Paddington in Peru

Out of the several properties that’ve become trilogies, a lot of people probably wouldn’t expect Paddington to be one that’d be worth anticipating, yet the first two films helmed by Paul King were able to enchant the hearts of many and re-introduced the loveable Michael Bond-created British bear to the general public in an earnest, comical and delightfully charming manner. With great characters, inviting world and atmosphere, and simple but emotionally effective storytelling, they made for some of the best children’s films of their respective year, making it a real treat when a third film was announced and released in early 2025. Although there were a few more sceptics this time around (mainly because King had stepped down as director), the end results remained just as sweet.

Returning to the Brown household in England, Paddington (voiced again by Ben Whishaw) receives a distressing letter from the home for retired bears in Peru, telling him that his Aunt Lucy (voiced again by Imelda Staunton) has been acting strangely. Deciding to visit her, Paddington travels with the Brown family, consisting of Mr. Brown (played again by Hugh Bonneville), Mrs. Brown (played this time by Emily Mortimer), the children, Judy and Jonathan (played again by Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin), and Mrs. Bird (played again by Julie Walters), to Peru, but are told by the home’s Reverend Mother (played by Olivia Colman) that she has explicitly gone missing, with only a treasure map left in her room being a clue to where she’s gone. With a place called Rumi Rock being specified on the map, Paddington and the Browns set out into the Peruvian jungle with the help of river-faring treasure hunter, Hunter Cabot (played by Antonio Banderas) and his daughter, Gina (played by Carla Tous), and this trip to find his lost aunt may lead them to the golden city of El Dorado, which could prove dangerous as Hunter is gold-obsessed and (being plagued by visions of his equally greedy ancestor) will do anything to find the fabled city.

While Paddington in Peru is probably the least of the three movies, that it no way makes it a bad film, as it still retains the series’ heartwarming tone, loveable cartoony characters, and cheery and positive atmosphere.

While Paul King did not return to direct, he did help create the story with his previous writing collaborator, Simon Farnaby, and series newcomer Mark Burton. Burton also helped write the screenplay alongside fellow newcomers, Jon Foster and James Lamont, and even the directing was being led by fresh talent, with Douglas Wilson being given the reigns in his feature directorial debut as he had previously only had experience directing music videos and commercials, so this new blood had the potential to either fit in with the ranks or tarnish a precious piece of art. Thankfully, nothing about this film feels like it’s missing something that the previous films featured. It has a slightly different vibe to some of the visual choices and even the narrative progression, but the personality, attitude and overall sweetness behind the people and writing is still present and results in a familiarly charming experience. The premise this time does feel a little more out-there with taking the family into the jungles of Peru and trying to find El Dorado, but it thankfully never veers too far into the abnormal and keeps things delightfully innocent and even adorably corny (the actual truth behind El Dorado is wonderfully simple, but also humorously obvious).

There is sadly something lacking once the family is removed from London, as watching Paddington adjust to a new environment and interact with a bunch of regular people with their own little quirks was one of the strengths of those first two films, whereas here the environment is more used as a new coat of paint rather than a potential for new opportunities and unique interactions. It’s a lot more hands-on and features more action and chaos, which is still done well without losing its touch, but means that the more sentimental aspects are few and far between, which is a little unfortunate given how phenomenally strong and genuine the heartfelt moments were in the previous two films. With that said, the directing is fairly well done and houses that needed sappiness, the script doesn’t contain the most incredible zingers, but has few to no groaner moments (even those painfully forced slapstick moments that populate the trailers aren’t as bad this time around), and even if it’s a bit more outlandish in comparison to past adventures, the spirit of family and finding a new home is still front and centre come the end of the flick, and it will still melt the heart of any overly sensitive chap or madam.

The characters for this franchise aren’t the most complicated and really only operate on singular and mostly cyclical issues between each movie, but that never proves to be an issue just because of how loveable they all are. The relationship Paddington shares with the Brown family will always be a highlight of this series, and while the second film did limit their time on screen together (which was a little disappointing), they are together for a good majority of this feature and it’s always great to see. Paddington is still a loveably honest and kind-hearted soul, Mr Brown has retained some of his more hesitant quality, yet no longer has an antagonistic spin on him, and while Emily Mortimer seems a little too young on closer inspection for Mrs. Brown (having replaced Sally Hawkins who couldn’t return for undisclosed reasons), she’s such a likeable and passionate performer that it doesn’t take away from anything. Both the kids are used sparingly but don’t feel entirely useless either, and Mrs. Bird is always used in just the right doses, so it’s pretty impressive how they’ve managed to keep a family of six from stepping over each other in terms of purpose or plot development.

While none of the characters feel lessened, they arguably don’t benefit from being in this location, as it’s sad that the feeling of community bonding is absent due to Paddington not being allowed to interact with anyone in Peru that much. While the filmmakers choose to take place in Peru due to its expansive wildness and pleasant folk, it just makes it sadder that there isn’t more time spent interacting with various colorful characters in this space the same way they did with London (it’s a minor detail, but one that is sadly missed). The new characters they introduced are decent in their own right, but a lot of that comes from the casting, as these movies continue to get really strong talent who would be a great fit with this universe, and Olivia Colman and Antonio Banderas are said fine examples. Colman plays a less than subtle Reverend Mother who gets a few cute laughs sprinkled throughout (even though the twist surrounding her is a little too obvious), and Banderas is such an electric performer who goes all into this role of a crazy hunter who sees ghosts of his ancestors (who hilariously are all played by him) that it results in a pretty fun portrayal and even a cute ending with his daughter (who does get slightly forgotten about, but not to a massive degree).

The way the movies were able to capture London in a believable but still noticeably fantastical manner was very nice in the past films. The visuals, shots, lighting and coloration of the buildings and streets felt vibrant in a staged way through specific tones, lighting choices, and poised camerawork, but it never lost the realistic cloudy appearance that the country is also known for, making London look new and familiar at the same time, while also bringing in a more child-like wonder to smoothly inject the sentimental family aspect. Since this movie decides to leave that specifically created environment for something fresh, it has to be an equally gripping location, and Peru just sadly isn’t given the same treatment. Whether it’s due to a majority of the movie taking place in generic looking jungles, rivers and an occasional stone temple, or just the fact that it doesn’t present these locations in a particularly interesting manner, nothing about this movie really screams inviting from a production value.

It’s not done badly per say, as the environment looks outdoorsy, lush and culturally rural in a way that is benefiting of a country like Peru, and it’s always great seeing a different society and culture portrayed in an approachable manner, but it doesn’t feel like there’s that much innovation behind how it’s being presented. This is strange as a lot of the same people who worked on the last film are still present, including cinematographer Erik Wilson and composer Dario Marianelli, but the production design by Andy Kelly (who is still a fresh talent and doesn’t have a lot of credits to his name) doesn’t have the same kind of personality. Even every once and a while, the film can look a little awkward due to a strange camera trick or odd visual effect. The effects on Paddington have usually looked pretty good, but there are a few moments in this film where he can look a little off in moments which can also be said for some of the backgrounds, but that could be more of a film issue rather than a specific effects problem.

Paddington in Peru feels like a very standard charming children’s film with a modest and slightly corny centre that is otherwise balanced out by solid scripting and loveable characters, which strangely makes it slightly lesser than its predecessors. This isn’t a detractor for this film as much as it is a glowing statement for the previous two, as those movies arguably shouldn’t have even been good, but became flicks that managed to shock people with how much they related with a little bear who loves marmalade moving to London. By comparison, this film feels a little safer and more traditional next to the formers who felt like they inhabited their own unique little world, but most of the positives surrounding the story, characters, and actors are all still present, so you will lose nothing by giving this film a shot. It’s hard to say that Paddington made for a ten out of ten trilogy when this last one falls a few steps behind, but a pretty solid eight out of ten is jolly good enough.