The third instalment in the marmalade-stuffed, national treasure franchise was always going to struggle to follow up the almost cult-like following of its predecessor, however, this is a vast downgrade in quality. Paddington in Peru sees the return of the lovable bear who has embraced British culture after seven years. This time noticeably without the first two films writer/director Paul King, who made last year’s Wonka instead. This time the director’s chair is helmed by Dougal Wilson in his feature film debut. As the title suggests, the film sees Paddington return to his homeland of Deepest, Darkest Peru after receiving a worrying letter from Olivia Coleman’s all-singing and dancing Mother Superior at the Home for Retired Bears saying that Aunt Lucy has been acting strange recently.
Meanwhile in London, the Browns are growing up and growing apart. Jonathon Brown is in his teenage phase, ‘chilling’ in his very dark room, Judy is about to fly the nest as she begins looking at universities as far away as possible. Mr Brown is trying to embrace risk, whilst Mary, played by Emily Mortimer this time rather than Sally Hawkins, is reminiscing about when everyone fit on the sofa. So when they receive a letter from Olivia Coleman’s Nun it feels like the perfect opportunity to leave their perfectly uniform and idyllic version of London for Peru, a way to bring the family closer together and for Mr Brown to prove that he can embrace risk.
The opening of the film feels much the same, opening up and expanding the origin of Paddington. The young bear is on the hunt for oranges, with red flowers in place for his iconic hat before he is swept away down a river before being saved by Aunt Lucy. It is an opening that feels like it contains the same charm and warm aroma that emanates from the first two films. However, what I quickly realised was this was a mere pastiche of the Paul King Paddington films. A studio-mandated project that loses the key ingredients that make the franchise so iconic and perfect for all ages. It is like a cake without raising agent, it may have many of the same components but there is something distinctly missing – even to the untrained eye.
The first major misstep seems to be the decision to move Paddington out of his found home in London. The capital is one of the key and most important elements. The charm of Paddington is that he is an outsider who transforms it from its dreary state into a brighter and kinder world. In the second film, there is a wonderful scene where Paddington is cleaning a neighbour's window and suddenly loads of light enters the room which elevates his moody and stressed attitude. London in the films is an idealised version and purposefully so, it is a London that embraces the values Paddington holds, the quintessential British values, being polite, kind, helpful and inquisitive. So by taking Paddington out of London loses his journey as someone who was once a fish out of water but is now an influential and key member of the community.
Indeed Paddington’s influence is lost almost completely here. Whilst he has the odd anecdotal phrase, there is nothing as pertinent and heartwarming as a line such as in the previous film “If we’re kind and polite, the world will be right”, these statements that Paddington stubbornly lives by despite the situation he is in. Yet here, there are a couple of different examples that I frankly can’t remember because they have little impact on the narrative or the characters of which there are very few in the uninhabited Amazonian rainforest. Meanwhile, the Browns don’t seem to evolve much or come closer as a family either.
Sadly, it is mostly green-screen fodder. Peru is mostly full of out-of-focus backgrounds, or wading through the rainforest. It is without the atmospheric cosiness of Windsor Gardens which projects an almost Christmas spirit, one where it feels perfect to watch snuggled up on the sofa next to a warm fire in the middle of winter. Instead, Paddington in Peru feels like the sort of film you’d expect to be made when the films were first announced, harmless but uninspired kid-friendly films without much in the way of character.
The film is fluffy and without substance. Like candy floss, it is pink and bright but under its guise, it shrinks into nothing. It is sugary, and heavily catered to children this time, it is a film without a thematic purpose. Whilst there are some moments of physical comedy – a particular one with a photo booth is a highlight, these are few and far between. For the most part, it is a painfully predictable and dull adventure film, with mild peril and no stakes, without the brief moments of Paddington losing faith.
Towards the end, there is a moment where the film discusses found family. It asks what is more important, your blood relatives or the family you make along the way. This seems perfect and the most obvious avenue for a film about Paddington returning to his homeland, however, this feels tacked on, an addendum to the already finished film. And even then the choice of viewpoint feels a little bit botched.
Sadly, the Paddington franchise, with the Paul King films being some of my favourite feel-good films, feels tarnished with this third instalment. It feels like a straight-to-DVD afterthought, whilst set in Peru, it feels like it was shot in a few days on a greenscreen studio in Watford. Whilst it has its moments it is without much of the charm and influential kindness of what makes the Paddington films so special. If this film was marmalade, it would most certainly be Tesco own-brand.
Comments