‘Paddington in Peru’ Review: If You Loved ‘Paddington 2,’ We Have Bear-y Bad News

There are lots of bad movies in the world. A lot of mediocre movies as well. And quite a few good-to-great ones. But there’s only one “Paddington 2,” which is literally one of the best-reviewed motion pictures in history. While not everybody thinks “Paddington 2” is one of the best movies ever made, per se, quite a lot of people kinda do. And even the ones who don’t have largely come to the conclusion that it’s sweet and fun.

Ordinarily, the idea of making a sequel to one of the best movies ever made would be a little anxiety-inducing, since how could lightning possibly strike twice? But “Paddington 2” is “Paddington 2.” There’s literally a “2” in the title. This “Peru” adventure is a sequel to a great movie that people not only liked more than the original, but is now one of the most celebrated movies of all-time. If any threequel could live up to its predecessors, or at least do them justice, surely it would be “Paddington in Peru.”

So it’s deeply unfortunate that “Paddington in Peru” stinks. It’s exactly the kind of bland, forgettable dreck that we probably all expected the “Paddington” movies to be in the first place, before they wowed us and raised our expectations. The new film has some heart, but it’s buried beneath a lot of hackneyed writing and tedious padding. Like, a ton of padding. A padding ton.

“Paddington in Peru” begins with Paddington (Ben Whishaw) becoming a British citizen. No, we don’t understand how this slipped through their citizenship laws either. He still lives with the Browns, a shockingly functional family with an adorable house in London. He’s no longer a complete fish-out-of-water either. Good for him, but bad for us, since it means the comedic engine that powers this series is almost completely out of gas. 

There’s nothing for Paddington to do in his new home, so “Paddington in Peru” — as the title suggests — sends him back to his old one. The Reverend Mother (Olivia Colman), who runs a Home for Retired Bears, writes to inform him his beloved Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) is down in the dumps, so Paddington and the Browns pack up and go to South America. (If you’re wondering what’s up with the Browns these days, they don’t spend as much time together as they used to — oh, to have such problems — and also Mary, who used to look like Sally Hawkins, now looks just like Emily Mortimer.)

When they get to Peru, Paddington is horrified to discover that Aunt Lucy has gone missing, in search of a mysterious treasure in the jungle. So it’s up to Paddington, Mary, Henry (Hugh Bonneville) and the rest of the Browns to find her. Along the way they pick up a guide named Cabot (Antonio Banderas), who comes from a long line of gold-hungry colonialists who died searching for El Dorado. Cabot still wrestles with what Scrooge McDuck used to call “gold fever” — which will be important later, in a villain-of-the-week sort of way.

Then a bunch of stuff happens. Like, it’s all just “stuff.” The Browns get dragged into the rapids. They get lost in the jungle. Paddington solves puzzles to track down Aunt Lucy and the gold. Meanwhile, the Reverend Mother keeps assuring them that nothing about her exceptionally suspicious Home for Retired Bears is suspicious. Not at all. No siree, Bob. 

None of it matters and none of it’s funny — two bad tastes that taste worse together. “Paddington in Peru” decides at the last minute to claim that this movie was about Paddington deciding whether he belongs in Peru or in London, but that was never in doubt. Not for a second. It only comes up in conversation one time, suggested by someone else, not Paddington.

Paddington and the Browns actually get along famously the whole movie. The Browns themselves have nothing to achieve and nowhere to grow, except for Henry a smidge, since he works in insurance and doesn’t like risks. Hey, now he’s gotta take a few risks. Meh.

“Paddington in Peru” leaves the fish-out-of-water gags at home, so again, there’s not much to laugh about. Instead, the humor is replaced with pulpy adventuring. Because that’s what everyone loved about these movies, the “Indiana Jones” riffs.

This isn’t the first sequel to desperately transplant its characters into a tropical or jungle locale, and it isn’t the best. Then again, the competition includes “Weekend at Bernie’s II,” “Speed 2: Cruise Control” and “Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise,” so it isn’t the worst either. Let’s just split the difference and call it bear-to-middling. To quote the great fictional studio executive of “Three Amigos,” Harry Flugelman: “We strayed from the formula, and we paid the price!” 

Paul King directed the first two “Paddington” movies, but I guess he’s busy these days — he directed last year’s “Wonka” and is set for “Wonka 2” (along with “Prince Charming”) — so “Paddington in Peru” is helmed by Dougal Wilson. It’s his feature debut, coming out of the music video and commercial worlds, and the dim results don’t seem to be his fault.

It’s the grueling script — penned by Mark Burton, Jon Foster and James Lamont — that drags this movie down. It’s all generic family movie claptrap, a series of events that happen one right after the other, giving the heroes an excuse to end up in situations they normally wouldn’t… even though there’s no good reason for any of it to happen at all. 

Well, there’s one reason. But it’s not a good one. If you look carefully, you can see a dark shadow looming from behind the camera. Tragically, it seems that cynicism has finally crept into this “Paddington” series.

So that’s what that odor was the whole time. It was the stench of a cash grab.

The post ‘Paddington in Peru’ Review: If You Loved ‘Paddington 2,’ We Have Bear-y Bad News appeared first on TheWrap.