Christopher Robin (PG)
Parents can be forgiven for thinking that you’ve only just done the bear. For no sooner has the Paddington sequel been enjoyed, quite possibly multiple times, then along comes the other one – Winnie the Pooh.
But as marmalade gives way to honey, and London for East Sussex woodland, so too classy, all-family entertainment is replaced by something strictly for youngsters – and they themselves may stifle a yawn.
Starring Ewan McGregor, this is a very oddly conceived film. For starters, it mustn’t be confused with last year’s Goodbye Christopher Robin, which was a serious look at how A.A. Milne’s writing of the Pooh books may have marred the real-life childhood of his son, Christopher Robin Milne.
This is about the fictional Christopher Robin and his animate toys, all of them now interacting with a bemused world outside the Hundred Acre Wood. Like the Paddington films, it’s live action combined with CGI; unlike Paddington, this story’s conjunction of real and fantastical never really gels.
Having left his friends for boarding school, then served in WWII, the adult Christopher (McGregor) is now a family man, working as an "efficiency manager" in a luggage company. He’s become dutiful and dull, overcome by work and responsibility, in danger of alienating both his wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and daughter Madeline. Pooh and co are a distant memory.
But then some spilt honey and a little magic bring man and bear back together. Through the reunion Christopher will rediscover his sense of fun and return his priorities to their proper place.
The moral is a standard one (the fathers in both Paddington and Mary Poppins need to learn the same lessons), so it’s the journey that counts. Unfortunately, with much of the screen time involving Christopher and Pooh stumbling around the woods, the man in a constant tizzy, the bear tumbling out his familiar pearls of dim-witted wisdom (“People say nothing’s impossible, but I do nothing every day”), the action quickly becomes wearisome.
Likewise, the confrontations between Christopher and his horrid boss (Mark Gatiss) are pretty feeble. It’s only when Pooh’s friends enter the fray, especially scene-stealing Tigger, that the film becomes comic and charming. Along with the appealing animation, with its stuffed-toy texture, it’s these collective scenes that will intermittently engage young audiences.
The talent behind the camera makes one wonder why there isn’t more substance. Director Marc Forster enjoyed greater success with Finding Neverland, about J.M. Barrie’s creation of another children’s classic, Peter Pan. And the writers all have an edge in their work that’s missing here.
McGregor is as game as ever, with his innate exuberance nicely coming into play as the old Christopher starts to reassert himself.
The Equalizer 2 (15)
In its way, The Equalizer 2 is just as outlandish as the Pooh. Denzel Washington reprises his role as Robert McCall, the former government intelligence operative turned vigilante, a man with a cuddly sense of community which, lamentably, he defends through extreme violence.
No film involving Washington is wholly unwatchable. Few actors make righteousness as interesting, and his McCall is a typically nuanced creation – OCD-suffering, sanctimonious, but a well-meaning and resourceful one-man fighting machine.
The problems exist elsewhere, notably with script and direction that unsuccessfully strive to combine high moralising with gratuitous violence. Because of their very particular play on audience emotions (who doesn’t want rapists to get their comeuppance?), vigilante films invariably leave a bad taste in the mouth.
The plot’s nothing: McCall’s only friend is murdered, leading him to add revenge to his enforcer’s schedule. The result is predictable at every turn, and surprisingly sluggish despite the shards of contrived and unpleasant action.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here