Winnie-the-Pooh and the Bloody Movie That’s NOT for Kids

It was released back in 2023, but I still have not seen “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.” This is a horror film which came about when A.A. Milne’s “Winnie-the-Pooh” went into public domain and led filmmaker Rhys Frake-Waterfield to concoct this tale of the “silly old bear” turning into a viciously feral animal after Christopher Robin leaves the Hundred Acre Wood for college. Piglet joins Pooh on a murderous rampage when a group of young female university students make the mistake of renting a cabin in the Hundred Acre Wood.

Like I said, I have not watched “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.” While the idea of turning this chubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff into a slasher this side of Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees seems to promise an entertaining and trashy time at the movies, watching the trailer made me believe the filmmakers did nothing more than simply give audiences another generic horror movie with the usual cliches which have defined this genre far too often. Plus, Eeyore is not in this film, and everybody who knows me knows I have been a die-hard Eeyore fan forever. Had this clinically depressed donkey had a bigger role, I would have given it a look.

Anyway, I bring this up because I was recently reminded of a news story from October 2023 when a fourth-grade teacher at a charter school in Florida, in this case The Academy of Innovative Education, ended up showing his students this poorly reviewed horror flick. From what I have been told, the teacher showed his students this film because they selected it from the various options given to them, but they eventually asked the teacher to turn it off as they in no way expected this “silly old bear” to commit heinous acts of violence.

Understandably, the children were traumatized, and the parents were very pissed off (can you blame them?). One parent, Michelle Diaz, said she felt “completely abandoned” by the school, and that it was not up to the children to decide what movie to watch in the slightest. She also added that the teacher should have researched its content before anything else, and I could not agree with her more.

Seriously, what was this teacher thinking? There are so many ways you can research a movie and its content. You can check its rating, and whether it is rated G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17, there is a description underneath as to why the movie is rated as such. And when it comes to R-rated motion pictures, the descriptions are always tremendously entertaining. Take Rob Zombie’s magnum opus, “The Devil’s Rejects,” for example. The theatrical cut was rated R for “sadistic violence, strong sexual content, language, and drug use.” Now this should be enough of a reason to avoid taking your five-year-old to see it, and not just because you cannot afford a babysitter. For others, it may prove to be a major selling point. Horror buffs in particular will look at this description and say to one another, “Gnarly! Let’s check it out!”

Now in the case of “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey,” it was released unrated, so it may not have come with such a description. I am not even sure if this cinematic work of speculative fiction was even screened for the MPA (formerly the MPAA). Had it been, I imagine they would have neutered the hell out of it as if it were the average “Friday the 13th” sequel.

In addition, you can find out so much about any film if you visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), you can have the plotline and events completely spoiled for you on Wikipedia, you can check on Rotten Tomatoes if it has a fresh or rotten score, and the reviews on the site should give you a solid idea if it is appropriate or not for a preschooler. There are other websites out there designed for parents to inform of them of inappropriate material for children in a movie. Please reply in the comments if you know of any specific websites like those. I know they are lurking out there somewhere on the world wide web.

Now at this point, many will say that Winnie the Pooh is in this movie’s title, and that the name brings about feelings and images of innocence, friendships and cuddly animals we all want plush toys out of. This A.A. Milne creation does not bring up any quick comparisons to “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer,” and seeing him wear a hockey mask like Jason Voorhees was unthinkable for decades.

But here’s the thing: the word “blood” is in this movie’s title. Doesn’t that word trigger anybody anymore? Did that Miami teacher even take this into account? I mean, how many other “Winnie the Pooh” stories, specials and movies have featured the word “blood” in the title? There was the “Blustery Day,” there was “Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too,” there was another about the honey tree Pooh was jonesing to get into, and there is no forgetting the day with Eeyore (my personal favorite).

What else could have been implied by having the word “blood” in the title of this deeply twisted motion picture? I shudder to think as it would surely make both Walt Disney and A.A. Milne roll over in their graves, cryogenic or otherwise. Imagine the following cinematic scenario:

“Pooh, what are doing?”

“I found something sweeter than honey, Christopher Robin. It’s the blood of Christ!”

“Silly old bear!”

“No, seriously. I am here to save your soul!”

But hey, the implications of this movie title could get even worse and more unimaginable. Just think:

“Christopher Robin! What is that?”

“Kanga is menstruating Pooh. Want to take a closer look?”

“Oh bother, I have now lost my appetite for honey!”

Imagine Piglet observing this taking place. He would have ended up having the mother of all panic attacks.If he could get a word out in the process, that would have been extraordinary.

So basically, you cannot convince me that you are not being well-informed on movies being released today. All sorts of warning signs are there for you to research, and that’s regardless of whether or not you are a Miami schoolteacher. Please do not tell me you were not warned. As for the children, I hope they got the mental health talk they needed. What may seem silly and cheap to us adults is a child’s horrific horror show. Granted, “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” was made for only $50,000 dollars, and the trailer does not betray its low budget and reeks of severe cheapness, but even the cheapest character mask can be every bit as traumatizing as watching the horse Artax drown in “The Neverending Story.”

Meanwhile, “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey” has come to inspire the Twisted Childhood Universe which has filmmakers taking such lovable characters from our childhood and turning them into bloodthirsty slashers. So far, we have gotten “Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare,” “Bambi: The Reckoning,” and “Pinocchio: Unstrung” was just released overseas. Other twisted childhood movies in development include “Awakening Sleepy Beauty,” “Snow White Returns” “Tigger’s Return,” and there is another coming featuring Mary Poppins. As for America, we have gotten “Popeye the Slayer Man,” and “Screamboat” which is a shameless reimagining of “Steamboat Willie” where a group of New Yorkers get terrified by a monstrous mouse. Canada has gifted everyone “Mickey’s Mouse Trap” which has a hypnotized manager wearing a Mickey face who terrorizes innocent people in an amusement arcade, and a sequel is currently in development.

As for myself, I am waiting for “Eeyore Resurrection” which could be something along the lines of “In a Violent Nature.” Whereas the corpse of serial killer Johnny rose from the dead to reclaim the locket stolen from him, Eeyore could rise from the dead to retrieve his tail which, apparently, was used as a weapon in “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.” Eeyore could be threatening innocents with a machete, and one could be pleading for their life to where the depressed donkey could raise his machete in the air and say, “So long little butterfly!”

Or maybe Eeyore could be chasing other teenagers down in a car equipped with some kind of buzzsaw on the hood. While they try to run away from Eeyore’s death machine, he could be saying to himself, “Can’t avoid the inevitable!”

Seriously, we could have Busta Rhymes co-star in this, and it could one of the most penultimate moments a horror movie could ever have:

“Who are you?”

“I’M A HEFFALUMP, MUTHA FUCKA!!!”

But not to worry, I will make sure parents know it is not appropriate for most children. As artists, we do have the responsibility to warn others.

Seriously, have to have a strong idea of what you are about to watch.

‘A Christmas Carol’ with George C. Scott, My Introduction to the Charles Dickens Classic

A Christmas Carol 1984 poster

I’m sure everyone has read or heard the story of “A Christmas Carol” several dozen times by now, be it as a play, a book, or a movie. My introduction to it came back in 1984 with the television movie starring George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. My parents got my brother and I to this movie back when we lived in Thousand Oaks, California. Back then, I had no idea what I was in store. All that was going through my head at the time as the movie began was, am I staying up later than Santa Claus would like? I sure didn’t want to miss out on any presents, and it was way past my bedtime. Please keep in mind, I was nine years old at the time.

What makes this particular version of “A Christmas Carol” stand out is how down to earth the actors are in their performances. These days when I see this story, it is usually at a play typically acted and directed with incredible theatricality. But with movies, things are done in a far more intimate fashion. Director Clive Donner doesn’t have any of the actors over-emoting anything and, as a result, these characters end up feeling like our next-door neighbors. Forget how this is a period piece; some things about humans never change.

Ebenezer Scrooge reminded me of the meanest bullies from school, especially those determined to make themselves feel stronger by belittling and excluding others from social gatherings. But seeing him go through the heartaches of life made this particular bully all the more sympathetic to me regardless of how cold he was to people around him. I was already feeling bad for Scrooge before the story’s midpoint. Plus, I thought it was inexcusable for the Ghost of Christmas Present to leave Ebenezer in the freezing cold instead of bringing him home to await the next ghost. Some people can be so inconsiderate.

I first came to discover actor George C. Scott in the movie “Taps,” but this is the role I will always remember him for best, and that’s even over his Oscar winning performance in “Patton.” Scott showed how Scrooge can truly be the role of a lifetime as he takes the character from being a hopeless curmudgeon of a human being to the ultimate fun-loving guy by the story’s conclusion. The moment where he realizes that what the Ghost of Christmas Future was not actually real and promises from there on out to always keep Christmas in his heart is an amazing piece of acting, and this moment remains strong in my memory so many years later.

It is Scott’s brilliant performance which made this particular “Christmas Carol” such a memorable experience for me. Now I don’t know about the rest of my family, but I found myself being pulled from one giant emotion to another. There were times where things got a little too dark for me where I almost cried, and I have always been an infinitely sensitive human being, but all those feelings made for one of the most gloriously happy climaxes in any motion picture I have ever seen. Seeing Scrooge meet up with the fully recovered Tiny Tim brought a big smile to my face. It all reminds me of how Robin Williams, in an interview he had with David Frost, talked about a Russian he once met who told him how we have to live with pain in order to feel pleasure.

It has now been over 30 years since we all watched this version of “A Christmas Carol” with George C. Scott, but the experience of watching it remains ever so vivid in my mind as was my fear of Santa not coming down our chimney if I stayed up so late.

For the record, Santa did come by and left me and my brother plenty of presents… or so I was told.

James Vanderbilt on Making His Directorial Debut with ‘Truth’

james-vanderbilt-on-truth

James Vanderbilt has been a prolific writer and producer in Hollywood for several years. His screenplay credits include Peter Berg’s “The Rundown” which remains one of Dwayne Johnson’s best action films, David Fincher’s “Zodiac” which was about the notorious serial killer who terrorized San Francisco back in the 1970’s and Roland Emmerich’s “White House Down” which dealt with terrorists attacking the White House. In addition, he was a writer and producer on “The Amazing Spider-Man” movies and “Independence Day: Resurgence.”

Vanderbilt now makes his directorial debut with “Truth,” the political docudrama about the 2004 “60 Minutes” news report on George W. Bush’s military service and the subsequent controversy which came to engulf it and destroyed several careers in the process. It is based on the memoir “Truth and Duty: The Press, The President and The Privilege of Power” written by Mary Mapes, a noted American journalist who was the producer of Bush news story, and she is played by Oscar winner Cate Blanchett. The movie details meticulously the research Mapes and her team did on this story and of how many came to sharply criticize the veracity of the information given. What started out as an expose of Bush’s service, or lack thereof, in the Texas Air National Guard becomes focused solely on the reporters involved to where broadcast journalism would never be the same.

I got to sit in on a roundtable interview with Vanderbilt at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, California while he was in town to promote “Truth.” His desire to adapt this memoir into a film came from his infinite curiosity about broadcast journalism and how people in a newsroom work and put a story together.

truth-movie-poster

Ben Kenber: What made you decide that the time had come for you to step behind the camera to direct?

James Vanderbilt: I don’t know. Uh, foolishness? No, I was at a film school with all these people who really, really wanted to direct, and I always wanted to be a writer. It seemed like they were all looking at screenwriting as the stepping stone for the real job and so, being an angry young film student, I was totally resentful of them. Screenwriting is a craft and it’s got a great history, so I wasn’t the guy who was like “what I really want to do is direct.” I was lucky enough to have some films made and to produce some films and work with some really great directors, and watching them was actually the thing that made me go, I’d be curious to know if I could do that” Watching directors work with actors was actually the biggest thing which was fun for me to see and wanting to be a part of that, but as the writer and producer you want there always to be one voice to the actor. You never want the producer to come in and go, “You know what would also be great?” So, I always wondered if I could do that, carry the ball all the way down the field, and it came out of a very misguided desire to see if it would even be a possibility for me and if I would enjoy it.

BK: Did you enjoy it?

JV: I really loved it. I really loved every part of the process. It was just so exciting and fun.

BK: Doubt has become such a powerful tool over the years, and it really came down hard on this particular news story when it aired on television. Were you ever worried as a writer or as a director of getting caught up in that realm of doubt to where it was hard to distinguish between both sides of the argument?

JV: I don’t know about worried. We tried to present a bunch of different arguments in the film. It was important to us and important to me that the film was, although some might characterize it as trying to prove a point, not a film that’s trying to prove a point. What I love is seeing people come out of it discussing it and arguing about it, and that’s great to me. Seeing a married couple come out of it and one of them saying absolutely she should’ve been fired, and the other one going, “What are you crazy?” Apparently, I just enjoy discordant marriages (laughs). But the goal for me first and foremost was just to tell a really interesting story about this woman and what she went through and make it an emotional story. We didn’t want it to be homework. You want it to be a real tale and an emotional story. If audiences go on that journey and then maybe if they also think a little bit about media and where we are right now, all of that would-be gravy.

Enough time has passed since this “60 Minutes” news story premiered to where we should be able to view it more objectively, and “Truth” will give audiences a lot to think about as it is not so much about whether or Mapes got the story right or not, but of how much a casualty truth can be when it comes to presidential politics and personal bias.

“Truth” is now available to own and rent on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital.