I completely disagree. The film stays very much in the spirit of the Schulz cartoons, and avoided all the pitfalls that modern reboots/remakes tend to make: they didn't modernize the setting or characters (they still use landline telephones and typewriters), they didn't make timely jokes, they didn't add in any new characters to try and act as a guide for the audience, they didn't pull some gimmick in the plot like time travel or the comics coming to life. They did modernize the pacing, and they did have some timely music, but it was well placed and appropriate for the situations.
Plus the animation was gorgeous. I had the opportunity to look at some of the animation frame by frame, and if you look at it that way, they animated it in the same way cell animation works. For example, as opposed to completely relying on CG motion blur, they "blurred" things the way they are blurred in cell animation. If it's a person waving their arm, the arm temporary splits into duplicates to illustrate the blur, and speed lines appear. The style had to have been painstaking to pull off, as it goes against basically every function which CG typically relies upon.
My only complaint about the film was actually the flying ace scenes. Though it never really pulled me out of the film, in hindsight I felt they ran a bit long at times, and we didn't get to know Fifi well enough for me to get as invested in her as I was invested in Charlie Brown and the Little Red-Haired Girl. They were clearly drawing parallel between the flying ace story and Charlie Brown's story, but I think for it to feel complete they needed to have a real-life counterpart for Fifi as well.
As for the LRHG being a Maguffin, well of course she is. That's always been her role in the history of Peanuts films. As others have said, it sounds like the reviewer more has a problem with the general concept of the Peanuts than the film itself. If you don't like the Peanuts then that's fine, but at least own up to it in the review. The characters have always been one-note, the animated cartoons have always been talky, and many characters have existed purely as plot devices.
Plus the animation was gorgeous. I had the opportunity to look at some of the animation frame by frame, and if you look at it that way, they animated it in the same way cell animation works. For example, as opposed to completely relying on CG motion blur, they "blurred" things the way they are blurred in cell animation. If it's a person waving their arm, the arm temporary splits into duplicates to illustrate the blur, and speed lines appear. The style had to have been painstaking to pull off, as it goes against basically every function which CG typically relies upon.
My only complaint about the film was actually the flying ace scenes. Though it never really pulled me out of the film, in hindsight I felt they ran a bit long at times, and we didn't get to know Fifi well enough for me to get as invested in her as I was invested in Charlie Brown and the Little Red-Haired Girl. They were clearly drawing parallel between the flying ace story and Charlie Brown's story, but I think for it to feel complete they needed to have a real-life counterpart for Fifi as well.
As for the LRHG being a Maguffin, well of course she is. That's always been her role in the history of Peanuts films. As others have said, it sounds like the reviewer more has a problem with the general concept of the Peanuts than the film itself. If you don't like the Peanuts then that's fine, but at least own up to it in the review. The characters have always been one-note, the animated cartoons have always been talky, and many characters have existed purely as plot devices.