Skip to main content

Sony's Peter Rabbit; or Paddington Done Wrong


I haven’t thought much about Beatrix Potter’s Peter Rabbit stories since I was read them as a small child. But I remember liking how cute and charming they were for basic morality tales, as well as the quaint little world they created. Potter (who was also interestingly enough a mycologist) was a pioneer of picture books and Peter Rabbit arguably the first great English childrens’ character.
So obviously it was upsetting to see a movie coming out that looked by all accounts to be a complete bastardization of one of the most esteemed bodies of work in childrens’ literature. Walt Disney once attempted to get the rights to Peter Rabbit, but Potter refused. So Sony decided to prove that her fears were well-placed.
After doing away with the rabbit-eating farmer Mr. McGregor (Sam Neill), Peter Rabbit (James Corden) is stunned by the arrival of his great-nephew Thomas (Domhnall Gleeson), who wants to refurbish the place and sell it off so he can afford his own shop in London. As Thomas begins an awkward relationship with an artist and friend of the rabbits called Bea (Rose Byrne)-get it?!-, Peter and the other rabbits harass him in their quest to get food from his garden.
Barring the character names, this movie bears very little resemblance to Potters’ stories. The pastoral innocence and sweetness is replaced with gross marketability and pop culture references. Being set in a modern era gives the film an excuse to play the characters as slick, witty rebels -the kind of cool millennial-friendly protagonists created by formula and focus groups. However it’s egregiously lazy writing and often awkward to watch. There are so many obnoxious choices that clearly come from a similar need to pander to a demographic, such as the constant use of pop songs and the characters dancing or acting over them. The plot of the movie, which these characters are supposed to carry, is half generic British romantic comedy (like a particularly poor imitation of a Richard Curtis film), and half typical“animals vs. humans” comedy in the unfortunate vein of MouseHunt, Over the Hedge, or Furry Vengeance (all of which you probably forgot existed until now). And neither of these is done particularly well.
The romance is the more preferable of the plot-lines if only because it puts the human characters front and centre. Thomas, though written poorly, is technically the villain for most of the movie; and while he is intended to be sympathetic to a degree, he actually is a lot more likeable than the hero. While his ultimate goal is petty, that’s kind of all he is: petty and OCD. Considering he has no desire to cook rabbit pies like his predecessor, all he wants is to keep the wildlife out of his home and garden, which is entirely reasonable. I understand the filmmakers want to have the obvious reconciliation of hero and villain that so many of these movies have done before, but the problem it creates is it makes Peters’ antagonism almost completely unjustified. His reason for harassing Thomas is never strong enough to withstand how undeserved Thomas’ punishments are. And ultimately they’re both framed as characters who have to learn a lesson. Domhnall Gleeson is really trying though, realizing the necessity to play this part a little over-the-top (though strangely not as over-the-top as in Star Wars). Still, for someone who recently starred in Goodbye Christopher Robin, another movie about a famous British childrens’ character, he really should know better. His nemesis, the title character, if I haven’t made clear is pretty annoying. This isn’t helped by the fact he’s voiced by James Corden, who can be entertaining, but only in small doses. Peter Rabbit in essence is Corden’s star vehicle, and most of the characters’ screen-time is a testament to his habit of trying too hard. His sisters Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail are voiced astonishingly by Elizabeth Debicki, Margot Robbie, and Daisy Ridley, all of whom are far above this material. Rose Byrne is alright, though she’s definitely aware she’s the least interesting character. I wanted more of Sam Neill and his weird Scottish accent, and instead got a depressing Marianne Jean-Baptiste cameo.
While most of the humour in this film completely misses its mark or is obnoxiously overdone slapstick, I will admit there were a couple good jokes, the best being a running gag from a rooster. The sisters have slightly more interesting personalities than Peter and I got a laugh or two from them as well. It’s worth noting too that the animation on the rabbits is very good, emphasizing their cuteness to the point every child watching this movie is going to want a pet rabbit immediately after. The best thing in the movie is a short scene early on (and a reprisal in the end credits) that exposits the backstory of the rabbits. Bea’s paintings, of course, are the beautiful illustrations from the books (which is laughable considering her non-rabbit work bears no resemblance whatsoever); and so their origin is told through really nice animation in Potters’ style with the grace of a less violent Watership Down. This is how the movie should have been told!
Going into Peter Rabbit I had extremely low expectations, and the film didn’t meet them. It was still awful, with badly written characters, severely unfunny jokes, a ton of plot holes (it’s notably inconsistent whether the humans can understand the rabbits or not), and you can feel the corporate statistics controlling many aspects of the final product; but it’s not quite rock bottom. However just a few weeks ago I saw Paddington 2, and everything that film did right this one does wrong. It has no sense of the spirit or charm of the original material and is completely dependent on the typical modes of manipulation in bad family films that the Paddington movies so wonderfully shed. I can’t say I’m surprised, but Beatrix Potter deserved better.
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