Post by epicgordan on Jan 15, 2018 20:51:30 GMT -5
Maybe this could attract attention on Google Search.
So for MLK weekend, I decided to review Paddington 2. And in a world where nearly every single kids movie nowadays seem interchangeably similar unless they're made by Pixar or Naika, it is always a bit of a blessing to witness a hybrid film in which the animated main protagonist is a charming, well-mannered protagonist.
And for those of you who are not terribly familiar with the first film, you don't really need to see it in order to enjoy Paddington 2; other than the prologue that directly ties into the first movie, Paddington 2 can be enjoyed safely on its own. The Paddington films are based on a series of children's books that are a bit of a staple in British culture. It isn't as well received over here in the US because pop culture over here has been corrupted by a nasty fixture of politics, nihilism, and cynicism. We've become quite the crass and vulgar bunch in a matter of decades. But regardless, it has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and held on to it heading overseas.
Be as it may though, Paddington 2 is pretty much the same as the first movie--perfectly serviceable family fair. In fact, I dare say that I much rather kids see that film than just about any other movie tailor made for them in the last decade or so. For one thing, Paddington is a solid role model, and the world of Paddington 2 is eerily an Idealistic Fantasy.
An Idealistic Fantasy as I like to call it isn't necessarily a Fantasy per se; it merely is a narrative device set in and revolving around a highly idealized version of the world that we wish was real. It can be a fantasy--as is debatably the case with Paddington, but as a Low Fantasy at best--but they merely serve as an escape from a stressful and uncertain world and into one that is far more pleasant by contrast. For example, the world of Ferris Bueller revolves around a guy who doesn't have to answer to his parents or teachers and can skip school and travel all over the city and get away with it.
Of course, I don't really talk about many of the things like effects, plot, or acting because all they really need to do is be serviceable, and perhaps witty--and whatever nonsense we see here can be as perfectly acceptable as, well, the world of Paddington pretty much taking for granted that Paddington is an anthropomorphic bear from Peru. We pretty much had a hint of this in the first film when the Browns family were looking for Paddington, and they go to the police and give them a description. In spite being really easy to find, they pretty much treat it like a generic description of a generic-looking individual.
Actually, a lot of humor in the Paddington, when it isn't a mixture of physical slapstick involving Paddington being clumsy, or the occasional gross-out, it's a series of homages to scenes from various silent comedies but mixed with a shrug like it's just an average Thursday. It is kind of funny that in spite being a bear, and in spite his Aunt Lucy also being a bear, the bear thing seems to be a mere aesthetic to appease children, and ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things. They're pretty much people and nothing more (so much so that not only is Aunt Lucy 100 years old, which is really old even for a human being, and thus impossibly old for a bear; but are also roughly the same height as humans).
It's kind of like why I don't ask questions about the worlds of Cars, or Disney's Robin Hood, or Arthur the Aardvark. I know why they are the way that they are, and the question of why or how need not really apply. Between the two movies, only two people ever really acknowledge Paddington as a bear rather than a person--one was Nicole Kidman's character from the first movie, who actually had the backstory involving Paddington's relatives--and Dr. Who, who is suspicious, if not straight-up prejudiced, of Paddington and is a generally unpleasant human being because of this.
Okay, I'll kill the clunky purple prose here. The plot of the movie is that Paddington finds a pop-up picture book of London in a thrift store run by Jim Broadbent, and decides to save up money by becoming a window cleaner--and the logic that led to Paddington deciding on this specific career choice concerning the scene he settles for this seems deliberately out-of-nowhere, as if it's supposed to be an amusing little British twist. But I digress. After saving the money, he tries to make the purchase, but finds somebody stealing the book, and he ends up being framed for the theft and sentenced to ten years of prison from a judge Paddington had an unintentionally bad encounter with earlier on in the movie.
So most of the movie involves Paddington in prison, and after a couple days of generally screwing up, he finds himself on the good side of the prison chef, who all the other prisoners and even the prison guards are horrified of, and ends up working for him. And with his general good manners, Paddington ultimately found himself piercing Chef Nuckles' hard exterior and a masculine-fueled inferiority complex (which is pretty much all a product of character rather than anything backstory-driven), he wins over the prison.
Okay, none of that would ever happen in real life--in fact, in a prison like this, Paddington would become an even bigger target, even with this perpetual fear of Chef Nuckles, who made it clear that he would protect Paddington. But it doesn't even matter because it's so outrageously silly that we kind of sort of wish the world around us was just like this one.
Also, the main reason why the prison uniforms are pink and black is because of a scene where Paddington unintentionally mixed a red sock with all the prison clothes in the laundry. Just an fyi.
So, no, there is no depth. But it is simple, and effective. And definitely family friendly. 7 out of 10, though I'd bump it up to an 8 or 9 as far as family entertainment goes.