Skip to main content

Another Delightful Adventure with Paddington


it comes to childrens’ characters, the British seem to have a fixation with kindly, polite loveable bears, don’t they? Winnie-the-Pooh, Rupert Bear, and of course Paddington -the marmalade-loving stowaway from Peru adopted by an English family when they found him lost in his namesake train station. Though created in 1958, it wasn’t until 2014 that a movie based on this character was made by Paul King. And much like Paddington himself, it was cute, charming, and innocently endearing. With the death of Paddington’s creator Michael Bond last year, now seems a perfect time for another Paddington movie, and Paddington 2, which reunites King and the cast, is much like the first.
Paddington (Ben Whishaw) is still living with the Browns and has become a staple of the Windsor Gardens neighbourhood. With the 100th birthday of his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) coming up, he endeavours to send her an antique pop-up book of London. But when the book is stolen and he’s framed for the crime, the Browns try to clear his good name, while he attempts to retain his optimism in prison.
There’s a strange trope of comedy sequels sending their characters to prison (Ernest Goes to Jail, Naked Gun 3, Muppets Most Wanted, etc.), and Paddington 2 just plays with the idea the way those movies do, touching on a lot of clichés in the process, like how the toughest guy in prison becomes a friend to the protagonist. All of it is predictable, and in fact, everything in the movie is pretty straightforward. There are no surprises as to where the story’s going, what beat they’re going to hit next, or how it will resolve. It flows exactly the way you expect it to based on the kind of story it’s telling …but that’s actually okay. Because Paddington 2 isn’t aiming for anything great. All it’s trying to do is be cute and charming, like the books. And it does this very well while also mixing in some enjoyable assets. Like the first, this movie has a decent sense of humour, with a handful of genuinely clever jokes. It’s also very visually appealing, being quite bright and warm to watch. There’s an especially nice-looking sequence where Paddington imagines showing Aunt Lucy around London through the pop-up book. And Paddington himself is well animated, looking enough like a real bear, and to the credit of the cast, their convincing interaction with him really sells his presence in all of his scenes.
Whishaw is once again likeable and incredibly British as the voice of Paddington, sincere and emotional in all the right moments. It’s good to see Hugh Bonneville as Henry Brown again, even if his role is less significant than it was in the first movie, and he doesn’t really have an arc as such. Sally Hawkins, who’s having an outstanding career this year with Maudie and The Shape of Water, is really great as Mary Brown too. Even in this smaller, unimposing project she’s giving it her all. And I said it in my Maudie review, but it’s worth restating she’s got the prettiest smile you’ll ever see, and she gets more opportunity to display it here than in her other 2017 projects. The Brown kids are there, but it’s unfortunate they don’t have anything to do. It isn’t like they were interesting characters in the first movie to start, but they had purpose. Julie Walters doesn’t do much either, but she can just light up any scene with one line. Hugh Grant plays the villain of this movie, a former Shakesperean actor, and he’s having a good time hamming it up. Like Nicole Kidman, it’s an intentionally over-the-top character, and Grant performs it impeccably. As far as the supporting cast is concerned, this film is a who’s who of British actors and comedians. If you’ve watched any British television you’ll recognize someone. Of course, there’s the always great Brendan Gleeson in a significant part, but the film also features Jessica Hynes, Ben Miller, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Joanna Lumley, Noah Taylor, Meera Syal, Richard Ayoade, and even Dame Eileen Atkins. Recently retired Doctor Who Peter Capaldi plays the abrasive paranoid neighbour very enjoyably, and Jim Broadbent as the antiques owner delightfully affects the same comical German accent he used in Blackadder’s Christmas Carol.
Besides all that talent, it’s just really refreshing to have a family movie that’s in no way manipulative. So many films for kids try to stick in a reference or innuendo where it’s not needed, or pander to that audience with cheap tricks and gags. Disney and Pixar do this a little; DreamWorks as of late, and especially Sony and Illumination do this a lot. But Paddington 2 avoids those pitfalls and is really humble. There’s an honesty to this movies’ intentions and even though not always a lot of effort, it’s made with care. Yeah the writing’s not great, it’s very predictable and contrived, the barest of character arcs are a little awkward, few are really three-dimensional characters to begin with, and it bends the laws of physics a few too many times; but through all this it’s as charming and innocent and unwaveringly sweet as the first movie -and honestly that’s enough for Paddington Bear. Michael Bond would be proud.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more