Written by Andreas Babiolakis

It goes without saying that Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey was going to be a bad film, given its awful premise (using the bear from children’s literature to tell a slasher film with quite a low budget, since A. A. Milne’s creation is now in the public domain), but I wasn’t expecting something quite this horrendous. Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey is diabolical. I have no problem with people taking innocent subject matter and turning it mature. I’m not clinging onto my youth with a crucifix and telling creativity to “step back!” as I view new ideas as blasphemy. No. However, I do have a problem with ideas that are lazy, pointless, and just terrible in execution, especially if they rely solely on the nostalgia surrounding an existing property to even be cared about. Once finished watching this disaster of a film, I wondered if anyone would care about this release if it wasn’t attached to Winnie-the-Pooh, and we all know that the answer is “absolutely not”. That’s what new time director Rhys Frake-Waterfield is getting away with. This film cost one hundred thousand dollars (roughly) to make, and it already has earned over a million dollars in revenue. This is thanks to the word-of-mouth virility of horror fans needing to see a slasher film about Winnie-the-Pooh. May I ask why? Are you actually going to get anything new from this slasher film that you can’t already get from similarly budgeted slasher films?

”BuT iT’s WiNnIe-tH—”

I could not give less of a shit. Don’t be distracted.

You could put Simon and Garfunkel, Marcel the Shell and Desmond Tutu, a Cabbage Patch kid and a sun-dried tomato, or the theory of relativity and a doorstop as the two villains instead of Winnie-the-Pooh and his swine companion Piglet, and this film would be exactly the same. These are vague connections to a source material with next to zero thought. The murders themselves are the kind you would find in any run-of-the-mill horror film. We do get a somewhat plausible introduction to this atrocity that misled me into thinking that this film would be worth a damn. Via a cutely-demented animation (it takes me back to 2000s Hot Topic times), we are told that Christopher Robin befriended the animals of the Hundred Acre Wood, when it was likely best that he didn’t. He brought the animal friends food every day. Once he was old enough, he left for school to become a doctor. The animals starved once being rendered useless when it came to the whole hunting-gathering thing, and once they were left starving, they resorted to killing and eating Eeyore (poor donkey. He was always my favourite character). The animals swore revenge on humans, particularly Christopher Robin, for turning them into monsters. That actually seems pretty interesting.

Until we find out right away that these ideas wouldn’t be properly carried out in any way. Robin returns to the Hundred Acre Wood to say hi to his friends. He is now in love and has brought his life partner (I don’t remember if she’s his girlfriend or wife, and I don’t care to look it up) to see his old companions. They realize quickly that something is wrong, and Pooh Bear and Piglet find them and attack. This could have been handled really cleverly, but instead Blood and Honey resorts to the kind of half-assed storytelling that so many indie horror films are guilty of: “let’s provide all the resources for all the most disturbing kills, with zero rationale as to how it makes sense, and just have various acts of torture strung together for over an hour”. How does Winnie-the-Pooh know how to operate a car? Why does someone chain up Piglet to torture him for revenge when she can just kill him outright? How are all of these weapons readily available exactly when needed? None of it fucking matters, because Blood and Honey wasn’t made to matter. It was created to exploit.

The entire film feels like the kind of crap I was making back in elementary and high school. Naturally, mine were even worse because I didn’t have a budget whatsoever, but at least I wasn’t trying to make a quick buck off of pure drivel because people are saps for nostalgia and torture porn (and especially both tied together, it seems). I won’t fault the film too much for its effects and costumes, because a filmmaker having no money to work with is not something to critique: you work with what you have. The awful dialogue, the terrible story next-to-no plot (people trying to survive for an hour with very little progression is not a plot, folks), and aimlessness are no excuse. I won’t dig into the acting too much as well because everyone here is clearly trying, but I wouldn’t go out on a limb to spotlight any particular performance either. While the costume concepts for Pooh and Piglet are interesting, they always — always — feel like people in costumes. Would it have been a better idea to have adapted these characters as human psychopaths that believe they are these literary characters that are seeking revenge for the loss of their childhoods (and apparent disdain for a neglectful Christopher Robin that never actually existed), and maybe that’s why they wear these outfits? I’m not sure, but I’m not buying what we do get at all.

I hate this film. It is everything I despise when it comes to lack of originality. It has next-to-zero reason to be based on Winnie-the-Pooh outside of wanting to cash in on a story that recently entered the public domain. It sucks as a horror film, and even as a mindless slasher film (trust me: even if you just want a gore-fest that provides you with fascinating kills, you won’t get them here). Whatever slim glimpses of intrigue I had (one quick shot of Pooh Bear being illuminated in the darkness of the woods by a neon headlight, for example) gets quickly washed away by trivial bullshit (oh, of course the car won’t start so our latest victim can’t get away or drive into Pooh… how convenient). There was absolutely nothing redeeming about Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey. Nothing. I’d like to think that this film is as useless as it is because director Rhys Frake-Waterfield was making it with next to no resources. I’ve read he wants to tackle Peter Pan and Bambi next. The soft part of me wants to believe that — should he carry through with these ideas (and it looks like he will, along with a God-forsaken Pooh sequel, according to IMDb) — more thought and care will be put into these followups.

But I also know that they won’t. This is a guy that wants to get by on the path of least resistance: making money via the blood, sweat, tears, and honey (see what a lack of effort gets you? A terrible joke like this) of others and their legacies. I have no idea why anyone is buying into the whole “childhood, but dark” motif in 2023, but whatever floats your boat. Please be wiser than this. This film is terrible. It even looks it. You know better. Funding this is only going to create the Uwe Boll of the 2020s: a guy that rakes in the cash through zero care or dignity due to the audience’s recognition of the source materials of his botched adaptations. Boll defecated on video games. Frake-Waterfield is going for your nostalgia via the public domain. Please know better.

To replicate what Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey feels like, I also opted to be lazy in the 2020s. I originally wanted an AI to write up a review as to why this film is awful to go alongside my own article, but it didn’t recognize that this was even a film (I wish I had this superpower). Instead, I got ChatGPT to detail why making this film was a stupid idea in the first place (also a shoutout to Dalle-Mini for the new poster). Warning: this AI may be a better writer than me, so please pray for me.

Introduction

Winnie the Pooh is a beloved character in children's literature and has been enjoyed by generations of young readers. The character has been the subject of various adaptations, including cartoons, movies, and even stage plays. However, the idea of turning Winnie the Pooh, a friendly and innocent character, into a horror film is not only ridiculous but also disrespectful to the original material. This essay will explore the reasons why it would be a terrible idea to turn Winnie the Pooh into a horror film.

Winnie the Pooh's Innocence

The Winnie the Pooh character is known for his innocence, friendliness, and lovable nature. The idea of turning him into a horror film would completely betray the core essence of his character. It would be like turning Big Bird from Sesame Street into a serial killer. The reason why people love Winnie the Pooh is that he represents the innocence of childhood. A horror adaptation would not only ruin that innocence but would also completely change the tone of the character.

The Target Audience

Another reason why it would be stupid to make Winnie the Pooh into a horror film is that it would alienate its target audience. Children are the primary audience for Winnie the Pooh, and a horror adaptation would be inappropriate for them. Children are vulnerable and impressionable, and such a film could have a negative impact on their mental health. Moreover, parents would likely not take their children to watch such a film, which would make the film a financial flop.

The Disrespect to the Original Material

Winnie the Pooh was created by A. A. Milne in the 1920s and has been enjoyed by generations of children. The idea of turning such a beloved character into a horror film would be disrespectful to the original material. It would be like turning The Cat in the Hat into a movie about drug addiction. The original creators of the character had a vision for the character, and turning it into a horror film would completely disregard that vision.

The Ridiculousness of the Idea

The idea of turning Winnie the Pooh into a horror film is simply ridiculous. The character is a stuffed bear who lives in the woods with his friends, and the idea of turning that into a horror film is nonsensical. The concept of a horror film needs to have a sense of realism to be effective, and Winnie the Pooh simply doesn't have that. Turning Winnie the Pooh into a horror film would be like turning SpongeBob SquarePants into a historical drama.

The Effect on the Franchise
If Winnie the Pooh were turned into a horror film, it would have a negative impact on the franchise. The franchise has been built around the innocence and charm of the character, and turning it into a horror film would tarnish the brand. The film would not only fail to attract the original target audience but would also fail to attract a new audience. It would be a disaster for the franchise, and the brand would likely suffer long-term damage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, turning Winnie the Pooh into a horror film would be a terrible idea. The innocence of the character, the target audience, the disrespect to the original material, the ridiculousness of the idea, and the effect on the franchise are all reasons why this idea should never be considered. The character has been a beloved children's icon for nearly a century, and a horror adaptation would not only destroy that legacy but also do irreparable harm to the brand. It is important that filmmakers respect the original material and not attempt to turn it into something it was never intended to be.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.

Also thanks to AI for the help. I couldn’t handle this terrible film alone.