Watch Charlotte's Web For Free

You won't be disappointed!

The Worst Film Ever

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Salutations everybody! 'Charlotte's Web' is considered a classic masterpiece of children's literature, enjoyable to adults as well as children. Written by author E. B. White, the novel, first published in 1952, has gained widespread acclaim and fame to the point that it earned a Newbery Honor award, and has sold more than 45 million copies worldwide. I agree with the fans and the critics with all of the praise. The story about a gentle gray spider, pledging to save a young pig from death was a very powerful and emotional readt; so it's deserve everything, it got. However, it did have a few flaws, within the story structure. First off, I really didn't like, the author allowed the farmer's daughter, Fern Arable to semi understand, what the animals were saying to each other, as it was confusing. Can she hear them or not? If so, why can't everybody, else? The novel does bring the debate that this was all psychological, as she was romanticize and anthropomorphize the animals, as a way to combat the guilt of seeing, her family slaughter these creatures; however I found the idea, not really needed for the story. It took too much focus away from the relationship between Charlotte and Wilbur. It felt a bit distracting. Plus, it open a plot-hole so jarring that it was hard to close. Another is how people in this world, are more interested in the pig than the magic spider in this world? It didn't make sense. Honestly, if this was the real-life, both creature would be destroy, because of people believing it to be work of witchcraft. Despite those nitpicking, I thought, the 1973's animation movie is nearly a perfect adaptation of the source material, unlike the 2003's sequel with the same name. However, it does share the same flaws, as stated above earlier. Nevertheless, I do wish the movie could had kept the swinging rope metaphor and a few other things from the book. It felt a bit missing. The reason, why, is because I didn't think the narrator, Rex Allen does a good job. He was telling us, everything, we already knew, rather than showing us, anything new. Plus, I like how the pacing of narrative dialogue reflections the motion of the swing. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, because it doesn't have that, but the pacing is a bit off, at places. Released to theaters by Paramount Pictures, the film instead, is connect by a series of songs written by the fame Sherman Brothers. While, most of the songs are great like 'There Must Be Something More', 'Chin Up', "A Veritable Smorgasbord' & 'Zuckerman's Famous Pig'. I do understand, why E.B White didn't like the music. It does felt a bit too 'Disneyfication', with the story being interrupted every few minutes, so that somebody can sing a jolly song. In my opinion, songs like 'I Can Talk' & 'We've Got Lots in Common' don't really needed to be there, as it doesn't add much to the story. Another thing wrong with this film is the animation. The animation by Hanna-Barbera Productions really does pales next to even the lesser Disney animation films at the time, both in coloring and detail. There were a lot of lazy reused recycle hand drawn cels shots, throughout this movie. A good example of this, is the goose's eggs hatching scene that they used twice. Then, there is the fact that some of the continuity, doesn't add up, like items disappearing and appear, between shots, and text coming out of nowhere. Then, there was the fact that some of the characters give dull robotic emotional, when they should been more life-like. A good example of this is when Fern Arable visit the farm, only to find out, that the animals do talk. She doesn't seem, one bit, surprise that, she can hear them. Another animation problem was the fact that the animators had problem, presenting size clearly. A good example of this, is Wilbur. He goes from a very small runt, to an overweight piglet, and back to a small creature in a span of a few minutes in some shots. Nevertheless, the animation wasn't the only problem. I saw a few minor setbacks to the voicing department. I really couldn't stand Henry Gibson as Wilbur. His voice was all wrong. He sounds too much of an annoying, whining, uber-dependent adult than a young kid. Also, I didn't like the fact that Wilbur's over anxiety cause Charlotte's death by overworking her, and not allowing her to eat. He felt a bit too disturbing in some of the sentimentality and over needy. In my opinion, I think, the 2006's live-action remake of the same name, got it right, with making it seem like Wilbur's voice is coming from a child who was more self-determine and willing to pitch in, more. Even if it's sounds too similar to the main voice acting from 1995's 'Babe'. Another character that didn't sound right was Fern voiced by Pamelyn Ferdin. She sounds like a commanding mom, rather than a kid. It was a bit off-putting. Despite that, most of the rest of the cast was perfect in their roles. Debbie Reynolds as Charlotte was radiant and versatile. While, Paul Lynde as Templeton was fun to listen too, even if his character is bit dirty, gluttonous, & selfish. Still, I didn't like how Charlotte trick Templeton into going near a cat simply because he did not feel like attending a meeting about Wilbur. That felt a bit extreme. Overall: Despite all its flaws, it's a movie well worth sharing with your family, because of its enduring messages about friendship and love. It's worth looking at the web for.

I loved Charlotte's Web mainly because of the songs, the story, and the characters. When Wilbur's life is in danger of becoming dinner, he turns to a clever and friendly spider named Charlotte for help. Desperate to come up with an idea to save Wilbur, how will she send the word that even the runt of the liter can be some terrific, radiant, humble creature? Starring Debbie Reynolds(From Singin' in the Rain) as Charlotte, Henry Gibson(From the Pound Puppies TV Special) as Wilbur, Paul Lynd(From The Perils of Penelope Pitstop and Cattanoga Cats) as Templeton, Agnes Moorehead(From Bewitched) as the Goose, Don Messick(From Scooby-Doo Where Are You?) as Jeffrey, Bob Holt(From various Dr. Seuss classics such as the Lorax and Dr. Seuss is On the Loose) as Mr. Zuckerman, Pamelyn Ferdin(From A Boy Named Charlie Brown) as Fern Arable, John Stephenson(From the Hobbit and Scooby-Doo Where Are You?) as Mr. Arable, and Rex Allen as the Narrator. Featuring memorable lyrics by Robert M Sherman(RIP) and Richard Sherman(They were known for Mary Poppins, Snoopy Come Home, The Sword in the Stone, and It's a Small World), this wonderful adaption from the book of the same name by EB White is perfect for everybody who read the book or thought that the 2006 live-action version is bad.

The book by EB White is a marvellous timeless classic of a book, full of memorable characters and a sweet story. This 1973 animation is a very likable adaptation, and fairly faithful to the book. Of course there are problems- the animation occasionally isn't that great though there are some truly lovely moments, and one or two songs were out of place. Speaking of the songs though, a vast majority of them are lovely, definitely not the Shermann Brothers' best work but not their worst either. The characters are still appealing, Wilbur is adorable, and Fern is very appealing, but for me the scene stealer was Templeton, very funny he was at times. The voice work was fine too, Pamelyn Ferdin was lovely as Fern, and Debbie Reynolds is perfect as Charlotte, a really warm and loving spider that you can't help but love. My final verdict, is that although the book is better, this is still a likable, sweet and well meaning animated adaptation. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This is at least an interesting story, but everything about bringing it to the screen is incompetent, save Debbie Reynolds' voice.The animation was crude even for its time, and the songs have no heft or hook.But the story! If you don't know it, here it is:A pig with no particular value is the focus. It is made clear that this is actually someone (yes, we are talking about people here) with fewer gifts than the average. He's a runt and would have been killed at birth. Throughout, he never grows into someone that can accomplish anything. This is a key element of the setup. In your normal children's story of the era, all beings are special, extraordinary: The ugly ducking becomes a swan. The chargirl becomes a wise queen. The younger brother solves the mystery.But here, this pig has no special qualities at the beginning, nor at the end. It is important that he be completely worthless, a simpleton, throughout the story. Otherwise, the "nothing should be killed regardless how worthless" device to work.The magic of the story is that he is saved by an effect that has nothing whatever with his doing. Something else creates a word not even of his choosing -- he doesn't even know what it means. People, instead of marveling over the spider who can read, write and speak, instead read the words and assign its meaning without question or examination of the "story channel" through which it came.This is a very peculiar phenomenon, now much tested in a scientific way. We usually think of it in terms of "if its in paper (or on TeeVee) it must be true." But the perceptual flaw is deeper. If it is in words; if it is a story, we accept the reality of it.That makes this is a tiny essay on the main tricks of misdirected value in storytelling and hence film-making. That people accept it as a children's story, sort of proves the point now doesn't it?Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.