Watched both in HD on Vudu today. Thumbs up x2!
t always has to be some godawful live-action/animation mix.
That is the problem. I don't know why anyone would expect that a bear that wears an overcoat and a hat to be realistic looking.
In this case, it's not. Paddington's CGI is some of the most realistically rendered I've ever seen, in that he is, for the purposes of the films, a real, living, breathing bear with whom you empathize immediately.
Not to mention an "unusually attractive nun."It's delightful, its delicious, it's de-lovely, and Hugh Grant is just scrumptiously evil!
It's a fantasy movie guys. Aimed at kids but accessible to adults. You are overthinking it. The problem is in you, not the film.
I don't see why this film should be less prone to criticism for its choices and look just because it is supposedly made for kids.
Now the movie is crap which is different than your earlier post when you stated you liked the movie and thought the CGI could have been better.Agree. Just because a movie aims for a younger audience doesn't mean it has to be crap!
As much as I enjoyed the movie, I have to disagree that Paddington offers top-notch CG. I always felt acutely aware that he wasn't a real creature - he never looked particularly "convincing" and he didn't always integrate very well with his surroundings.
Again, the movie works despite this, but I don't think the CG is especially good...
Now the movie is crap which is different than your earlier post when you stated you liked the movie and thought the CGI could have been better.
Hugh Grant calls out Paddington 2 as possibly "the best film I've ever been in":