Winnie the Pooh: Miel Y Sangre

I really liked this movie. It's obvious that this shouldn't be taken as a serious horror film. Most of the 1-star reviews are people trying so hard to be movie critics.

This movie is fun, stupid, cringe, and funny. The whole thing feels like a dream, from the cliche/mediocre acting to the ridiculousness of the story. "Winnie the Pooh going on a killing spree because Christopher Robin left him". Listen to that, the vibe of the movie even feels satirical. I love how they use the exact same kills from the Halloween movies (head stomp kill, pinned to wall by knife kill, etc.). They even did the neighborhood vs. Michael scene from the end of Halloween Kills. I find that hilarious because they are doubling down on copying parts of those bad movies, further proving the fact that this movie is satire.

Some of the kills were actually good, the shots as well. There are retarded moments in the film too, but that doesn't matter because it feels purposeful + it ends up making the film funnier.

Not exactly a "so bad it's good" movie, but similar. Overall this film is a fun, fever dream that doesn't try to be good.

Blood and Honey is not a good movie. It's poorly written, there are some directorial shots that would never make a movie made by a studio, and there is some pretty cringe acting as well. The characters are paper-thin to the point I can't remember any names. The pacing is a bit off and the effects at times were notably bad.

But what did you expect on a budget under $100,000 made by amateurs? I don't feel like my time was wasted by people who used an IP as a lazy money grab. I thought the team tried and did what they could within their means.

There were a handful of cool directorial shots, a few fun kills, and some bad in an entertaining way scenes that made this at least watchable. It's a really short film that isn't an absolute chore to get through. This isn't even the worst horror film I've seen this year.

If the next time around there is a bigger budget, better writing/editing, and better casting it could be fine. A lot of their issues seemed to be budget or inexperience related as opposed to offensively bad or incompetent.

Say, for a $100K production budget, Rhys Frake-Waterfield made a B-movie and as a result for the recent demand in independent slasher films caused by Terrifier 2 + it's a horror retelling of iconic characters, it becomes box office success. But nonetheless with no one's surprise it's absolute garbage. In my opinion with that kind of budget it's not an easy task to make a film with a decent quality. I'm impressed by the animated sequence they created for this movie and it was kinda cool. But even the decent production quality, somewhat good cinematography, visual tone, set pieces and locations overshadowed by it's very poorly written and atrocious screenplay with a bad ending, slow and tiring pacing, weak performances, lazy direction and an amateur cast with subpar acting abilities.

For a predominantly female cast, I could tell the writer was a male before I even double checked. He must thing all women are complete idiots. Not a single one ever had a plan, all they did was give half-hearted screams and run very, very badly. Of course in his defense, Christopher Robin wasn't much better. It was a snooze fest.

I'd had relatively decent hopes for this. The premise was original and the opening animation was lovely. Another reviewer said if they'd made a short from there, it would've been amazing and I agree. But they fleshed out no plot, spent zero on the costuming of the iconic leads (I'm serious, hitting up a Dollar Tree would've been more affective) and left everything with no resolution at the end, presumably to make room for a sequel.

So, I gave it three stars for the start and for encouraging others to use their talents on works now in the public domain. Hopefully something more interesting and exciting will come from it.

If there are any "real" directors reading this; there is clearly an interest in a Winnie the Pooh horror. This isn't it.

I don't even know where to start in expressing the sheer disappointment of this "film". What's worse, it doesn't appear to be an issue about the low budget - more the direction. We have all seen recently what can actually be achieved with a small budget. It would appear this "director' got very lucky with an interesting idea, but has no idea how to actually make a film.

Our cinema was about half full, but after 45 minutes I would guess half of those had left. Not because it was scary or gory or too intense - but, my guess, and along with us, bored out their minds. By about an hour in the rest of the audience had broken into conversation. We left with about 15 minutes left as just couldn't take another second.

On the way out I asked for a refund (never done that before lol). The guy behind the counter laughed and said a couple others had said the same thing.

So what's wrong with it? Well, first and foremost its not scary. It's also not funny or clever or interesting or well shot. It drags on and on with super bad acting, awful music, bad editing, bad camera work, dreadful lighting, terrible dialogue, super cheap looking costumes.... and I could probably go on.

Sometimes bad films can be a cheesy, campy good time but the absolute killer here is - it's boring.

The world of horror has some absolutely fantastic up and coming directors and its a shame someone with some talent didn't have this idea and execute it properly. But as Winnie is now public domain, maybe someone will.

And, somebody needs to ban these people from ever making another film. And, I want my money back.

As I was writing this review I came across a review in the Daily Beast by Nick Schager (full credit to him for the below and the full article can be found online/socials) that puts it so much more eloquently than I have been trying to:

"Frake-Waterfield exhibits minimal skill at framing a unique or unnerving shot, effectively transitioning between scenes, or eliciting jolts though canny cuts or audio cues. He's not helped by Vince Knight's muddy, shaky cinematography and Andrew Scott Bell's comatose score, which loses steam at precisely the moments that is should be punctuating the action.

Its difficult to fault the musicians for their lethargy, however, in light of the omnipresent amateurishness on display, almost none of which can be blamed on production constraints; though its clear that Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey was made on a shoestring budget, its failings have to do with a simple lack of talent both in front of and behind the camera.

In the weeks leading up to Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey's premiere, the writer/director has expounded on his plans to film a series of additional children's lit horror shows, with Bambi and Peter Pan next in line for the grim dark treatment. On the basis of this fiasco, however, that feels like so much wishful thinking. For all of Pooh's kills, the greatest casualty of his rampage may just be Frake-Waterfield's career prospects".