Pooh and Tigger, successor voice actor of Piglet, Travis Oates, sounded like a fine imitation of the late original, John Fiedler, but some of the others I didn't care for as much. I have no idea why most who voiced the others couldn't have been used instead other than they might've had other commitments and were unavailable. I'm not really a big fan of Zooey Deschanel as a singer either, but concerning the music, I thought her performance of the theme song was decent enough. But with this being slightly over an hour, there are too many musical numbers that take up too much time and take away from the other parts of the movie. Overall, this doesn't feel quite the same as the past Pooh and friends movies. There a bits in this that are too much like what took place in the previous films. And the Backson doesn't make a physical appearance until after the end credits, but he isn't really all as fearsome as he seemed to be. With the way this was planned and executed, it would've been better off going straight to DVD/blu-ray.As for whether I recommend this or not, I wouldn't recommend it to those beyond the kiddie demographic. Most kids would more likely appreciate it more than some teens and adults. I don't consider it having much re-watch value, as it's one of those things that's worth seeing at least once. I'm with all those who consider it to be the worst in the franchise. Over a decade ago, after Disney dropped making traditionally animated movies following the box office disappointment of Home On The Range, a few years later, they'd attempt a comeback at 2D animation with The Princess And The Frog, which is the last Disney 2D animated movie not featuring already established characters. While that did better, it still wasn't quite good enough, so it was a return to CGI animated movies once again. A couple years later, a comeback was attempted a second time with this. I'm just pointing out the history of the track record concerning the on again, off again forms of animation used and done. I still get sore over the direction change of that and other studios. If I were involved in the animation industry, I'd refuse to go into CGI, not unless I'm allowed to do both that and traditional animation. Forget the way this horse-feathers is going now. It makes me detest the over-saturation so much. In conclusion, I'd say to stick to most other Pooh-related media. This isn't worth getting and owning on home video, unless it's to be given to a son, daughter, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter.

Winnie the Pooh really is a very well put together family film that all kids (and some adults too) will surely love. It's not just a bunch of typical childish jokes all stuffed into a feature film length, it has a lot of fresh comedy, original humor that isn't just limited to children, a lot of the comedy in the movie is ageless. Anyone of any age can not only laugh but have a lot of fun with the movie. The movie is also very well written, it is heartwarming and sweet, and filled with many charming music numbers that is perfect for family viewing. The "mystery" in the movie is enough for kids to keep them invested, I don't think they'll become bored at any point throughout. There's always something going on and there aren't any gaps of time where not much is happening. It's pretty obvious that a children's film can never be a "slow burner". The search for Christopher Robin and the Baksun is funny and amusing for older people and it's enough to entertain and really enchant the children watching. Overall Winnie the Pooh gets a 10/10! Really one of the greatest children's movies I've seen!

Winnie the Pooh (2011): Dir: Stephen J. Anderson, Don Hall / Voices: Jim Cummings, Bud Luckey, Craig Ferguson, Travis Oates, John Cleese: What is a Pooh? It sounds like a stench. Why not Winnie the Bear? Isn't that what he is? I have a better idea. How about Winnie the Crap? This is a very stupid family film with the biggest brain dead characters. There are several subplots and none of them good. First of all we have the depressed donkey Eeyore who is in need of a tail and the quest to find a tail and achieve a jar of honey. Then we have Winnie's grumbling stomach that was no more near the grumbler that I was after seeing the film. Then we have boy owner Christopher Robin who leaves a note claiming that he is gone and will be back soon. Well, these idiot stuffed animals misread the note and believe that their owner has been captured by a monster. They conjure up what they believe the creature looks like and such bull. They even dig a pit for it to fall into. Well, these moron stuffed animals end up falling into the pit. What is even dumber is that Owl can fly yet it doesn't don on him or anyone else that he can escape and get help. While the animation is the same as the classic cartoon, the writing is kindergarten level intelligence. The cartoon from Disney delighted the imagination while this horrid piece of junk insults anyone who watches it. All of this talent, including John Cleese narrating went into this total dog show that might have been good had it examined some character origins or something. Instead we are left with a film that should be mauled by grizzly bears. Score: 1 / 10

When I first heard that Winnie the Pooh was having another theatrical release I was excited, however when it was released in 2011, it only had a limited release and was at played only once a day, maybe because it was its box office revenue being released at the same time of the epic conclusion of Harry Potter, Australia released a few months after HP. Looking at the movie it still has the charm like the previous Winnie the Pooh films, the simple and fun stories that makes it nostalgic and fun for the fans who've watched Winnie the Pooh when they were younger and some younger viewers will have a Winnie the Pooh that they'll remember, the first Winnie the Pooh movie I've seen was 'Pooh's Grand Adventure' and I loved the movie, despite its dark imagery. I love it how the animators kept so close to the original design of the characters and landscape towards the real Hundred Acre Woods in Sussex, England (yes there's a real one for those that don't know much about Pooh Bear) and close with the Milne's designs of the characters but adaptable for the screen. The songs are very catchy and very Sherman Brothers-esque and Zooey Deschanel did great singing for the songs as well. Plus some songs that were written by the Sherman Brothers themselves are in the movie as well. The character are well into place and their slow thinking is laughable as well. Such scenes like Owl flying out of the hole and told Piglet his speech, however the other characters were shocked about Owl but it was his speech that they were pleased about in the end. Compare the slow thinking towards a show like 'Spongebob Squarepants' the more modern episodes. You have Patrick who's stupid but he's like incredibly stupid that you just want to hit him. Whereas in the earlier episodes he was dumb but in more likable status. The characters in the film are slow thinkers but they've done it more in a likable status. The voice acting was great too, especially the talents of Jim Cummings and Tom Kenny, yes the guy who did the voice of Spongebob a show that I've criticised has some talent. Plus he did more voices other than Spongebob. Although Tom Kenny's voice for Rabbit almost make him sound like Spongebob you can tell he at least tried and did well to capture the original voice of Rabbit and it was so good. Jim Cummings has great talent too, a voice actor that I've grown up from childhood still captures his Winnie the Pooh and Tigger voice in todays standards. John Cleese was an excellent choice for narration, the Monty Python and Fawlty Towers legend has such a great storytelling voice. The other VA's like Craig Ferguson also done well with the characters. I understand that the film has a lesser time limit unlike many other animated films but I really don't mind the shorter time, it is still good and fun with its simple storytelling and most of it captured the 1977 classic, which i'm also a fan of, such as the breaking of the fourth wall were Pooh and the characters talk to the narrator. It has charm, wit with its simplicity and fun with some nostalgia for the older viewers who are big Winnie the Pooh fans, the young at heart, like myself, or parents who did grew up with the lovable bear and have children of their own.