This article does not contain spoilers for Paddington in Peru, which opened in US theaters last week.

Although Paddington in Peru theatrically released on November 8, 2024, it only recently premiered in the United States. The film, much like its predecessors, received stellar reviews from film critics and audiences alike.

Its release comes at a time when a hurricane of political news continues to alarm our senses. If you feel a growing sense of panic, alarm, and even dread because of the articles you’ve read or skimmed in the past month, you’re not alone. Frankly, we could all use a little bit of Paddington in our lives right now.

Before I see Paddington in Peru in theaters this week, I decided to write a retrospective on the first two films. The first film delighted audiences, while the sequel, Paddington 2, continues to receive praise as a “perfect film.”

Although the sequel initially premiered with a critical score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes in 2018, two critics retroactively wrote negative reviews in 2021 and 2022. As Hugh Grant, who played the antagonist Phoenix Buchanan in the film, said on The Jess Cagle Show, “Some bastard didn’t like it being 100% and wrote a bad review.”

Although the link for his negative review now lies broken on the Rotten Tomatoes website, Justin Brown wrote, “As a man who is dead inside, I couldn’t fully buy into the world of Paddington but I watched with my son and he did enjoy it, which is something. Just not for me.”

Does the world of Paddington not truly exist? Let’s revisit the films before I discuss further.

Revisiting Paddington and Paddington 2

Directed by Paul King, the first Paddington film introduces the lovable young Peruvian bear who travels to London in search of a new home. Following a series of comedic misadventures at Paddington Station, he is taken in by the Brown family - Henry, Mary, and their children Judy and Jonathan - who name him after the station where they found him.

Much of the story focuses on Paddington’s desire to belong and be accepted in London. Paddington’s attempts to understand life in London lead to several slapstick set-pieces involving flooding bathrooms, dogs on escalators, and sandwich-jammed tubes. Ultimately, the film underscores kindness, the importance of family, and embracing those who are different.

While the good-natured bear quickly charms many Londoners with his politeness (and his penchant for marmalade sandwiches), he also attracts the unwelcome attention of an evil taxidermist, Millicent Clyde (played by Nicole Kidman). Clyde, the daughter of the disgraced explorer who met Paddington’s aunt and uncle years prior, aims to capture and stuff Paddington for a museum display, adding stakes and danger to the loveable bear’s journey.

The second film, again directed by Paul King, sees the well-settled Paddington striving to buy a special pop-up book of London landmarks as a gift for his beloved Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday.

In doing so, Paddington unwittingly becomes entangled in a high-profile theft orchestrated by Phoenix Buchanan (played by Hugh Grant), a flamboyant actor and master of disguise. Wrongly framed for stealing the prized book, Paddington is sent to prison.

Even behind bars, Paddington’s kindness transforms the prison, winning over inmates like the fearsome chef Knuckles McGinty (played by Brendan Gleeson). Simultaneously, the Brown family works tirelessly to clear Paddington’s name and uncover the real culprit.

Overall, the story continues the gentle tone and visual flourishes of the first movie, blending heartwarming morals with playful comedy. Despite adversity, optimism, kindness, and faith in one another prevail.

Both films combine a whimsical depiction of London with heartwarming comedy, championing themes of family, acceptance, and compassion. They’re lauded for their gentle humor and kindhearted storytelling, capturing the spirit of Michael Bond’s classic Paddington Bear character, while adding a modern cinematic flair.

A Negative Review, Revisited

So, does the world of Paddington parallel our own?

The Paddington films are works of fiction, so in the strictest sense, the world you see on-screen doesn’t exist exactly as it’s portrayed. However, part of the magic of Paddington is that it’s set in a real city - London - and filmed on or inspired by real locations (like Paddington Station).

The Paddington universe (I’m coining the term now) is also steeped in a sense of warmth, kindness, and community spirit, which can exist in real life, even if the specifics (like a talking bear who loves marmalade) are whimsical fantasy.

So while there isn’t a literal “Paddington’s London” you can visit - complete with a friendly bear in a duffle coat - the films’ portrayal of an inviting London neighborhood and a family who welcomes someone different into their home can reflect real human values and experiences. It’s that blend of grounded settings and a charming, magical twist that makes the world of Paddington feel so special, even if it’s ultimately imaginary.

Can we make our world more like Paddington’s?

Making our world more like Paddington’s world doesn’t require actual talking bears - it’s about bringing the values of kindness, curiosity, and generosity into our everyday lives.

Ultimately, the only world you can truly change is your own, and that starts by changing your own thoughts and actions. Some easy ways to change your world are to practice everyday kindness, stay curious and open-minded, celebrate mistakes as learning moments, offer welcoming hospitality, champion community spirit, embrace thoughtfulness and politeness, and be understanding and forgiving.

In short, a “Paddington-like” world is one that celebrates kindness, respects differences, and nurtures a sense of community. Each of us can help build it by treating others with compassion, openness, and cheer - even when faced with challenges.

If you’ve learned nothing else from Paddington, always remember that a well-placed marmalade sandwich can brighten someone’s day.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!

“The views and opinions presented in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or the US Army.”