Review: Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey 2

I did not know what to expect going into this one.  The original Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey was a quickly-made, low budget film made to capitalize on the newly-public domain source material.  With such a mercenary approach, I went into it with low expectations.  The movie was not great, but I was entertained and the slightest bit charmed by it - it very much gave the vibe of similarly low budget slashers of the 80s, and didn't pretend to be more than it was.  I walked away happy from the film.

The second movie has a budget - a much larger one.  And with that larger budget came the grand ambition of the Poohniverse (no, really).  I was skeptical that the charm it managed in the original would bleed into the sequel, especially with a cinematic universe to be built.

Imagine my surprise when, again, the movie managed to win me over.  It won't make any all-time lists, but the acting is solid (including an appearance from a slumming Simon Callow), the new appearances for for Pooh and Piglet are solid and the additions of Tigger and Owl aren't terrible.  The kills are suitably gruesome and more varied than I expected.

The movie isn't without its faults - You get no sense of how the city is laid out (which, given a path-of-destruction plotline, seems necessary) and it is fairly obvious who the meatbags are among the cast.  While the first had a pair of subversive kills, this one doesn't manage any that are surprising.

The movie also goes out of its way to show some naked breasts which isn't unforgiveable unless you account for the fact that it has a shower scene with a man that doesn't give the gays/women in the audience anything.  At least be equal-opportunity with your gratuitous nudity, filmmakers.

Can I recommend this film?  Not really - it mostly knows who its audience will be and doesn't really try to do anything to pull in non-horror fans.  I'm not even sure most horror fans will enjoy it, even if it does manage a bit of throwback 80s vibe again.  Basically, if you think you will enjoy it, you probably will.  If you think it looks terrible, you probably won't like it.

5 out of 10

PS: The announced movies in the Poohniverse look especially stupid, but I'll be damned if I am not curious.  Might I be the rare blogger to cover them all?  That will require a rewatch and proper review for the first Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey if I decide to commit.  The question is: Should I?

About those Oscar nominations...

A quick and dirty breakdown of the categories and my thoughts (both on the nominees and the likely discussion stemming from the nominations).  This will mostly focus on the topline categories, though I will be offering thoughts on the others at the end.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

American Fiction

Barbie

Oppenheimer

Poor Things

The Zone of Interest

The big surprise here was Killers of the Flower Moon being left off.  Something was going to be knocked off in favor of Barbie (which was mostly nominated in Original Screenplay in precursors), I think most people just assumed that the lower-buzz American Fiction or foreign film The Zone of Interest were more likely to drop off.  I think Barbie is the frontrunner here, if only because Greta Gerwig (who cowrote the screenplay) can be recognized here after missing out in Best Director.

Best Original Screenplay:

Anatomy of a Fall

The Holdovers

Maestro

May December

Past Lives

The expected nominees appeared here, mostly because Barbie opened up a slot so everything could make it in.  This was the most likely place for Saltburn to appear, and its lack of a nomination was a harbinger of it missing out entirely on any nominations.

Best Supporting Actress:

Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer

Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple

America Ferrera, Barbie

Jodie Foster, Nyad

Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

America Ferrera sneaks into the field for Barbie (pretty much convincing me that Margot Robbie was in the dread 6th slot for Actress) and I'm already seeing a bunch of hot takes that either erase her from the conversation to complain about Gerwig/Robbie not making it in, or complaining that she was the one nominated instead of Robbie despite the two being in different categories.  I'm just happy she made it in!  This is Randolph's to lose - it looked like Brooks might challenge her early in the precursor season, but as Brooks is the only nomination The Color Purple managed across all categories, it is safe to call this for Randolph.

As an aside, how refreshing is this category?  4 first-time nominees, and the one previous nominee (Jodie Foster) was last nominated 30 years ago.

Best Supporting Actor:

Sterling K Brown, American Fiction

Robert De Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon

Robert Downey, Jr, Oppenheimer

Ryan Gosling, Barbie

Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

The expected five, though Charles Melton (May December) and Willem Dafoe (Poor Things) both had reason to hope for a nomination.  The former couldn't overcome the divisiveness of his movie and the latter lost out on Best in Show honors to his costar.  Downey, Jr is the favorite in this category, but I can see a case being made for Gosling to surprise, or even Ruffalo given the overall love for Poor Things.

Another positive for both Supporting categories is that they appear to have nominated actual supporting performances this year instead of sneaking in lead roles like in previous years.  I can't say for certain that they didn't since I haven't seen many of these movies, but any progress on that front is welcome.

Best Actress:

Annette Bening, Nyad

Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall

Carey Mulligan, Maestro

Emma Stone, Poor Things

Okay, let's get the big snub out of the way: Margot Robbie for Barbie.  Now, I wasn't as surprised as some were by this for multiple reasons, with the main one being that getting a Lead nomination for a heavily-comedic role is hard.  Not just hard, but hard!  The last time an overtly comedic role was nominated was Eliot Page for Juno in 2008.  If anyone was going to fall off in this highly competitive year, it was likely her.  I'm not saying it is right, just that this is how the Academy has operated for years.  It vastly prefers dramas over comedies.

Some are attacking the Bening nomination as the one that kicked her out (I would say Mulligan is the more likely culprit there), and I don't want to wade too far into it, but attacking Bening for her nomination - for a movie that is very singularly focused on an older woman trying to swim 110 miles (from Florida to Cuba) - feels like the point of Barbie was somewhat missed.

Having said all that, Gladstone is the frontrunner here, with Stone right behind her.

Best Actor:

Bradley Cooper, Maestro

Colman Domingo, Rustin

Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers

Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer

Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction

DiCaprio is a snub for this category, given precursor support, but honestly, he's over-recognized at this point so I am okay with him missing.  Domingo becomes only the second actor after Ian McKellan to be openly LGBT+ and nominated for playing an LGBT+ role (Jodie Foster, with this year's nomination, is the first woman to achieve that feat).

Murphy feels like a foregone conclusion for the win, but who knows what might change between now and voting?

Best Director:

Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

The other category that is Causing Discussion.  Unlike Robbie in Actress, however, Gerwig feels more egregious of a snub.  I don't think she was in contention for a win, but seeing her fall out - even in favor of another woman - is some bullshit.  I don't think this was misogyny, I think it was snobbery.  The thought of nominating a movie based off of Barbie just didn't sit right with enough of the director's branch that Gerwig was left off.

Nolan feels like a lock for the win, but they've made him wait for recognition before, so don't be surprised if Lanthimos or even Scorsese surprise.

Best Picture:

American Fiction

Anatomy of a Fall

Barbie

The Holdovers

Killers of the Flower Moon

Maestro

Oppenheimer

Past Lives

Poor Things

The Zone of Interest

This was the expected list.  Past Lives might've seemed shaky, and two foreign language films wasn't a guarantee, but no other films really received the precursor support to overcome divisiveness (Saltburn, May December) or biases (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse) to knock out any of the above.  Oppenheimer is the likely winner, but the widespread love for Poor Things and Killers of the Flower Moon means they shouldn't be counted out just yet.

Random Thoughts on Other Categories:

Nice to see Godzilla Minus One get a Visual Effects nod - the first time any Godzilla movie has ever been recognized by the Academy

Mission Impossible getting nominated for Sound is also the first time that franchise has been recognized by the Academy.

Diane Warren continues to get Original Song nominations for movies no one has seen, with the latest being for the film Flamin' Hot

As far as random nominations go, El Conde for Cinematography feels like the most random, give or take Golda in Makeup/Hairstyling

France didn't submit Anatomy of a Fall for International Feature, which means we are denied a battle between it and The Zone of Interest for that particular award, which is a shame.

Review: Glass Onion

Of the various weird things that have occurred over the last 5 or so years (and man, have a lot of weird things happened), one of the more pleasant ones has been the resurgence of the traditional whodunnit feature.  Knives Out and Murder on the Orient Express heralded the start of this, and I am thankful for their success, particularly the former, since I enjoy the Benoit Blanc character immensely.

We follow Blanc in this sequel, Glass Onion, as he goes to a the private island of billionaire Elon Musk Miles Bron (Edward Norton) under mysterious circumstances (an invite was sent to him that didn't originate with Bron, although the other characters attribute it to him as the theme of the party is a murder mystery).  In the great Agatha Christie tradition, the guests are a motley (if rich) collection of characters: Governor Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), currently running for Senate; scientist Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr - making a second whoddunit appearance after also appearing in Murder on the Orient Express) who works for Bron; former supermodel/current fashion designer Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson) with her much harried assistant Peg (Jessica Henwick); video game streamer and men's rights activist Duke Cody (Dave Bautista) and his assistant/girlfriend Whiskey (Madelyn Cline); and - most importantly - Bron's ex-business partner Andi Brand (Janelle Monae) who has kept herself separated from the group after Bron's legal maneuvering got her ousted as CEO of his company, Alpha.

All of these character owe a debt to Bron, save Brand: Bron is a major contributor to Gov. Debella's Senate campaign; he helped fund the start of Birdie Jay's clothing company; he helped Duke recover after being banned from Twitch for saying problematic things; Lionel actively works on Bron's biggest project: all of them have a reason to have stuck with Bron over the split with Brand, but all of them also have motives to want to be free of his influence and the potential pitfalls of being aligned with him.

This motley collection of (mostly) horrible characters isn't quite as great as the one in Knives Out - though it does continue Rian Johnson's tradition of the rich being fairly awful and awfully stupid from that first film - but you can tell that certain members of the cast, namely Hudson and Norton, are having a blast with their roles.  No one gives a bad performance, save maybe for Bautista in some parts: he doesn't come across quite as mean-spirited as the script calls for in certain scenes.

Really, that is a good summation of this movie compared to its predecessor: Good, but not as good.  It does play around with the structure of the story in such a way that makes rewatching it fairly rewarding, but several of the story beats are far too similar to the original.  The fact the Monae's character isn't immediately awful is a pretty good indication of who his sidekick is going to be this time around (and Monae does hold her own - on par with Ana de Armas' performance from the first film), and the recurring gag of Derol (Noah Segan) randomly popping up isn't nearly as funny or effective as Marta's puking-when-lying is in the original.

Still, the movie is a blast, with celebrity cameos that work well within the structure of the story, plus an absolutely fantastic ending involving a rather famous painting that went in a direction I never would have expected.  While I would've loved a standout performance akin to Jamie Lee Curtis or Toni Collette's in Knives Out, I can't be too hard on this movie's best-in-shows for not being quite on that level (For the record, that would be Janelle Monae and Edward Norton, with an honorable mention to Jessica Henwick).

A solid way to spend 2 hours.

8 out of 10

Pre-1977 Movie List

1930s:

The Bride of Frankenstein

City Lights

Dracula

Frankenstein

The Invisible Man

King Kong

The Mummy

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

The Wizard of Oz

2023 Movie List

The Movies:

65

The Boy and the Heron

Cocaine Bear

In Search of Darkness Part III

Godzilla Minus One

The Lost King

Mafia Mamma

Meg 2: The Trench

Oppenheimer

Paint

Scream VI

Sisu

Skinamarink

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey

2022 Movie List

The Movies:

Cyrano

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Everything Everywhere All at Once

The Fabelmans\

Glass Onion

Halloween Ends

Jerry & Marge Go Large

Jurassic World: Dominion

Nope

Pearl

Prey

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

Scream

Strange World

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Troll

Turning Red

Werewolf by Night

The Whale

X

Review: Halloween Ends

In my review for the last movie in this franchise (probably the most vitriolic review I have ever written), I alluded to writer/director David Gordon Green and writer Danny McBride having the mentality of knowing better than the audience what they wanted.  To paraphrase, the movie radiated a feeling of 'This is what you will like!' in direct contrast to what did and didn't work in the first of this new trilogy.

I am sad to report that the finale has the same attitude.

It's not that I wanted this movie to be bad - it's that I expected it to be.  And after watching it, my expectations were sadly met.  The movie had the potential to rebound from Halloween Kills and finish strongly - the final battle between Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney, with original actor Nick Castle providing some voicework), 40+ years after they first met.  Instead, both characters are relegated to the sidelines, with the bulk of the movie focusing on an entirely new character and the final battle between these legends relegated to the C plot.

I do have to give credit to Rohan Campbell, who plays new character Corey Cunningham.  He is basically forced to carry this entire movie by himself and tie together the various threads and themes scattered amongst the narratives.  He doesn't quite manage it - I don't think any actor could, to be honest - but he gives it his all, and he manages to give a truly great performance despite the writing and directing working overtime to prevent such a thing from occurring.

Jamie Lee Curtis also does a fine job, though the movie asks her to do precious little.  It asks slightly more of Andi Matichak, returning as Laurie's granddaughter Allyson, mostly because of how much she interacts with Corey.  Will Patton also reappears though I cannot figure out why - they built him up to be a much more important character in the previous two movies than he ended up being in this one.

None of the performances are bad - there is a character I think most will find grating, but that is an intentional choice, I think.  It's just that they are constantly doing battle against a script that wants to do more than what has ultimately ended up on the screen.

Another bit of credit I'll give to this film over the previous one is that the gore - of which there is plenty - is much less exploitative.  Which is an odd thing to say, given some tongue-related shenanigans that happen in the latter half of the movie, but there you go.

Overall though, the movie is just a mess.  It doesn't seem to know what sort of statement it wants to make - though it definitely wants to make one - and it definitely misunderstands what the audience wants and expects from what is supposed to be the grand finale of the Halloween series.  While the previous film was offensively bad, this one is just kind of stupid.  It will be easier to rewatch than Kills is, but I can't think of a better example of damning with faint praise.  It is just as terrible as the previous entry, and only those who are fully committed to the series should bother to see it.

3 our of 10