Paddington in Peru Is Missing the Magic of the First Two Films [Review]

This review of Paddington in Peru contains spoilers.

What is art? Probably not the question you expected to find at the beginning of a review for Paddington in Peru, the third film in the much-beloved series of Paddington movies. After all, this is just a series of kids’ movies created to entertain children.

Of course, anyone who has seen Paul King’s Paddington and Paddington 2 knows that is not the case. The two films are two of the most finely crafted, thematically rich, and quietly powerful movies made since the turn of the century, and those that still dismiss them as nothing but children’s fare are missing out. Not just two of the most charming films ever made, both movies are packed with meaning about belonging, family, immigration, and the power of love but in such a way that they never feel tacky or campy. This isn’t to mention King’s prolific talents as a director who can capture so much with a single, perfect shot. These two films are, without a doubt, back-to-back miracles of movie-making.

Given that high praise, it may come as no surprise that Paddington in Peru, which sees Dougal Wilson take over for King in the director’s seat, is just not as good. Let’s be clear, Paddington 3‘s biggest failure is simply not being either of its predecessors. It’s not especially fair to judge a movie based on the films that came before it, especially when said predecessors are universally agreed upon to be two of the best children’s films ever made, but it is only natural. On its own, it’s easy to say that Paddington in Peru, which sees Paddington (Ben Wishaw) and the Brown family travel to deepest, darkest Peru to save his aunt, is a good kids’ movie but within the context of the trilogy, it is sadly the weakest.

What appears to have gone missing in King’s absence (he still helped write the screenplay) is that little bit of magic that elevated the first two films above and that bit of magic is missing from almost every aspect. Direction is the most obvious, as Wilson’s style is far more blunt and comedic than King, who played the absurdity of a talking bear straight. His style feels more comical and it isn’t bad to look at but it robs the movie of some of its emotional heft, despite the film’s conclusion eventually packing a solid punch.

This shifts over to the characters as well as the Brown family seem to have become caricatures of themselves in a way that they never were in the previous films. Mr. Brown’s (Hugh Bonneville) turn as a rule-obsessed insurance adjuster feels like it’s simply rehashing the previous film’s character arch and is executed poorly. Both of the Brown children (Samuel Joslin and Madeline Harris) are woefully underused and clearly have aged out of the parts by now. And while one should never complain about getting more Emily Mortimer in one’s life, she can’t quite take the place of Sally Hawkins as Ms. Brown. They feel like the paper characters of a traditional children’s film rather than the family we came to embrace in the first two movies.

The character drop-off is present with the villains as well. The first two films allowed Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant, respectively, to bite into grandiose roles as villains. Paddington in Peru carries on the tradition of landing big names to play larger-than-life baddies by casting both Olivia Coleman as a meddling nun and Antonio Banderas as a gold-crazed tour guide. Both actors absolutely cherish the roles, taking big, campy swings and delivering wonderfully. However, while the villains are still arch this time it’s played for comedy not pathos. The secret level underneath that made the first two films feel so human is missing.

As noted, this is all not to say that Paddington in Peru is a bad movie. The film’s plethora of set pieces are a joy to watch and the plot does finally get to a fantastic conclusion for this trilogy (if this is indeed a conclusion). Watching Paddington in Peru will definitely entertain children and it is a blast to watch for parents too, even if it can’t instill the same emotional magic that the first to do. Ben Wishaw still delivers a pitch-perfect Paddington and while the heart may not be as strong it is still there. This is still a Paddington movie, it’s just not as good. It is what you would assume a good movie based on Paddington would be if you didn’t know just how much better it could be.

This brings us back to the question we opened with: what is art? I would argue that this trilogy shows us the difference between art and content. This may sound harsh, but Paddington in Peru just isn’t art. Art is something that’s lifted above itself to mean something more or be something more. With his first two films, Paddington became art, but we can see now that he can also just be a bear on a big screen telling a fun story.