Paddington In Peru (2024) Review

Quick Synopsis: A bear goes to a certain South American country to go meet with his adoptive mother. I can’t remember which country though, or the name of the bear.

Paddington In Peru (Or PIP, which is pronounced the only way you can pronounce it, but in a lilting tone) was a special occasion for me. I didn’t catch the first two at the cinema because I assumed they were standard kids’ films. I, of course, now know better and can appreciate their genius. So PIP was the first one I caught at the cinema, and I’m very glad I did. There was concern that the team would be different. Paul King wasn’t directing due to his Wonka commitments, Sally Hawkins would not be returning (but her character would), and neither would Peter Capaldi or Michael Gambon, the latter due to being a bit busy with that whole “no longer being alive” trend that’s so popular among the favourite celebrities of my youth.

I’ll assuage those fears now; PIP is very good. It’s not quite as good as the first two movies, but very few films are. If you weren’t aware there was a change behind the scenes, it wouldn’t be noticeable. The film is still charming, still very funny with few joke opportunities missed, and still weird. The Paddington movies exist in their own universe. They have a definite FEEL to them. They feel like musicals where everybody is too busy to sing. There’s a sense of playfulness and visual music which a new director would need to stick to. Dougal Wilson continues the tradition set down by Paul King. The universe of PIP is the same one established in the first two. Essentially, it’s a universe that you’d find in a cliche terrible 1970s sitcom, where every “I’m glad nobody saw that” is followed by a bus driving by. That doesn’t happen in real life, mainly because our bus services are practically useless. So you have to go in expecting silliness. But it would also seem very out of place if characters started levitating and time-travelling to solve their problems. It’s a tricky balancing act between realism and silliness, which these films manage perfectly.

The replacement of Mary Brown is much more noticeable. Sally Hawkins is deeply missed in these films. Well, she would be if Emily Mortimer wasn’t so damn good. Both performers play the character similarly, but each brings something unique to the part. Eventually, you do get used to the differences, but it does take a few minutes to adjust.

I do wish more of the neighbours returned, although I’m not sure how that would have happened. Some of them are there in the opening, but it feels more like an obligation to fans than genuine. As it is, I can’t really see a way they could be in it without it seeming jarring, but still. That might be because there are not quite as many notable replacements. There’s Olivia Colman, who people keep forgetting is REALLY good at comedy. Antonio Banderas is a lot of fun, but I do kind of wish he was Pedro Pascal. Banderas does handle the emotional moments PERFECTLY though, so props to him for that. Rachel Zegler was originally cast in PIP, and I have been impressed in the few films I’ve seen her in so far (Shazam! Fury Of The Gods as reviewed here, and the Hunger Games prequel as reviewed here), so I have no doubt that she would have fit perfectly into the Paddington universe. She was replaced (due to Zegler’s participation in the 2023 SAG-AFRTA strike, on the side of the strikers, because Zegler is awesome) by Carla Tous. Carla Tous doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and I haven’t even heard of anything she’s been in, let alone watched it. That doesn’t matter, as I LOVE her performance in this. I think she’s better than Zegler would have been, mainly because Zegler would feel too confident. Tous’s performance is full of worry and sadness, and that’s forever etched on her face and in her vocal performance. It’s strange that in a film starring Olivia Colman (one of THE best performers in the world), I was most impressed with a performer who is a complete stranger to me. I really hope to see her in more stuff in the future, very impressive.

In summary, I loved this movie. Is it the best movie of the year? Nope. But it is probably the one I want to go back to most. It’s just so damn charming. I’m a cynical and miserable person most of the time, and I like it when films manage to break through that.

Wonka (2023) Review

Quick Synopsis: It’s a Willy Wonka prequel, do you need a synopsis?

I will admit, I went into this knowing there was a chance that it would end up being terrible. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely ADORE the Paddington movies, I think they’re genuinely two of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. But I didn’t know that much about Paddington, so I had no preconceived notions of what the character should be. Wonka’s different, I’ve read the book (and the sequel), watched both of the films, and really enjoyed one of them. So I already knew the character, I had an idea in my head of what he was like, and the tone. Where the Depp one went wrong (in my opinion) is it just made him weird and kooky, lacking the (weird description but it makes sense to me) sociopathic kindness of the character. The trailer did not ease my worries; I know Chalamet is a good performer, but I just don’t buy him as Wonka. My rule for Wonka is this; can I imagine them playing The Doctor? If so, they’re a good fit (and vice versa). Chalamet feels like he’s trying too hard. It always feels like he’s acting as Wonka, it never feels like he completely disappears into the role and becomes him. It’s not helped by the fact that his singing isn’t the strongest, which isn’t great for a musical.

It’s a shame because apart from that, this is a great watch. The songs are catchy as hell and instantly feel familiar. That’s probably helped by how even in Paddington, Paul King directed everything with a sense of rhythm so that everything flowed together and created a sense that you were in a musical. So really, an actual musical was the next logical step. Importantly, the songs don’t overshadow the narrative, there aren’t any moments where it feels like they spent 4 minutes singing about something they could have said in 10 seconds, the songs all have a purpose; either driving the narrative forward, introducing a character etc.

Much like Paddington, the supporting cast is a delight. Paul King has always had a talent for putting random British comedy performers in small roles, and thus, making those characters memorable. That continues here, with one-scene characters played by Charlotte Richie, Phil Wang, Isy Suttie etc. Even the main “villains” are mostly unknown outside of the UK; people will know Olivia Colman and might know Matt Lucas from Bake Off, but I don’t think performers like Matthew Baynton or Rakhee Thakrar can be considered mainstream names, even in the UK. But none of them are weak links. Special mention must go to young American actress Calah Lane, who outshines the aforementioned Chalamet at every moment. I hope she goes on to do something special, as she definitely has the potential to do something amazing.

This film is lucky, because of the universe it’s created, it allows things which could sink other films. Gaps in logic, contrived coincidences, things existing just for silly reasons. They don’t matter as much in this as they do in say Good Burger 2 (spoilers for that review btw).

So in summary, this is completely predictable, overstuffed with cliches, and also unbelievably fantastic.

Surge (2020)

They say you only get one chance to make a good first impression. This is very true (maybe only for me) when it comes to actors. It doesn’t matter how many serious films Olivia Coleman is in, I will always see her as Sophie from Peep Show. That kind of thing hit this film HARD, I know Ben Whishaw is a great actor, with a tremendous filmography. But to me he will always be Pingu from Nathan Barley, or Paddington. This is an action film, and to have the shadow of Paddington loom over it means the film is a strange watch.

Strange, but interesting. There are moments where nothing happens, which can be dull as hell to watch. In reality it’s strangely enthralling. It’s like watching a car crash in super slow motion. You know something awful is going to happen, and you know what it will be, but despite knowing it won’t be happening yet, you still can’t turn away, you want to watch every single second unfold in front of you.

I’m still not sure what I thought of it to be honest. It’s not an easy watch, but it’s not supposed to be. For some reason it feels almost voyeuristic. It kind of feels like you’re not watching a film, but like someone has just got their phone out and started to film a guy having a breakdown. That gritty invasive style won’t be for everybody, and some people will really love it. It’s the kind of style which splits reviewer ratings to either be 9/10 or 1/10, or somehow both at the same time.

I’m not even sure whether I can recommend this. It’s unrelentingly brutal. But not in a “everybody is in constant physical pain” way, more, like the universe itself is painful to live in. Part of that is due to the directing, this is the first feature-length film directed by Aneil Karia, and he does it brilliantly. The script? Not so much, there are too many moments where you are just kind of bored. I feel it could have done with either being cut down, or by adding moments where stuff happens to keep you interested. It depends too heavily on the performances and the directing, if it wasn’t for that it would sink without a trace. Thankfully the performances are great. Whishaw is intense as hell, worlds away from the cuddliness of Paddington or the the knowledge of Q. I just wish the world was as good as his character. It’s fascinating as a character study, to watch someone get broken and get constantly criticised (at one point, for swallowing too loudly) until he eventually just snaps. It’s a character that’s deserving of much more captivating story.

So should you watch this? I’m still not sure to be honest, I’d say watch it if you get a chance, but no need to seek it out. Shame as from a technical standpoint it is great, but it’s lacking so much from a storytelling perspective. Put it this way: I would much rather listen to a soundscape based on this film, than I would read a book adaptation.