This is the third instalment in the Paddington series, and often with third instalments (such as Venom), it’s more of the same with less of the punch. 

I can imagine the filmmakers had many challenges to face. Since the success of the first two films, Paddington has gained a following, and I am among them. I went into the cinema with cautiously high hopes, and unfortunately these were not filled. 

The reasons included the lack of a feel-good side quest. In the previous films, a refreshing variety of subplots were present, generally stemming from the overall goal by the characters. I would argue there wasn’t any of that in this film, as the missing aunt and the pursuit of El Dorado were indistinguishable plots. Additional shenanigans were far and few between. 

I also found that things happened because they were supposed to. There was no organic cause and effect but rather a cause, then effect. If I were to describe the plot, I would be using the phrase “and then” often. When a film does this, it risks losing its sense of a natural narrative, which I felt happened in this film. 

I would also use the phrase “and apparently” a lot too. Apparently the young Paddington had an ancient bracelet on him when Aunt Lucy saved him. And apparently that bracelet was one she wore all the time. And apparently that bracelet has a greater purpose… despite us never having seen it in the previous films. 

So it goes, with most films part of a saga, there are additional plot points added and backdated. Marvel does it almost every time it makes up a new enemy (I’m looking at you, Venom). But it irks me. It’s not world building, it’s world reframing. And it virtually always feels forced. 

Maybe I’m being pessimistic. Maybe Paddington’s overwhelmingly positive attitude and the nun’s surprise musical number failed to inspire excessive jubilation with me after a long week of work. Maybe I was just tired. But from my perspective, the humor was less “haha” and more “heh”. 

With the previous films, Paddington’s clumsiness often paved the way for particularly funny moments. But if you’ve seen the trailer for the film, you have most likely seen all of those scenes before walking into the cinema. 

One of the many things that the previous films did successfully was incorporate themes of homesickness and family in a surprisingly emotive way. This film took on a different theme by focussing on the concept of leaving the nest, and the idea that someone from another country has “mixed feelings” about their homeland when their current home is elsewhere. 

This was a great idea, and I thought the film would go into it in more detail. I was wrong. Rather, it was the bow that tied the beginning and end together with Paddington’s letters to home. 

Creatively speaking, this film felt more formulaic than previous ones. There were nice moments but missed opportunities to show more of the unique animation and special effects that were in the first films. 

As for the “surprise” plot twists, they were not. It is hardly a spoiler to say you can’t have the talented Olivia Coleman as a mere secondary character. 

Despite the crying toddler watching the film to my side (and boy, did she cry), Paddington in Peru isn’t very emotional. The moments of conflict were more moments of inconvenience. Still, it isn’t a bad film. Merely an average one. Box office money aside, there were good intentions behind it. Paddington is loveable, iconic and very very polite. 

Overall, the film is an easy watch for the family. But do not make the same mistake I did. Lower your expectations, and possibly get some sleep before going to the cinema.