Memorable, crazy movie

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This 1946 version of the famous "Peter and the Wolf"-story runs 15 minutes and thus considerably longer then most animated short films from that time, roughly twice as long. One reason may be that it was directed by Clide Geronimi who's responsible for quite a few of Disney's magical full feature films, such as "Alice in Wonderland" for example. I really liked the introduction he used, showing the audience each character and linking the music instruments. It was almost a music lesson and very well done.Next, the real story begins. peter goes to catch the wolf, is held back by his grandpa, but finally manages to get away nonetheless. He runs into two birds, a duck and a woodpecker, who become close friends, and a cat, constantly hungry, but still an ally against the big bad wolf. I think the scene was quite funny when the cat caught one of the birds and acts all innocent until Peter forces her to release him. Back to the wolf, the animators did a good job in portraying him in a truly scary fashion. He reminded me a bit off the one from the Three Pigs films, but was probably even more dangerous. A wild beast.This short film did not get the same awards attention like the Academy-Award winning short film 60 years later, but I still prefer this one from 1946. It would be an interesting task to compare both story-wise and about how the characters are portrayed. The animation is completely different of course and one other major difference is, for example, that in the recent version the wolf gets some sort of leniency and is not as evil as the one here. The music is tops in both, Prokofiev's work is just so incredibly catchy. All in all, I recommend this short film. It's an interesting piece of animation from shortly after World War 2 ended and I'm positive it gave delight to the people back in these long-gone harsh times.

I just rewatched this classic Disney cartoon for the first time in half a century and was vastly amused. Prokoviev's music was fine, the animation was sprightly, Sterling Hayden's narration held the same amusing, quavery-voiced simplicity as always, and Walt Disney, famed as a rabid anti-communist and union hater, had produced a fine parable of the power of collective action to resist a vile oppressor in defiance of the warnings of the old and outmoded authority figures of a patriarchal society.This is not something that will strike your average, or even your above-average youngster being exposed to this fine piece of narrated program music, but that is clearly the subtext as Peter disobeys his grandfather to go hunting the wolf in the company of other members of the lumpen-proletariat, in the form of a cat and two birds -- natural enemies. Nor is the army -- represented by the hunters with their bombastic kettle drums -- of much help, for Peter, the woodpecker and the cat have already captured the wolf and mother Duck is found to have survived. The people have triumphed! I doubt if Disney thought much about this. The music is still good, and the art is still excellent. But the thought amuses me.

This wonderful short is part of Disney's 'Make Mine Music' but clearly deserves a separate review.Disney's version of 'Peter and the Wolf' is very good. It has a nice story well narrated by the legendary Sterling Holloway, wonderful artwork and sceneries, brilliant Russian classical music, darkness, suspense, sympathetic characters and a fabulous "villain" (the wolf).This may sound crazy, but the classical music is used mostly to represent the characters. A different musical instrument is used for each individual character. What's even crazier is that this method is actually very effective. The music tells a lot about the characters, as much as words themselves (if not more). The music varies in its rhythm and temperament according to each individual character. In the case of the wolf, the music has that predictably dark, spooky and suspenseful feeling.It's not just the music that has Russian roots. This short feels Russian in everything. Peter has the Russian looks. Some of the characters's names are Russian. The narrator does a very good job at saying a few Russian words. The cinematography is typically Russian, with those settings and all the snow...The wolf is my favorite character. I really, really love that wolf. It is astonishing and must have been the nightmare of many children from my generation. That wolf has everything to be a winner in a terrifying way: it is awesome, powerful, noble, intimidating and vicious. Its expressive large eyes transmit pure viciousness and terror. That is one big wolf. Its roar is genuine. Its mouth is enormous and slobbery, its tongue is endless and its many sharp teeth demand respect.Ironically, the smallest of all the characters, Sasha the little bird, is the only one who doesn't seem to be that afraid of the big beast... even after nearly becoming food for the wolf 3 times (the number of times he ends up in its huge maw).Title in Portugal: 'Pedro e o Lobo'.

Because crocodiles are always getting the hots for them!!LOL More seriously, few animals have had a facial expression mold an image of how they look more than wolves. Some say their howl gave them their reputation, I think it's their growl, & teeth baring. Traditionally, paintings of wolves showed them growling enough to easily lead to the impression that the snarl is a permanent facial fixture, & that image is reflected in the way they're drawn in animations like PATW. If cartoons of the time were all one had to go by, one could easily believe wolves look like hairy crocodiles w/ bushy tails & long legs who's dental daggers are on 24/7 display. Of coarse, their noses aren't that long, & they don't snarl much more than most any other canine, although their growl is a little more menacing. This was my favorite version of the musical, & my favorite portrayal of the wolf. I remember a stage-play version where the wolf was played by some hot babe who shook her booty to the wolf music. Not that my hormones weren't kicking in yet, but I liked the good & ferocious wolf of the 1946 Disney version, & didn't cotton to the awesome score being adapted to sexual overtones. I think I've noticed some versions of this try to downplay the wolf's music, probably because it was too dark & menacing for such a cute story.Probably thought it a genre conflict. However, Disney probably said "That's not conflict! That's CONTRAST!" Disney-true to its nature, is legendary at blendingsomething that's kid-friendly & something that's dark sided enough toentertain older watchers. They don't say it's for all ages for nothing!Best 10 minute feature Disney ever had. Would love to see the RichLittle version. Heard that he used the voice of Carol Channing as theDuck, Paul Lynd as the cat, & Richard Nixon as the wolf.Scene where folks are dancing in the street over the wolf's capture wouldn't go over well where wolves are being reintroduced however.