22/47
If you’re looking for another film of this kind, this isn’t it
Tale
Paddington returns to Peru to visit his beloved Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears. With the Brown family in tow, a thrilling adventure begins when a mystery throws them on an unexpected journey. The director of the previous two films, Paul King, chose not to direct this installment. However, he came up with the idea for this third film and was involved as an executive producer. Follows Paddington (2014). The first two Paddington films are an absolute delight, with quirky but believable elements and a heartwarming plot that is very reminiscent of Wes Anderson’s films, but also unique in its own way.
But it’s absolutely worth watching
The film may not be as solid as its predecessors, but it’s not really comparable either because it’s very different. When I heard that the big names we associate with the Paddington films wouldn’t all be back, I was pretty worried about how the third one would turn out. The first part of the film seems pretty shaky. It tries to repeat the first two films, but there’s a different crew working on it. Towards the end, it finds its footing and seems much more confident. The computer animation isn’t as effective in this film.
That the jungle was pristine and clearly studio shot was a little jarring
It aims for a crisp, clean, cinematic look, but the first two had so much charm, with the subtle grain and edge blurring really making it look like Paddington was there. While it looks good on the big screen, it’s not necessarily realistic or aesthetically pleasing. It was hard to immerse yourself in a world that looked too pristine and well-lit. It felt like the characters were in a film studio and we as viewers shouldn’t be able to tell – the actors might be, but CGI and studio sets can be used so effectively that it’s not noticeable at all. The plot is definitely the best of the trilogy, it’s just a shame that the film didn’t quite know what to do with it. The other two films didn’t have great storylines, but they were executed so fantastically that despite everything I would argue that they are some of the best and most creative films ever made – they go beyond a superficial plot and have far more important things like family and friendship.
It’s not bad
It’s a shame that a lot of elements were recycled. The film failed to be unique and instead clumsily tried to stay true to its source material. We didn’t need recurring umbrellas, nuns, slightly wacky antagonists etc., just the preservation of family and togetherness and the core themes of Paddington. In this film there was less focus on family. The most annoying thing was that all the new characters looked and acted pretty much the same (except for the ghosts, as they are meant to be that way for humorous effect). Despite its flaws, this is a film you should definitely watch.
In fact, it’s a great film
But it’s also nothing like the first two. It’s so refreshing to see a film so beautifully made, and we can hope for more Paddington films. This film just needed more confidence in its idea, and even if the next films aren’t made by the same crew, maybe they’ll bring strength with their own unique approach.
دیدگاه خود را درج کنید