Here comes Peter Cottontail, hoping along the fast track to box office success. Following in the footsteps of films like “Paddington” and “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” director Will Gluck (“Easy A,” “Annie” (2014)) tries to bring the beloved children’s book character into the modern age with some hip humor and visual effects. Does any of it succeed or does this rabbit flop?
In a unique twist, the film has Beatrix Potter as a character herself within it. She’s a kind woman, played delicately by Rose Byrne, who’s friends with all the animals. The new, younger Mr. McGregor is played with seething anger by Domhnall Gleeson, and his manic obsession is amusing to watch. He goes all out and it shows, delivering an amusingly ridiculous performance.
Peter and his siblings are all as rambunctious as you would imagine, however the strength of the actors behind them vary. James Cordon is just fine as Peter. He isn’t awful, but he doesn’t have the strength for the films more emotional moments, always speaking at a loud volume with the same inflection, never changing.
Margot Robbie, Daisy Ridley and Elizabeth Debecki voice the sisters Flopsy, Cottontail and Mopsy and they’re the highlight of the animals. They have a great dynamic and it makes them the standouts over Peter’s inane reckless endangerment.
Despite the decent performances, the biggest question to all of this is: why? Why is Beatrix Potter in the story? Well, she’s a love interest for the younger McGregor. But why Potter? Why her, and why make fun of her painting abilities throughout the film? Why make fun of the creator of the characters you seem to love so much?
Will Gluck and his co-writer Rob Lieber (“The Goldbergs,” “Alexander and the Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Day”) never answer any of those questions, yet the elements pop up so frequently it’s hard to ignore them.
There’s also a surprisingly violent tone to the film, with dynamite and electrocution featured quite prominently throughout. It feels out of place with these characters and its put at odds with the thoughtful story the movie seems to want to tell.
Because there is heart underneath all of it. There are sequences of beautiful animation styled after Potter’s paintings that really build a heart and a soul for these characters. All of that is lost and forgotten though, when the film too quickly wants to speed back up to its pop song filled musical montages.
Moments of slapstick and amusing banter do work however. While not all the time, the moments where it all clicks are really amusing. A fight between McGregor and Peter reminiscent of “Ted” is quite amusing, and a running gag involving a Rooster is one of the film’s best parts.
Even some of the pop culture references work, when they’re used slightly and delicately, as are the moments when the film decides to point out its own predictability. But pointing out your flaws doesn’t erase them. It simply magnifies them.
At least the film is less annoying than some of its counterparts ("Alvin and the Chipmunks," "Garfield," "The Smurfs") thanks to it avoidance of pop culture overloads and its general British-ness. However, if Paddington can cross into mainstream film and be so incredible, surely Peter can too.
“Peter Rabbit” tries to establish its own identity but too much of it is lost in the weeds. It tries to keep the sentimentality and niceness of the stories that it inherited, but it's obscured by the over-the-top violence and pop song montages. It isn’t as bad as it could have been, and there is fun to be had here, but for anyone looking for the sweet calmness and beautiful art of the original books should steer clear. It is hopping mad? No, not at all. It’s just scatterbrained. 3/5
