2.5 out of 5.0 stars
This Valentine’s Day — after eight years of waiting — English icon Paddington Bear made his return to United States cinemas. “Paddington in Peru” follows the story of the venturesome bear as he makes his return to Peru to see his Aunt Lucy. The third installment in the series comes with several big changes from the previous films.
Back in 2017, “Paddington 2” became the ultimate underdog when it quietly became one of the best reviewed films of all time, to the surprise of many. Audiences adored Ben Whishaw’s performance of the naïve, adventurous, lovable brown bear that England has held dear for over half a century because of his incredibly popular book series. Critics praised its script, comedy, production design and its positive message that could entertain viewers both young and old.
Audiences were apprehensive when the acclaimed director of the first two films, Paul King, would not be returning in favor of working on his “Wonka” series. The same can be said for the character of Mary Brown, who was announced to be recast from the beloved Sally Hawkins to Emily Mortimer. Many worried that the third film would not have as much charm as its predecessors and unfortunately, they were correct.
“Paddington in Peru” is a decent adventure film that’s sure to entertain its target audience, but it fundamentally misses much of what the series is most loved for. Paddington Bear is not only a cultural icon for England, but especially London. All across the city there are bronze statues dedicated to the character. He is even named after the train station in the City of Westminster. The first two Paddington films felt like love letters to London, where various landmarks made appearances, and there was an overall theme of London being a place where dreamers from around the globe feel at home. This sentiment is nowhere to be found in the third film, because it takes place entirely in the jungles of Peru, and even though it is established as Paddington’s home country, it still feels a bit random. Audiences are used to seeing the bear get into wacky hijinks like using a toothbrush to clean his ears or falling down an escalator at the train station, not steering a boat through Amazonian river rapids or finding a hidden civilization deep in the jungle.
Like always, the plot is a slowly unraveling mystery, but it is not nearly as easy to follow as the previous films. While the plots of the first two Paddington films were straightforward crime mysteries, this one is about seeking treasure in the Amazon rainforest. It feels very out-of-place with the rest of the series, as if it is a stand alone film and not part of a continuous storyline.
The absence of King as director is palpable because the film does not have the charm or whimsical nature of King’s installments. “Paddington 2” had the benefit of an amazing ensemble cast with performers like Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, Peter Capaldi and Jim Broadbent, but due to this film’s wildly different setting, these characters get very little screen time, if they have any at all. All of the Brown family’s charming neighbors are nowhere to be seen, leaving audiences missing Windsor Gardens.
If “Paddington in Peru” were a stand-alone movie it would no doubt be getting better reviews from audiences, but it just falls short of the first two films in terms of comedy and overall story. Even positive reviews of the film on Rotten Tomatoes will bring up that it pales in comparison to the King films. Although it is the weakest in the trilogy, “Paddington in Peru” still manages to entertain and deliver some wacky, innocent fun to audiences.
