Paddington in Peru is the third installment in the Paddington franchise that started in 2014 and comes 7 years after the second entry. This entry find Paddington traveling to Peru with the Brown family to find his missing aunt. As they search for her, they soon find themselves in a greater mystery with antagonist foes trying to get in their way. The film stars High Bonneville, Emily Mortimer, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent, Carla Tous, Olivia Colman, Antonio Banderas, and Ben Whishaw as the voice of Paddington under new direction from Dougal Wilson in his feature directorial debut.

If you know me, I am a huge fan of the first two Paddington movies. They took me completely by surprise. As much as a third one sounded appealing, I also had my reservations much like everyone else when Paul King & Sally Hawkins were not returning. Paul King directed the first two and Sally Hawkins was the heart & soul of the first two as Mary Brown who was the sole reason why Paddington has a human family. The third entry is nowhere near as good as the first two, but it’s still a solid addition in this franchise.

What director Dougal Wilson does so well is respecting the legacy of the first two films. Immediately, the film throws you back into that silly, sarcastic off-beat humor. It’s not quite as good as the first two, but it enjoyable. I could see viewers being turned off by this as it’s not the first two. I am coming at this from the perspective that there are new people involved who did the best they could, and I’d say they did an admirable job.

If things were any different, Colin Firth would have been the voice of Paddington from the get-go. It feels like everything worked out, because Ben Whishaw jumps back into the voice of Paddington like he never left. It’s impressive how he can still put in so much life in this character, especially after such a long wait for this one. His voice establishes a youthfulness to the character, all while still making him incredibly likable for viewers of all ages.

I would have liked more of Paddington’s arc in the beginning to double down on the conclusion’s themes. Without giving anything away with the conclusion, I believe the film could have started with Paddington having a sort of identity crisis. That would have made his journey even more impactful.

The film also has to deal with overcoming Sally Hawkins’ departure and having Emily Mortimer taking over her role. I am never a fan of actors replacing other iconic characters. If Hawkins could never come back, I would have been okay with the first two ending there. Hawkins brought so much soul to the first two movies, but Mortimer manages to take on the role gracefully. She has the same mannerisms that made me forget there was ever a difference. There is just one particular scene involving a flashback to when the character first met Paddington. It’s awkward, because they can’t show Hawkins. I would have been okay without this flashback.

As for the other characters, I have mixed feelings. Hugh Bonneville has one of the best stories as he has to prove that he has to be more fearless. It’s funny and entertaining, and I love how the films continue to raise the stakes for the character, yet it still feels similar to what we saw in the last entry. The film can even be redundant with Paddington having to get to his aunt. We got that with the last film. Instead, to get around Sally Hawkins’ departure, I think the film could have picked up after the last one and have Paddington and his aunt traveling to Peru. That would have been different and exciting. The middle portion also has a bit too much exposition that does feel forced to help us better understand what’s going on. Maybe that’s the film trying to overcompensate for what they lost, but it’s still entertaining nonetheless.

It’s quite clear the films don’t really know what else to do with the kids of the family anymore. Believe it or not, they are still played by the same actors of the first two. Judy Brown barely has a presence an Jonathan Brown serves more of a plot device more than anything else. It does feel like the film tries to rely on giving us what we saw before to keep within the same tone. Instead, it doesn’t give the characters the proper development that made them so compelling.

Viewers might also be mixed on the villains played by Olivia Colman & Antonio Banderas. They are both great in their roles as they embrace the insanity of their characters. It can be too much for viewers. I am not sure why the film wanted two villains as it doesn’t quite give them enough purpose for the story. Again, I still think they did a great job with what they are given.

Where I felt like the first two acts were passable, the third act not only gives us a lot of adventure, but it also gives an emotionally charged & impactful ending. Instead of going for bleak, it honors the journey that started from the first one. It reminded me why I became a fan in the first place.

Overall, Paddington in Peru was a great time through its flaws. It’s difficult to strike gold twice, but striking gold three times is nearly an impossible feat. Still, the film honors what came before to give us something that feels conclusive if they decide to end it here. If you are a fan of these characters or adventure films, I think you’ll have a good time. Just don’t expect a flawless masterpiece like the first two are.

VERDICT: 4/5 (Great)