140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW
Formulaic, unnecessary CG update of classic kids book hugely surpasses expectations with loving & artistic presentation. Enjoyable & cute…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Paddington:
On the face of it, just another ill-advised modern update of every intellectual property that unimaginative filmmakers could scrape up instead of coming up with original ideas. And it is – the movie really didn’t need to be made. But since they did make it, at least they were good enough to make a decent job of it.
If you are getting the sense that I’m conflicted about this one, good. It means I’m at least managing to communicate my unease clearly. I hate that they made this film. I really do. Paddington is a great character in a series of lovely and beloved children’s books. While the character was never one hugely popular in my house growing up or with my own child, there’s no real intent there. There are thankfully a ton of great children’s books out there and this series just slipped through the cracks I guess. I vaguely remember reading a few of the stories to my nephew and they’re wonderful.
All by way of saying that I don’t have any particular bone to pick; they haven’t trod on sacred ground in my case, but I have enough respect for the legions of fans of the character to be at least a little indignant on their behalf.
I don’t know what this impulse to adapt every single successful character ever created for Hollywood is all about but I strongly suspect it rhymes with greed. And sounds like greed. Exactly like greed. It is greed.
There are some unbelievably talented writers out there with truly original stories – go find them. Now. I’ll wait. Seriously. I’d be willing to wait quite a bit. There’s no rule stating how many films you must release every year. I’d cheerfully, gratefully, accept fewer films if they were fresher stories.
The problem isn’t strictly that adapting previously written characters for the screen is lazy and lacking in ambition. The far bigger issue is the perceived necessity to make these characters now fit some pre-configured mold for feature films. It’s entirely possible to adapt works in ways that honor the source material and don’t slavishly adhere to a set formula. If you’re so hot to update Paddington for the modern cg-expecting audience, why not make it into a TV show? Or create a feature that tells several short vignettes. You really don’t need to fabricate a story that injects peril so that it can fit into your “90 minute kid movie” template.
And now we come to it. There is a perception that all films must have arcs that place the characters in peril. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know how many kids movies have been ruined by the intentional ramping up of villains and dangerous situations in an effort to create a narrative, but it’s not a small number.
Those of you who know the original stories better than I can feel free to correct me, but I don’t remember any villains in the series. There certainly wasn’t some mad Australian taxidermist after poor Paddington’s hide in anything I read. It’s a deeply disturbing premise. (In fact, I’ll risk spoiling things by warning tall people that Paddington, in addition to not having parents, loses the uncle that raised him within the first ten minutes. Definite potential for upsetting little ones.)
You don’t need to make every kids story dangerous. I simply refuse to accept that there are children out there who read the Paddington books and said “Mummy, you know what would make this story even better? If I were truly concerned that Paddington might be skinned. Otherwise, what’s the point of all this? The story doesn’t move.”
Other than that plotline, the story, the characters, the family dynamic – it’s all about what you’d expect – the whole thing is so formulaic. But it is all redeemed by the loving artistic touches. The whole movie in fact is saved because of art direction and visuals. Not the CG realistic visuals either, although they are really top shelf if completely lost in the helter skelter action. Paddington as a bear is a marvelous accomplishment and it’s too bad that this sort of thing isn’t really noteworthy at this point. In 2015 these visuals are de rigeur; that doesn’t make them any bit less impressive. It is some masterful design and execution.
No, I’m talking about the creative use of flourishes that bring the whole production up in the eyes of the audience. The filmmakers earned my respect the hard way, frame by frame. No quarter was asked – they earned it, the obvious attention to detail and love and care for the work forcing me to take note of their accomplishments. They made it clear that this may be a trifle but they were damn well going to squeeze some value out of it.
The acting is fine, nothing to write home about but solid. There’s an unusually large number of harry potter alums which seemed a bit odd until I found out that the film was produced by series vet David Heyman.
Ben Whishaw, so excellent as the new Q in the recent Bond films is wonderful as the voice of Paddington. The part was originally cast with Colin Firth, but as the production developed, everyone involved realized they needed something else, probably someone more youthful, and it was absolutely the right call.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter Capaldi pop up, since I wasn’t expecting him. He’s funny – he’s Capaldi – but the fact remains that the character could have been excised completely and you’d never miss him. I know the character of Mr. Curry, the disapproving neighbor is in the books, so I guess they had to include him, but he’s really surplus to the story. (Although just seeing him entering a red phone box is fairly amusing.)
As for Nicole Kidman’s turn as the taxidermist, the less said the better.
My daughter and I went to go see Paddington because we were having a special night out together and wanted to see a movie. I somewhat reluctantly picked it over Spongebob, bemoaning the lack of good family films out there and was quite pleasantly surprised by how enjoyable it was. Pleasant in fact is a very appropriate word for it – very British. It’s good, you’ll enjoy it. And then you’ll never think of it again.
Poster:
Trailer:
http://youtu.be/hllfotbbQ3U
Bechdel Test:
Pass
The Representation Test Score: B (7 pts)
(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)
| Main Cast | Hugh Bonneville Henry Brown, Sally Hawkins Mary Brown, Julie Walters Mrs. Bird, Jim Broadbent Mr. Gruber |
| Rating | PG |
| Release Date | Fri 16 Jan 2015 UTC |
| Director | Paul King |
| Genres | Comedy, Family |
| Plot | A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven. |
| Poster |  |
| Runtime | 95 |
| Tagline | Please look after this bear. Thank you |
| Writers | Paul King (written by), Hamish McColl (screen story) … |
| Year | 2014 |
