Paddington 3, Red One and the Art of Film Writing

I started writing blogs and reviews over the last month or so having spent years talking about wanting to try entertainment journalism and it's been a really interesting journey in terms of how the way I articulate my thoughts and feelings on what I've just watched has begun to change. I've always been vocal on my views but it wasn't till I was trying to get into the habit of regularly writing a review for everything I watched that I began to realise how difficult the art of journalism was. Watching Films and TV has always been a very happy escape for me so being in a cinema and having to regularly remind myself that I was planning to write about what I was watching was a big mindset shift. I was no longer simply going into films to check out of the world for two hours (or ideally 1 hours 30) but I was now going in making mental notes so I can write another award winning blog to the three people that currently read my reviews. It definitely made me question whether that was something I was happy with but the more I thought about it the more I realised writing stuff like this made my brain tick. The conclusion I came too was that I needed to try make sure I had the correct balance of writing articles when I felt like I had something to say about what I just watched compared to just writing something for the sake of it.

Take Paddington In Peru for example.

I liked the film. It was very wholesome. It had nice moments but I just felt that the magic didn't quite match up to the previous two films for me as much as I would have hoped. I was sat in the cinema watching and I couldn't help but think about how I was going to have to explain my feelings on this in a blog post but in reality, I probably would have enjoyed the film more without the critical cap on. The first two Paddingtons are widely regarded as being almost perfect films so it was always going to be incredibly hard to pull off a third film with the same success, especially when the original Director Paul King had gone off to make Wonka leaving first time director Dougal Wilson in the hot seat. Personally, I don't think Wilson did a bad job. Without the weight and the feelings of the first two films, I think this film would have been considerably more stand out but I think, at least for me, it fell victim to the comparison game. I've been thinking about why it doesn't match up since I saw the film and I haven't quite been able to put my finger on it. One of the reasons I think is potentially the location change from London to Peru. The first two films did such a good job of building a quirky version of London filled with lots of different colourful side characters and unique Britishisms (if that's a word) and by moving the films predominant location to Peru, it lost everything positive that was created from that world creation.

Don't get me wrong, there was still a lot to like about this film. Hugh Bonneville is still seemingly having the time of his life in these films as Mr Brown. Similarly with Julie Walters as Mrs Bird. Paddington Bear is still incredibly well animated and fits in so well within the live action elements around him that it genuinely stands out as some very impressive CGI. I really liked the introduction of Olivia Colman who puts in a fantastic performance as the Reverend Mother, although found the musical number she does to be weirder then it was fun.

Overall, I'd put Paddington in Peru as a 3 out of 5 which would potentially go up to a 4 on a less pressured rewatch, which brings me back to my initial point. When it comes to Entertainment Journalism, does something always need to be said about a film or a tv show when its watched, or should something only be said if the person doing said review feels passionate enough that they have a specific view that needs to be heard by others. When it comes to Paddington In Peru, if I wasn't writing an article on this specific topic then I am not sure I would have ever posted my in depth opinion for this very reason.

It's a topic I've thought long and hard about when it comes to converting blog posts into Youtube videos. I am not saying that journalists shouldn't review everything that comes out but I can't help but feel that opinions can lose their meaning depending how much they really believe in what they're saying and the impact on that for the audience (whether that's as a reader or as a viewer).

This brings me on to Red One as a comparison.

There is no scenario where I really believe that Red One is a better film then Paddington In Peru but there is a scenario where I found it to be a more enjoyable watching experience, especially if I push past my love of Dwayne Johnson films. In general, critics are pretty high on Paddington in Peru giving it around 95% on Rotten Tomatoes whereas when it comes to Red One, it's genuinely getting pretty average reviews (sitting at closer to 32%). As a result of this, I had both of these critic perceptions when I went into the cinema giving me unintentional preconceived conceptions of what to expect despite the fact that in general I try fairly hard not to read too much reviews and opinions before I go and see a film.

This meant I was a little surprised when I came out of Red One and I thought it was better than expected. It knew exactly what it was trying to be and it stuck to its guns incredibly loyally throughout the film. In fact, I could have easily written a blog post just about the film which only added to my thoughts on this topic given I felt the opposite about thinking about Paddington in Peru. It's a similar debate I've had with school friends about how to approach writing things for Letterboxd. Their perception is that the review rating should be predominantly based on how the reviewer rates the films quality whereas I always take the approach that the review rating should be more focused on my overall enjoyment of the film (or on how well it works as a viewing experience watching on a phone on the train back from London). It's with this in mind that I would give Red One a 4 out of 5, yet would still feel pretty confident in saying that Paddington In Peru is a better film overall. The simple reason of this being that Red One is a 4 out of 5 when it comes to what I would expect to enjoy from a Dwayne Johnson led Christmas Film but Paddington in Peru is a 3 out of 5 when it comes to what I would expect to enjoy from a Paddington film.

I think what I am trying to say from this blog post is that Entertainment Journalism is fascinating to me because it allows for many people to articulate their own different perceptions of the Film and TV world. For me, I think there's still a journey to be had in terms of what type of reviewer I'd want to be. I'm not sure I want to be someone that just reviews anything and everything, because I want to be able to keep the love and escapism from watching entertainment as much as I can. There are a lot of people out there with good and thoughtful opinions on things being released and it's also starting to feel like there are even more people out there with terrible ones. The only reason we know about these opinions anyway is dependent on their platform size, which is probably another topic all together.

P.S I watched Argylle whilst writing this for the first time and that's another film that I think maybe got taken too seriously... they could never make me hate you Henry Cavill.

me in front of posters!!