‘Paddington in Peru’ is good, but Paddington’s most important lesson is lost in the chaos

Paddington in Peru, aka Paddington 3, is out in U.K. cinemas now. Moviegoing audiences have one question on their lips: is it as brilliant as the last two movies? Well, no. Sorry!

It is a lot of fun, though. It takes Paddington away from London and puts him in his home country of Peru, where he goes on a grand adventure to find his missing Aunt Lucy. He’s supported by the Browns, the family who took him in in the first movie. It’s a great movie for kids and adults alike, but it’s missing one key ingredient the other two films had … a takedown of British anti-immigration rhetoric.

You see, Paddington is an immigrant; a refugee. That’s the most important thing about the little bear, not his taste for marmalade sandwiches. His creator, Michael Bond, served in World War II and he was struck by the sight of Jewish children arriving in Britain after fleeing the Nazis, as well as the British children evacuated to the countryside to protect them from the Blitz. These things—and Bond’s anger at Britain’s poor treatment of refugees—led him to create Paddington. The first Paddington movie refers to this via the character of Mr. Gruber, played by Jim Broadbent. Gruber tells Paddington about his journey on the Kindertransport and how he had to build a new life afterward.

In addition to remembering the past, the first two Paddington movies also critique the present. They do this via the character of Mr. Curry (Peter Capaldi), Paddington’s obnoxious neighbor. When Paddington first meets Mr. Curry, the old man mutters that he doesn’t want to be kept up at night by Paddington’s “loud jungle music,” which reads as an anti-Black statement. (Jungle is a Black British musical genre that evolved from reggae and hip-hop.) In this sense, Paddington becomes a stand-in for all marginalized groups in the U.K. and how he’s treated is meant to make audiences think about modern Britain’s xenophobia and racism.

Mr. Curry also appears in Paddington 2 and this thread of the first movie continues from there. One of the most pointed scenes is when Mr. Curry finds out Paddington has escaped prison, and shouts, “I have raised the neighborhood panic level to ‘wild hysteria.'” The message is clear: White Brits frequently are in wild hysterics about immigrants, who (like Paddington) pose no threat. At the end of that scene, the residents of Windsor Gardens, who represent a diverse Britain, all band together to defy Mr. Curry and his small-minded ways.

Paddington in Peru’s message suffers from the lack of Mr Curry. Without him, there’s no villain to represent the worst of what Britain has to offer. And it’s fine that this wasn’t the story Paddington in Peru wanted to tell, but I think the movie is worse off for not including that particular bit of commentary. Paddington is such a great children’s character because he teaches children that they should always treat strangers kindly, no matter where they’re from. And post-Brexit Britain really needs more of that right now.

Paddington in Peru will be released in the U.S. on Valentine’s Day, 2025.