Aside from Paddington, the Browns, the duffel coat, the hat and the marmalade, there’s nothing in common with the books.
And it’s scary! There’s a psycho taxidermist who wants to kill Paddington and stuff him. When she has him unconscious on her operating table, there are several close-ups of her creepy/scary taxidermy/surgical tools. Think Dexter.
That’s when Piper Cub, aged 6, bailed and we left the theatre to play games in the lobby.
Not a kid’s movie.
Hey, kids have to learn about vivisection somewhere. Better they get it from a kids movie than from the streets!
Forgot to mention that when we asked the Cub why he left, he said: “Because she was going to kill Paddington and cut off his head!”
And of course the death of his uncle in an earthquake at the beginning of the movie.
There’s still quite a bit of the film dedicated to marmalade though? frets
I can see how such a thing would upset a child. I had to get rid of a very beautiful, expensive book of fairy tales when my daughter freaked out over something scary in it. When I was 5 or so, my uncle took me to see a Disney movie, and I had to be taken out of the theater, shrieking my head off, when I saw the evil witch.
Well, when the taxidermist unveils the display case where she’s going to put Paddington after she kills him, it’s labelled “Ursa marmaladis.”
I must disagree–it may have added the taxidermist plot in order to create some conflict and a linking storyline (which is understandable, since the books are more like self-contained short stories) but the atmosphere of the movie, and the character of Paddington himself, are very true to the books indeed.
Paddington’s sweetness, earnestness and politeness are spot-on. I think Colin Firth made a wise decision when he withdrew–his voice would have sounded too mature and Ben Whishaw’s is perfect. I loved the bit where he misunderstood the “dogs must be carried” and “stand on right” signs. THAT is pure Paddington.
The movie’s London is also wonderful–a love letter to the city. It’s made to look rather timeless, although the movie takes place in the modern day. So it’s a mix of the romanticized London of the books, and the more multicultural modern-day city–especially with the calypso band as a sort of Greek chorus.
Some of the visual touches are wonderful–the Browns’ house as a cutaway dollhouse view, the black-and-white newsreel at the beginning and the moment later in the film when Paddington “steps through” the newsreel to his memories of Peru, the list of names appearing over the skyline, the visualization of Gruber’s arrival in London superimposed over the toy train. I also like the embellishments they made to the Brown family–Henry being a free-spirited biker changed by fatherhood, Mary remaining a free spirit and eccentric, the tweaks to the kids’ characters, the fact that Paddington brings them together not unlike Mary Poppins.
And as for the villain–yes, she’s a little scary, but no more or less so than the Disney villainesses kids see every day. Of course, Cruella De Vil is the obvious comparison, but remember that one villainess called out a hit on her stepdaughter because the girl was prettier, and another swore to kill a young girl because she wasn’t invited to a baby shower–and kids watch those all the time!
So count this as a recommendation for a wonderful, conscientiously made, well-thought-out family film–the kind of movie that needs all the support it can get.
I just have to disagree - there is no suggestion in any of the books that Paddington is going to be killed. It is not faithful to the source.
I can’t figure out why the villain wouldn’t want to keep Paddington alive. A stuffed Paddington is worthless; one that talks is worth millions.
Yeah, I haven’t read those books in a very long time, but I loved them back in the day and I certainly don’t recall any of Paddington’s adventures being especially perilous. The worst danger he faced usually seemed to be missing a meal.
Well…
[SPOILER]she has a personal grudge against Paddington’s species. It seems that her father was the explorer who discovered them and passed on a love of England to Paddington’s aunt and uncle. The explorer was all prepared to shoot one of them and bring it back as a specimen, but they saved his life and showed him their home, their level of intelligence, and their ability to speak. In turn, he gave them some of the “small” possessions he traveled with (a grandfather clock, a gramophone) and invited them to visit England one day, where they could “be sure of a warm welcome.”
But once he got back, the Geographers’ Guild (in a very witty scene) were angry that he hadn’t killed one and brought it back stuffed. (“You say they’re CIVILIZED?! Well, did they speak English when you met them? Do they play cricket?”) They stripped him of his membership (“Geographers, turn your backs!”) and ended his career–he ended up running a petting zoo. Millicent came to resent the species that she blamed for wrecking her father’s career and jumped at her chance to take revenge and to finish the work she felt her father should have. [/SPOILER]
Anyway, it’s true that this kind of thing wasn’t in the books. But as I said, they needed SOME sort of conflict to make a unified movie. I compare it to what they did for Mary Poppins and Madeline–adding a through-line, an adversary (Mr. Banks in the book Mary Poppins was just a side character; the movie made him an antagonist if not an actual villain) and a sense of conflict to tie it together.
Besides, one of the reasons it worked for me was that it wasn’t really so much the focus of the movie–the main focus was Paddington’s finding a home and a family, fitting into his new environment (“In London, everyone is different, so everyone fits in”) and bridging the gaps between the Brown family. YMMV, of course, but for me it worked just fine.
Was not a fan of the books, but agree with everything you wrote about the movie. Sweet, entertaining story, very well made with alot of little touches that were very creative, very English.
It’s definitely a kid’s movie. My 6 and 7yo went yesterday and really enjoyed it. So did my wife and I, the friend my son brought, and the other 50 kids in the theater.
My whole family really enjoyed it! I thought it was very sweet and set the right tone. I long ago stopped expecting movies to follow books very closely - to me it’s more about the character feeling “right.” So I didn’t have too many specific expectations.
We thought it was adorable and I would recommend it. Plus - the 12th Doctor! How fun. FYI - my kids are 9 and 11.
He almost died of hypothermia when the Brown kids made him into a snowman.
A different thread led me to Rotten Tomatoes, where I was astounded to notice that Paddington has a 98% ‘fresh’ rating! :eek:
After reading the OP a couple of weeks ago, it simply wouldn’t have occurred to me that his movie could be so nearly universally loved.
Was he alone in the theater?
We brought the whole clan. The kids from 7 to 15 all loved it. My girlfriend laughed embarrassingly loud. I thought I was going to take the opportunity to have a little snooze but I enjoyed it too. It was genuinely funny for adults and children as well as being charming. The villain added conflict without overtaking the story or being too scary.
I disagree. And our kids (just turned 7 that week, 10. 13 and 15) disagree too.
I saw it with my wife and 10 year-old stepson. I thought it was going to be a stereotypical awful “kid’s movie” and was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it. IMHO the scenes with Kidman wanting to turn Paddington into a museum display were far less scary to a little kid than, say, the incinerator scene in Toy Story 3.
Kids in the theatre all seemed to enjoy it and there’s plenty of adult humor to keep grown-ups entertained.