Paddington 2 vs. Paddington

4 comments

2 comments

It's come to this... Both exceptional, but Paddington 2 floored me. It wins

For me it comes down to how these films do conflict/villains in their stories. Both get the sweet, British charm of Paddington down very well, thanks in part to exceptional casting, but the first film's villain felt very out of place. Though Nicole Kidman was clearly having a ball, "evil taxidermist" isn't really the sort of thing which works in a Paddington story, whereas Hugh Grant's scheming, thespian thief felt both more appropriate and more entertaining. For me, Paddington 2 wins.

P2 has a bit more of a full-bodied story (less Paddington getting into slapstick hijinx). That said, I think I'm in love with both movies, and I'm so happy both exist :)

About the same. I did like the second slightly more. Hugh Grant plaid a better bad guy.

Hugh Grant steals the show in the sequel, however I found the origin story of the first one fo be a bit more enjoyable. Both excellent films regardless.

The first one is a really good film, but it lacks a good villain (and isn't as rewatchable to me as the second one). The second one is near-perfect in my mind, with an intriguing villain that serves as incredibly rewatchable and fun while building on the first.

Both are great, but slight edge to 2 because of Hugh Grant.