Stompgal_87 I saw this film for the first time this evening when it was shown at my university just before my animation course leader interviewed Suzie Templeton, director of this masterpiece. It's hard to determine if this is the first or second adaptation of 'Peter and the Wolf' I have ever seen - I probably saw the Disney Mini Classics version when I was a child or just its trailer.Further to this version, the characters are well-crafted and their poses and facial expressions, particularly on the humans, the wolf and the cat, are natural but their movements are quite jerky and sometimes slow, whereas the animation on the bird trying to steal Peter's balloon is well-done since attempting to animate a bird flying in stop- motion is believed to be difficult to master. The backgrounds on the other hand are detailed and realistic. Although there is no spoken dialogue, there are still human vocal sounds like grunts, growls, gasps and laughter and the facial animation is expressive enough to communicate the characters' feelings. The music is sparse to begin with but I like the main composition because it is cheerful, memorable and is played in different arrangements. The music is variable with different instruments representing each character and changing its mood. It does a sound job with driving the narrative while The sound effects are plentiful and also realistic. There are few humorous moments such as the bird pooing on the cat if this is crude. There are also poignant and tense moments. Water is used well, especially when the cat falls through the frozen pond and tears form in Peter's eyes before he sees the wolf for the first time. The ending was tense but quite abrupt.Overall, this is an intricately detailed if slightly unevenly-animated stop-motion piece with its music being the strongest point. 9/10.

Jackson Booth-Millard I heard about this film on the news, from director Suzie Templeton, from Hedge End, Southampton, Hampshire, England (which I know very well) won the Oscar for Best Short Animated Film, and deservedly so. It is a film based on the piece of music by Sergei Prokofiev, so like Fantasia, a story is added with the music to guide. Basically Peter is the young boy locked out the woods by his protective grandfather, and his only friend is a duck, he is bullied in town. Peter manages to steal the gate keys from his sleeping grandfather and enters the woods with the duck, and an ill-flying bird. They have a little fun on the frozen lake, with the grandfather's cat joining them. Soon though they encounter a wolf, and when it eats the duck, Peter wants to get revenge and capture the wolf with a near netting. He succeeds, and his grandfather sees it too, but in the end, when taking the caged animal into town, Peter can't let the wolf be either put in a stage show, or killed by hunters, he just lets it go. The stop-motion animation, particularly for the ginger cat and wolf, is extraordinary. Templeton apparently spent a year making this half hour film, and she deservedly won the Oscar for Best Short Animated Film (also nominated the BAFTA), a great triumph. Very good!

LDB_Movies The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.

RolandCPhillips I saw Peter & the Wolf at its world premier in the Royal Albert Hall, accompanied by the Philharmonia orchestra. That's an electric experience that will be hard to duplicate… But it certainly won't detract from watching the film in future. Is it a re-imagining of P&TW, a reinterpretation, or a modernisation? Actually, it's all three. Peter's stamping ground is visualised in a depressed, cold and windswept forest somewhere in Eastern Europe; it's hard to tell if it's pre or post Soviet economic bloc. It could be any time, and that is the first great achievement of the film. Peter is a wan, pale and sullen young boy, garbed in hoody and dirty trousers, a stroppy kid, the type who lives down the road – yet his surroundings are timeless. It raises the themes of conflict between rural and urban, youth and age and cruelty and compassion with great dexterity. It's an adaptation that speaks both to the past and the present, which is no mean feat.The plot is well-known and well-worn: the down-trodden Peter escapes the confines of grim homestead and taciturn, unsentimental grand-pappy with his pet duck and a bird with a broken wing (supported by a balloon, in a very nice touch) to go playing in the unbounded, frosty woods. Until the wolf creeps in. After suffering a great loss at the wolf's paws, Peter must rise to the occasion and capture the beast, who is much stronger and more ferocious than Peter is, but less clever… A rites of passage tale and an introduction to the orchestra for children, this version is actually quite gruelling in some respects. Impoverished and inhospitable, Peter's home life is plausibly miserable, and also easy to relate to: his run-ins with better clothed-and-fed peers and ugly hunters convey beautifully the threat of bullies and ignorant adults. Sharp and clever, but morose, Peter is a compelling hero, and the coda with him standing triumphant and grown, will provoke cheering and a quickened heartbeat.The stop-motion animation is far less slick than that seen in Wallace and Gromit, but extends a naturalistic, un-burnished and at times almost ghoulish appeal. The slightly jerky movements, warped faces and grimy sets combine to create a world at once familiar yet also deformed, blighted by neglect and insensitivity. The animation also works amazingly well with the music, the movements of people and animals alike assuming the beats, leaps and whirls of the instruments. I guess you could call this a true musical, because while the characters may not leap into spontaneous song and dance, the music actually speaks for them. I'm not much of a music critic, nor do I know Sergei Prokofiev's piece (or any of his music, for that matter) at all well, but I still loved the soundtrack. It did sound modern, and had obviously adapted and moulded to fit the film with small nuances and flourishes, but I'm sure Prokofiev would have approved.Considering the applause the film got, I'm certain no one else minded either.