MICHAEL THOMAS JONES
This movie is an excellent example of advances in modern technology: its screenplay could have easily been written by an artificial intelligence. Don’t accept a mediocre film just because it’s ‘for kids’ and is less toxic than the various other kinds of imaginative runoff we channel towards our children. (With each year the channels grow deeper and wider, and the brains of the next generation grow more and more encrusted with the barnacles of a dull imagination, caked with the resin of visual passivity.)
Hugh Grant being funny on occasion does not make a good film. A fuzzy protagonist does not make a good film either. Although on that note, the computer generated characters of the past two decades are without exception slimy looking eyesores and I refuse to accept any of them. I don’t care how good you think the technology has gotten: the fur looks SLIMY. This is especially a shame because of how nice Paddington’s original design of red hat and duffle coat is.
Exposing your children repeatedly to ugly things in colorful disguise will dull their awareness of the beautiful. I could believe that an orphan wandering a brutal concrete communist hellscape can be awed by the sudden revelation of beauty in a resiliently sprouting flower, or can dearly love a book that is kept hidden in the walls. But when you take your hypnotized child out to see the natural wonders of creation, or try to teach them the great paintings of history, and you see in their eyes blank incomprehension-you should know this movie and others like it are the reason why.