Aside from the fact that Kumari is entitled to her opinion, I'd have to disagree with you there, Paddington has always been a subtle commentary on immigration, integration, tolerance and acceptance, I made a very similar point in my review of the first film: Paddington ReviewWhile I agree with your verdict, Kurmari, Paddington 2 really is an excellent film and Hugh Grant sends himself and his profession up fantastically, please refrain in future from introducing your own politics: "Of course, nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and before long Paddington finds himself – like so many other immigrants – wrongly accused..." Especially such unfounded, subjective ones as these, thrown in with no facts, no figures, or any other kind of correlation or attribution and with no other purpose than to virtue signal now toxic and corrosive political correctness. Not even the film itself draws this connection or conclusion: Paddington getting banged up has nothing whatsoever to do with his origin or status, immigrant or otherwise, although he most likely has a residence permit by now, and more to do with his being framed and barbershop skills, or lack thereof.
Indeed she is and I am just as entitled to take issue with something she has written. You are quite right about Paddington being a subtle commentary etc. etc. But what is the relevance of "like so many other immigrants"? Facts before feelings, please.Aside from the fact that Kumari is entitled to her opinion, I'd have to disagree with you there, Paddington has always been a subtle commentary on immigration, integration, tolerance and acceptance, I made a very similar point in my review of the first film: Paddington Review
I think your over-the-top knee-jerk reaction says at lot more about you than anything else.
While I agree with your verdict, Kurmari, Paddington 2 really is an excellent film and Hugh Grant sends himself and his profession up fantastically, please refrain in future from introducing your own politics: "Of course, nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and before long Paddington finds himself – like so many other immigrants – wrongly accused..." Especially such unfounded, subjective ones as these, thrown in with no facts, no figures, or any other kind of correlation or attribution and with no other purpose than to virtue signal now toxic and corrosive political correctness. Not even the film itself draws this connection or conclusion: Paddington getting banged up has nothing whatsoever to do with his origin or status, immigrant or otherwise, although he most likely has a residence permit by now, and more to do with his being framed and barbershop skills, or lack thereof.
For Gods sake man ... get a grip ... it's a blinking AV forum.
I think that is -exactly- the point... It's an audio-visual forum not a place for exaggerated political comment!
For Gods sake man ... get a grip ... it's a blinking AV forum.
The passive aggressive political grandstanding was an unnecessary addition to this review.
I think mister withers owes mister ripsnorter an apology for this....
I think your over-the-top knee-jerk reaction says at lot more about you than anything else.
I can't believe he wrote that. He's not far from calling him a racist and belittling him from having his own opinion has no place here. He should know far better. That needs editing too imo.
So Ripsnorter didn't say what he wrote then and his comments should stand while those posts not agreeing with them are edited out? How's that fair or balanced?
The reviewer is correct and Paddington is an immigrant. All the Paddington books, cartoons and now the films portray Paddington from the point of view of an immigrant and most of his situations are an analysis of how others treat someone different to themselves. If Michael Bond had wished Paddington bear not to be an immagrant then he could have had Paddington come down from Leeds to stay in London. Maybe replacing marmalade sandwiches with black pudding and barm cakes?
What I find more disturbing is that anyone reading the review would hone in on the mention of immigration. I'm already aware of the pre existing subtleties associated with Michael Bond's books so I'd not find such comments within a review to be offensive given that it is quite a legitimate analysis of Paddington and his narrative.
You cannot remove the fact Paddington is an immigrant or the fact immigration has become an issue again in the UK, not without completely rewriting the narrative surrounding Paddington and his circumstances. Why you'd want to ignore it or pretend it isn't so is beyond me? Paddington and his escapades generally show people in a good light as far as how they welcome those that may be different to themselves into their society.
Try actually reading the first couple posts, and proof reading your own?
You stated the same blindingly obvious point about four times there in as many paragraphs, while conveniently missing what the issue statement was.
please refrain in future from introducing your own politics: "Of course, nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and before long Paddington finds himself – like so many other immigrants – wrongly accused..." Especially such unfounded, subjective ones as these, thrown in with no facts, no figures, or any other kind of correlation or attribution and with no other purpose than to virtue signal now toxic and corrosive political correctness.