This movie was amazing. The only part I didn't like was the "J Dog" comment at the end of the movie.
TL:DR- The J-Dog comment near the end is jarring if you're an urban intellectual of color.
SPOILER :::::::
:::::::::::::
::::::::::
The way that Jonathan (the son of Paddington's adoptive family) dropped urban/Black "J-Dog" identity, really sucked some of the magic out of the film for me.
I noticed early on that this film was filled with unobtrusive, yet purposeful diversity, which I really appreciated.
But in the last quarter of the film, when Jonathan (who has asked to be called "J-Dog" and has presented himself as visually urban/hiphop) has the chance to save the day, he now conveniently and vehemently states "I'm not J-Dog" and proceeds to save the day.
For me, this had the unfortunate effect of saying: if you are urban, you cannot like anything mechanical, you cannot be an intellectual, and you cannot save the day. "J-dogs" do not save the day. Jonathans save the day.
That small "J-dog" scene could have definitely fit in the movie, in a more meaningful way for all parties. Let's say if Jonathan's newfound urban friends were able to demonstrate that they accepted him for who he was. Let's say at the end Jonathan revealed himself as a train enthusiast and started a club of he and his urban buddies. Let's say the writers had formed some sort of bridge between 'what Jonathan was trying to be (Black)' and 'who he really is (a person, figuring himself out, like the rest of us. And instead of using Blackness as a prop of folly, the movie could have had the message that being an urban person of color and being smart are not mutually exclusive (maybe show that his buddies secretly have their own train group, but thought he wouldn't be interested).
And what about those urban friends? Did Johnathan drop them as easily as he dropped his "J-dog" identity? Were his urban friends just accessories to his cool fantasy? Or has he brought them into his new, more veracious life?
Instead of throwing out the moniker and his own understanding of the culture it represents, Jonathan could have admitted his own folly in appropriating culture for emotional gain. And I think it would have been better not to spit out "I'm not J-Dog" vehemently, because there are a lot of "J-Dogs", Pookies, Lil Mamas, BowWows, and other urban people (with pet names) who like trains too. Coming from a place and time when such nicknames were an authentic part of my adolescence, the J-dog scene at the end, was insensitive.
So that microcosmic cultural handling, for me, sullied an A+ movie. It was a quick gut punch in an otherwise perfect film. It honestly made it so I couldn't fully immerse myself in the treat of a number at the end.
And can I just say that Hugh Grant was AMAZING. He shone like no other throughout the entire film. Honestly, all of the amazing British acting powerhouses were at their best, the children did a fine job, and Paddington himself, was great. (lovely CGI, lovely fur movement, amazing costume and set design). The film was amazingly well done. The color palettes and miniatures definitely harken to Wes Anderson's work but the movie still managed to feel original. The detail and artistry in the smaller items (the church/the statues/the organ/) were fantastic.
And I just can't reiterate how fantastic Hugh Grant was. I hope to see him in many more movies, as his acting has deepened and ripened as he's matured.
I'll watch it again, but first impression: there is a point in the movie that is...almost inexplicably jarring if you're a person who is cultured in both urban and "mainstream."