FILM REVIEW: Peter Rabbit (2018)

Directed by Will Gluck

* * 1/2

The wonderful story of the mischievous Peter Rabbit and his trespasses into Mr. McGregor’s garden needs no introduction. Beatrix Potter’s book was published in the early 20^th Century. Now, it is 2018, and Peter is still up to his mischief, thieving the vegetables from Mr. McGregor’s garden in the new film, simply titled Peter Rabbit, a sort of adaptation/sequel to Potter’s work. Right from the beginning, it sets the tone and style quite perfectly. It’s energetic, rambunctious, and quite charming. That said, some of its expository establishments are rather unflattering, and all of these qualities – the good and the bad – will maintain throughout the entire duration.

So, Peter Rabbit opens up with our titular rascal (voiced by James Corden) terrorizing Mr. McGregor’s garden yet again. Then enters an understandably angry Mr. McGregor (Sam Neill – wait, that was Sam Neill!?). He manages to outsmart Peter and next thing we know, Peter is in his grasp – literally. How will Peter get out of this one? Turns out, in a most unexpected way: Mr. McGregor falls over, having died of a heart attack.

Peter, his sisters, and all the rest of the animals in the neighborhood rush over to the now empty residence of McGregor, partying and pigging out on the riches in the garden. But all good things must come to end. Enter Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson), Mr. McGregor’s nephew. Thomas has inexplicably inherited his great uncle’s house (he never even knew he had a great uncle).

Thomas is the perfect kind of villain for a film like this. He’s the kind of silly antagonist that’s hard to love, but harder to hate. He is awkward and lanky, a neat-freak with OCD tendencies. He is terminated from his job at a toy company due to a tantrum after being denied a deeply-desired promotion. Reluctant to abandon the neat tidiness of London, he moves out to the countryside house. He is greeted to the shambles left by meddling animals, all of which are vermin to him.

Now it’s war, and from here Peter Rabbit becomes about what you’d expect – a series of hearty exchange of slapstick cat-and-mouse hijinks in a modern attitude to cater to a modern audience. As alarming as that may sound, it’s actually nothing to worry about too much.

Yes, there is some pandering once in a while, but the film is never desperate in its mission to appeal to everybody. At the same time, trying to appeal to everybody becomes somewhat of a problem. While Peter Rabbit never over-indulges in the cutesiness of the story to prevent alienating older audiences, it is sometimes a bit too crude for kids. One joke in particular, which occurs about ten minutes in, left my mouth agape in disbelief of the sheer inappropriateness (no children’s film should ever make a joke about shoving a carrot up a man’s bum).

If the humor’s not being inappropriate (which is very rare, in all fairness), then it’s usually being forced. Many a time, a joke (commonly Meta) will overstay its welcome and linger way longer than necessary. Luckily, they never stay to the point that the joke becomes ruined, at least for me anyway. I did have many a laugh at Peter Rabbit, most of the times at jokes that were funny while they lasted. Once in a while, though, there would be a genuinely clever moment. My favorite is when Peter and his sisters find themselves riding the back of Thomas’s pickup into a nearby small-town. The rabbits are convinced they are in London – one of them even points out Big Ben (which is actually a grandfather clock).

Of course, what is a movie like this without a little bit of romance? A rather lovely Rose Byrne is Bea, the McGregors’ neighbor. She is a painter – a bad one at the film’s admission, save for the paintings she has done of the local rabbits. She has a huge place in her heart for wildlife, which she channels into her best work. The paintings are actually the illustrations found in the original book. It may be pandering for some, but I thought it was a nice touch. She begins interacting with Thomas, and romance ensues, albeit rather awkwardly. I just couldn’t tell if there was chemistry between them or not, but that doesn’t matter too much, because here sets up plenty of wonderful comedic potential. As far as how that results, see my remarks above about the quality of comedy.

Peter Rabbit hybridizes CG animation and live action, a technique that doesn’t usually work for me as the CG is always just a little too cartoonish (part of the reason I was never too fond of Avatar). Luckily, Peter Rabbit kept me pleased, visually. It’s certainly not award-worthy animation, but it was never too cartoony nor too realistic. In spite of this, Peter Rabbit isn’t always much to look at, as there’s a lot of gray textures in the film. Perhaps the UK wasn’t the best setting.

Now here is something I never thought I’d comment on, but must. Be sure you stay for the end credits, where animations in the style of Potter’s illustrations unfold on the screen. It is so adorable and done with such love for the source material that it’s worth the price of admission alone.

While my verdict is final, I still feel split between a 2.5 and a 3 for Peter Rabbit. One can tell that everybody involved was having fun making this, and I must say that I was won over by the charming characters and rambunctious energy. But the issues glared just a bit too bright. It’s modernization of a timeless and classic story will generate plenty of detractors, but I found Peter Rabbit just enjoyable enough to be worth hopping into, but its confusion in demographics leave me wondering who will get the most enjoyment.