Watership Down

Having watched the original in the cinema at the age of 12 this film made quite an impact as didn't pull any punches and was a genuinely scary film.

This remake follows the same basic story albeit a more watered down version. But I can't see how this cost £20m to make as the cgi/animation is very poor especially of the rabbits themselves to the point where it is impossible to tell most of them apart.

Overall if the new generation want to watch this I would recommend they also see the 1978 original.

Okay it lacks in the latest cgi techniques, by it is good storytelling nevertheless. It took sometime to get to know the characters as the rabbits distinguishing marks are not very much emphasized, but as a close observer of rabbits at my campsite, that will always be a problem with a graphic portrayal of these furry creatures. Voice acting was good, action was believable and they adhered to to the story as I remembered it. Would not watch it with my grandkids though, but that is because Richard Adams story was never intended as a kids story anyway.

Richard Adams didn't write a book for children about fluffy wuffy bunnies. He wrote the story for adults about life from a real wild rabbit's perspective. I agree that the animation makes them look more like hares but up to now, this version is more true to the book. I find it full of emotion and I'm expecting to laugh and cry. I've read the book many times over and I only have to turn to the back page and read the final paragraph to be consumed by tears. A wonderful story.

OK. I've only seen part 1. I'm apparently supposed to be have been 'traumatised' by the 70's version (I was). This was an attempt to bring an old tale into the modern age. Personally I think it was off. The animation/cgi is worse, a LOT worse - it's 2018 folks! The storyline is weaker and flakey. Ok ... it's 'tamer' than the original one to get it onto mainstream UK TV, but the script is weak and patchy. They've brought in some high flying actors to voice our 'bunnies'. I'm not sure it's cutting it though. Changing our favourite German seagull to Scot's is weird, and less amusing. There's a lot of oddities - e.g. there's mention of a 'homber' consistently - which was never a fox. No proper expansion of the orginial gore how humans affect our countryside. I'll see how part 2 does. Still a good old tale, it needs a lot more improvement to bring it into this generation who probably think it strange, rather than the hard core originals who know the story.

I notice that the 1-star ratings are pouring in, and I can't help finding it rather odd. Yes, the animation is a little off. Yes, the plot can be hard to follow at times because some of the rabbits look a little too alike. Yes, it's a bit too long at nearly three and a half hours. And no, it doesn't compare well with the 1978 film... but 1/10? Really? People need to look beyond the problems and see the story. They need to think about what the story is putting across, and how a new generation who might not have seen the 1978 version are being allowed to see this message... They might even be curious enough to check out the film after seeing this. Look beyond the nostalgia or your hatred for CGI, and ask yourself... is there something more than nothing here. Don't be put off if the rating continues to slide, because whilst there is plenty to criticise here, it is far from a complete loss.

ETA: The third and fourth parts were weaker than the first two, and I have to admit that I lost interest during part three, it was just too drawn out for how little was going on. Part four was slightly better, but three and a half hours was simply too much in the end.