Peter Rabbit

photo courtesy of teaser-trailer.com

SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

     Talk show host and comedian James Corden headlines Peter Rabbit, an adaptation of the series of children’s books written by Beatrix Potter in the early 1900s. The movie, which stars a CGI version of Peter Rabbit alongside live-action actors, represents something of a departure from its source material, trading in Potter’s well-meaning, loveable main character for a self-aware, irreverent mischief-maker. It’s a reimagination that yields mixed results. While Peter Rabbit has undeniable charm from time to time, its sacrilegious attitude and uneven writing frequently bring the entire enterprise into question.

     In Peter Rabbit, Peter (Corden) and his family (Daisy Ridley, Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki, Colin Moody) live in the English country, where they steal food from old man McGregor’s (Sam Neill) garden and enjoy the attention of their friendly next-door neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne). But the status quo changes for the worse when a new, younger McGregor named Thomas (Domhnall Gleeson) moves into town. Thomas not only ramps up security in the garden, but he also threatens to steal Bea’s affections. It’s up to Peter, together with his woodland friends, to win back his place at the top of the food chain.

photo courtesy of collider.com

     As CGI-anthropomorphic-animal movies go, Peter Rabbit lands somewhere toward the bottom of the list. It’s not a total, unsalvageable disaster, but it certainly won’t be crucial viewing for anyone—including fans of the original storybooks. Rabbit’s silly humor might be a hit with the under-10 crowd, but even on that front, it’s far from a must-watch.

     Let’s start with the pros. Peter Rabbit is occasionally hilarious, thanks in large part to James Corden’s delivery. The dialogue appears to take a very conscious Corden-esque approach, embracing silliness and self-parody where it can. The other cast members bring their A-game, with Domhnall Gleeson and Margot Robbie making the best impressions. Gleeson’s character is basically General Hux from Star Wars, if General Hux were in charge of a small English garden and not the army of the First Order. I think it says something about his performance that, crazy though he may be, I found myself resonating a lot more with his character than with any of the rabbits.

photo courtesy of trailers.apple.com

     Other high points include the animation, which produces a believable cast of woodland creatures, and the movie’s character arc for Peter Rabbit. This movie could easily have settled for being a prank war between Peter and Thomas, but it does its due diligence in taking the narrative to surprising places in the third act. It may not be the most elegant or original denouement, but it keeps things fresh enough.

     Now for the cons. While Corden elevates the humor to a certain degree, he can only do so much. To a disappointing degree, the movie relies on slapstick and schadenfreude for its laughs. And for each joke that lands, there’s two more that fall breathtakingly flat. One sequence, for example, sees Peter giving directions to his sisters, trying to place a picture in the perfect spot on the mantle. It’s not funny, lasts too long, and feels like a total misfire. One such sequence would be a misfire, but many of them becomes… a pattern.

photo courtesy of teaser-trailer.com

     The movie’s other major flaw is its radical approach to the source material. Peter Rabbit goes to great lengths to distance itself from the outdated, outmoded original storybooks, embracing low-brow humor, trying out some stylistic embellishments, and breaking with expectations wherever possible. It’s the kind of movie that likes to point out the conventions of its own genre, and then deliberately thwart them.

     Such an iconoclastic approach can be fruitful under the right conditions, but there’s little reason for Peter Rabbit’s self-confidence. Without much to offer in its own right, the movie’s in-your-face rejection of its source material comes off as unfortunate at best and disingenuous at worst. If nothing else, it alienates the fans of the property on which it’s based, which seems like an ill-advised basis for a kid’s movie. To be fair, Rabbit does include a few sequences which address the source material directly, but its appreciation extends only to the quality of Beatrix Potter’s artwork. The rest of the movie flouts the spirit of her work, and without a measure of goodwill from that angle, the movie struggles to find any footing at all.

Watch the trailer here. 

photo courtesy of collider.com