🐇 Peter Rabbit (2018)

“Hopelessly Modernized”


—

🎬 Let’s start by showing y’all the trailers shall we?

—

📖 Non-Spoiler Plot Overview

This isn’t Beatrix Potter’s Peter Rabbit. Not even close. Instead, it’s a hyperactive, self-aware, modernized take where Peter (voiced by James Corden) and his rabbit crew wage a Looney Tunes-style war against Mr. McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson). There’s slapstick, EDM dance parties, fourth-wall jokes, and—oh yeah—a romance subplot between Bea (Rose Byrne) and McGregor that eats up more runtime than anything Peter does.


—

👥 Character Rundown

Peter Rabbit (James Corden) – Loud, smug, and more of a prankster gremlin than the mischievous but endearing character from the books. He’s the biggest problem here.

Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson) – The human highlight of the film. Gleeson throws himself into cartoonish physical comedy, sometimes saving entire scenes.

Bea (Rose Byrne) – A painter who exists as both a love interest and a strange “voice of reason.” Sadly, she feels underwritten.

The Rabbit Crew – Flopsy, Mopsy, Cotton-Tail, Benjamin—they’re… there. They get their jokes in but rarely feel like characters.



—

⏱️ Pacing / Flow

The film constantly lurches between two tones: chaotic slapstick war with Peter and suddenly saccharine romance drama with Bea and McGregor. It’s like two separate movies glued together with glitter glue. Kids get the chaos, adults get the romance subplot—but neither fully works.


—

✅ Pros

Domhnall Gleeson is surprisingly committed—his slapstick timing is impressive, and he elevates mediocre material.

The countryside visuals and occasional quiet moments do remind you of Beatrix Potter’s world.

There are fleeting moments of charm—especially when the film stops trying so hard to be “hip.”



—

❌ Cons

Peter himself: this version is insufferable. Loud, smug, obnoxious, and written like a Corden late-night monologue. You don’t root for him, you root against him.

Fails as an adaptation: Beatrix Potter’s Peter was mischievous but lovable. This one is destructive, cruel, and nothing like the source material.

Tone is a mess: Is this Looney Tunes? A rom-com? A book adaptation? It tries to be all three and succeeds at none.

The humor: endless pop-culture gags, slapstick overload, and even allergy jokes that stirred controversy. It screams “focus-tested studio comedy,” not timeless children’s story.



—

💭 Final Thoughts

There are glimmers of a good family film in here, but they’re buried under obnoxious humor and a complete misunderstanding of the source material. Domhnall Gleeson carries the movie on his back while James Corden sinks it. For kids, it’s loud and silly; for adults, it’s grating. As an adaptation of Beatrix Potter’s beloved tale? It’s a failure.

If you want proof this didn’t have to be this way, just look at the Paddington films. Those movies prove you can modernize a beloved children’s character without selling out their soul. Paddington is funny, heartfelt, and yes, a little absurd at times — but always rooted in kindness. His mischief comes from misunderstanding, not malice. He’s never cruel, never smug. The humor lifts you up, and the warmth of the London setting makes you want to live in that world.

Compare that to Peter Rabbit. Instead of charm, we get mean-spirited slapstick. Instead of warmth, we get noise. Instead of staying true to Beatrix Potter’s simple yet timeless tone, these films feel like they’re parodying the very idea of children’s stories. Paddington made me smile and feel good. Peter Rabbit made me roll my eyes and wonder who thought this was a good idea.

If Paddington is the gold standard for how to adapt a children’s classic, then Peter Rabbit is the anti-Paddington. Where Paddington is gentle, funny, and overflowing with heart, Peter is obnoxious, mean-spirited, and loud. Paddington made me believe a bear could bring joy to a whole city; Peter made me believe James Corden just wanted to cash a paycheck. One feels timeless, the other already feels dated. Paddington makes you want to hug him. Peter makes you want to punt him.



—

⭐ Rating

6/10


—

⚠️ Spoiler Warning

From here on, details of the film’s plot will be discussed.


—

🩸 Spoilers

In Potter’s world, Peter’s mischief always had consequences. In The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1902), Peter sneaks into Mr. McGregor’s garden, eats too much, and nearly gets caught. He loses his shoes, ruins his jacket, and barely escapes with his life. When he gets home, his mother doesn’t let him off the hook — she puts him to bed with nothing but chamomile tea while his sisters get a proper supper. It’s a simple but powerful lesson: curiosity and mischief are fine, but recklessness carries real costs.

Compare that to the film’s version of Peter: he escalates his feud with McGregor into near-lethal territory (traps, electrocution, food allergy assault), and when Bea and McGregor reconcile, Peter gets rewarded with love, attention, and forgiveness. No punishment. No reflection. Just a pat on the back for finally doing the bare minimum of decency.

It’s the complete opposite of Potter’s intent. Her Peter was flawed but lovable because he paid for his mistakes. That humility made him enduring. The movie, though, strips away that moral spine and replaces it with snark, slapstick, and James Corden’s loud personality. Instead of learning and growing, this Peter gets away with everything — which makes him more obnoxious than endearing.

Even the tone is different. Potter’s illustrations painted the English countryside with warmth and quiet charm. Mischief was small-scale, intimate, and relatable (a stolen carrot here, a lost jacket there). The movie swaps that for noisy, over-the-top chaos, pop-culture gags, and a finale that feels more like a rom-com than a children’s fable.

So when the credits roll, you don’t walk away with a moral, a cozy feeling, or even an affection for Peter’s mischievous nature. Instead, you’re left with a character who’s more bratty anti-hero than timeless children’s icon — which is why the film doesn’t work as an adaptation, even if some audiences found it tolerable as a loud kids’ comedy.