Living a bleak existence at a London orphanage, 12-year-old Peter finds himself whisked away to the fantastical world of Neverland. Adventure awaits as he meets new friend James Hook and the warrior Tiger Lily. They must band together to save Neverland from the ruthless pirate Blackbeard. Along the way, the rebellious and mischievous boy discovers his true destiny, becoming the hero forever known as Peter Pan.
I found this to be a quite enjoyable family movie derived from the Peter Pan story we all love. I am not really sure why it holds a fairly mediocre rating on most rating sites. It is undeserved as far as I am concerned.The movie is a prequel which tells the story of how Peter became Peter Pan. I think the story is fairly well done and allows for both adventure and humor.The characters are pretty good although I found Peter Pan to actually be the weakest of them. Hook and Tiger Lily not to mention Blackbeard stole quite a lot of my attention. Peter Pan is not bad just a little…bland.The movie is darker and more real than other Peter Pan movies. Blackbeard is a rather nasty villain and there are certainly more danger for the good guys in this movie. People do not just get nocked down and come back, they really die.The special effects are not bad. I quite liked the pixie swarms at the end of the movie. Also, unlike what some reviewers state Peter Pan does fly in the movie. I can only assume that those who state that he does not never bothered to see the movie to the end. Do not review a movie if you cannot be bothered to finish it for Christ sake!The movie leaves a bit of a whole between the end of this story and the beginning of the traditional Peter Pan story. What happened to make Peter and Hook become enemies and what is the story between Hook and the crocodile for instance? I certainly would not mind a second movie about that.
> Its when Peter stepped into the Neverland for the first time.Usually everyone loved growing up watching the various film adaptations of original work by JM Barrie's a century old creation, 'Peter Pan'. There are plenty of unofficial prequels and sequels were also made and met success. Yet this prequel with high budget and modern technology, but not a Disney film, generated some expectations with stars like Hugh Jackman and Rooney Mara in it.The box office was not as expected, and the movie was also just above average, but I liked the performances and visuals. The story is about an orphan Peter who becomes a Pan, a leader to 'the lost boys'. The opening line goes like this: 'Sometimes friends begin as enemies and enemies as friends' and that's what the rest of the movie evolves.I don't think I liked this story. In all the prequels, I loved the Nick Willing's 'Neverland' who is a master of prequels to all the greatest fairytales. I disappointed with this only because of lack of the depth in narration, short storyline and quick scenes, other than that it was not a bad flick to me. The main relief was, it was not like the recent 'Alice in Wonderland' style movie with the weird costumes, makeups and the character physiques.Despite all the negative feedback for this flick, I feel it won't hurt for a one time watch. My eye is now on its sequel, because before the Wendy's introduction there's another story is to be told and that is between Peter and Hook. But now it's on doubt over the result of this movie. Anyway, I'm on for it and hope it only gets better than the original.6/10
As likened to an innocuous fairy tale rash, the movie mythology surrounding J.M. Barrie’s classical kiddie character “Peter Pan” comes and goes when it pleases. Naturally there have been several big screen interpretations to outlast one’s reserved stash of pixie dust to fling around. From perhaps the best known animated film adaptation of Walt Disney’s nostalgically revered version to the surprisingly big-budgeted Steven Spielberg-directed spectacle dud Hook with a high-caliber cast the legend of “The Boy That Never Grew Up” seems to spark the challenge of presenting yet another spin on Barrie’s iconic treasured tyke.In director Joe Wright’s sci-fi fantasy action-adventure Pan the familiar factors of Barrie’s magical Boy Wonder are evident and should serve as a mild and manufactured revisit to the “Peter Pan” folklore for children of all ages. However, the whimsical aspect of Pan was dubiously overshadowed, overproduced yet curiously understated in its ability to convey a storytelling moment that did not seem laborious. Consequently, Pan feels mechanical and never quite settles in with any sense of breezy charm or youthful balance of wonderment. Instead, the audience is left wondering about the uniqueness and distinctive approach to an already ubiquitous serving of Barrie’s celebrated literary lad. Despite the vibrant visuals and the given big screen blueprint for “Peter Pan’s” endearing legacy Wright’s toothless tale of flashy action and adventure may just prove to be another proverbial flash in the Pan. Clearly, there is no rhyme or rhythm to tamper with the built-in concept of what the majestic make-up for “Peter Pan” should be conceived in the minds of generations that were subjected to Barrie’s boundless boy. Still, Wright and Jason Fuchs fail to capture any fresh imagination or intrigue about the puppy dog-eyed youngster’s on-screen by-the-dots adventures. This pumped-up project is pedestrian at best and nothing more than another sparkled rung in the “Peter Pan” ladder of box office hits-and-misses. The casting for Pan is decent enough but the shoddy material they are left to elevate with their included presence is wasted in a stillborn fantasy odyssey that cannot overcome its own creative indifference.Pan seeks to start out with its own embedded twist by delivering this narrative as a prequel set in 1940’s London. Here, we are introduced to 12-year old Peter (Levi Miller) whose disillusionment continues to spiral while staying at the chaotic Catholic orphanage he was unceremoniously dumped off courtesy of his desperate mother (Amanda Seyfried). Nevertheless, Peter maintains some semblance of hope that his mother will soon return to fetch him and all should solve whatever abandonment issues he has at hand.Soon, Peter and his fellow orphanage buddies will succumb to the clutches of Blackbeard the Pirate (Hugh Jackman). Evidently bad boy Blackbeard had been a notorious busy beaver by sadistically kidnapping working class children and shipping them off to his Neverland mines to toil there. However, Blackbeard and his bunch cannot be too bad to tolerate since they welcome out-of-the-blue snappy sing-a-longs to such noteworthy tunes as Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and the Romones’ “Biltzkrieg Bop”. Huh? Of course this impromptu musical sequence is not the only thing that seems curiously out of place in the disjointed Pan. Okay...so Hugh Jackman has both a black beard and a black heart in PAN. How about a blackboard to erase this ill-conceived ode to the J.M. Barrie treasured tyke?Okay…so Hugh Jackman has both a black beard and a black heart in PAN. How about a blackboard to erase this ill-conceived ode to the J.M. Barrie treasured tyke?It is not long before the plagued Peter meets and becomes attached to a hustling drifter named James Hook (Garrett Hedlund). Yes folks…it appears that Star Wars comparisons are in order here as Peter’s Luke Skywalker teams with shifty Hook’s Han Solo to defeat the devilish Blackbeard’s Darth Vader. And you might want to ask who is the Princess Leia in this disguised Star Wars premise amid the mines and high seas? Well, in this case Princess Leia is in the form of Pan’s Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara). Thus, the gang assembles together in an attempt to thwart the iron fist of Darth Vader…er, the diabolical Blackbeard. The excitable exploits of the crew coming together to defeat the pesky pirate is meshed together with the flashy flourishes of random 3-D special effects, the vitality of color and scope and playful variations of well-known “Peter Pan” personalities. Hence, all the festive and feisty flexing that Pan demonstrates still cannot compensate for a lackluster execution of Wright’s anemic installment that botches a ready-made backstory for “Peter Pan” enthusiasts.As Peter, Miller shows some solid and impish promise as the boy searching for self-discovery in a bizarre surrounding of despair and disappointment. Jackman’s over-the-top villainous Blackbeard is simply passable but nothing really worth hanging your hat on. Jackman’s plotting pirate will not make anyone dismiss Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies anytime soon. The added elements in supporting players such as Hedlund’s Hook and Mara’s Tiger Lily (not to mention the Lost Boys) feel synthetic and arbitrary–something not very encouraging as these characterizations are essential to the whole “Peter Pan” universe.Unfortunately for Pan one might end up saying never mind to the boisterous yet aimless shenanigans situated in Neverland.Pan (2015)Warner Bros.1 hr. 51 mins.Starring: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Amanda SeyfriedDirected by: Joe WrightMPAA Rating: PGGenre: Sci-Fi Fantasy and AdventureCritic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
Awkward and misguided---If there was a more awkward movie than Pan released in the last few years I'd certainly like to know about it as Joe Wright's big budgeted wannabe franchise starter is a lavishly coloured and extravagant picture that lacks knowledge of what it actually wants to be or who in fact it's aimed at and judging by the films flopping at the box office the world over, it seems as though audiences too struggled to figure out who should be watching this revamping of J.M Barrie's classic material or why they should be watching it.Tonally all over the place and with a story that seems to meander about the motions until a highly lacking finale and lack of answers regarding certain story questions (a glaring one being how Hook and Pan in fact become enemies as they are adventures together here), for the first time in his quietly impressive directing career Wright seems completely lost within his narrative and fails to liven up proceedings despite throwing every known colour onto the screen, plopping in Nirvana songs and letting many of his actors ham it up to level 11 to try and cover up the fact Pan's story is actually rather dull in a world that should be anything but.Our Pan here is played by newcomer Levi Miller and the poor young performer labours in his first major turn injecting Peter with neither the charm, smarts nor emotion that was needed for the role. When you consider however how his cast alongside a horribly miscast double act of Garrett Hedlund (who continues to frustrate as a lead actor) and the beyond bad Rooney Mara, the child performer didn't really stand much of a chance. The films only saving grace acting wise is Hugh Jackman who has a blast playing Blackbeard the fearsome pirate who will stop at nothing to collect that sought after pixie dust but while he has fun it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense having Blackbeard in this beloved tale.Whilst normally it would not be something called out for by the masses it would've actually been nice for Pan to stick more closely to the original Peter Pan story that has enchanted readers and viewers for decades upon decades and while its commendable for a big budget film to take such a risk on a new take on a well-trod property, Pan is a stinging reminder of what can go wrong when money is thrown all over the place and scripts seem doctored to tick off as many set piece wish lists as possible and for the first time in his career Joe Wright has crafted an almost irredeemably bad piece of cinematic entertainment.All those seeking a Peter Pan fix are much better off seeking out a copy of Disney's beloved animated take or even the similarly styled Steven Spielberg event Hook.1 ? awkwardly used Nirvana song out of 5
This wasn't Pan---'ve never hyped myself up for a movie more than Pan. I saw the trailer the day it came out and watched every trailer since then. Well now I've had my chance to watch it... And well...The best part of the movie was the credits. The music is catchy... That's about it. The animation and graphical affects were alright I guess. And some parts of the story weren't too bad. However the amount of plot holes made me want to cry, the relationship between Hook and Tiger lily, and Hook and Pan, and Pan and Tiger Lily, and all of them with Blackbeard was poor. The best character in it was Smeeh, but that was only in the first half of the movie, so anything past that first half for him was garbage. When I sat down and started watching it, I was disappointed by the beginning, but I sat through it anyway, in hopes that the second half would be phenomenal... And I can confirm it really wasn't. Nothing in the film made any sense. Nothing was ever explored or explained. Nothing was ever adopted on to get the main characters into their positions before we get to the Peter Pan that everyone knows where it is Pan vs Hook. There was none of that.Hooks accent... Hooks freaking accent... Oh my god. It sounded so fake it was painful. I hate writing this review, but I can honestly say I don't think I've been more disappointed in the film... Whoever made the trailers deserves the biggest pay rise ever, because the trailers did look amazing, the trailer soundtrack was amazing. The movie did not look amazing, the soundtrack was also not amazing...That's another thing, WHY WAS THE FILM A MUSICAL?! I didn't sit down to watch this so I could watch Blackbeard sing songs that hadn't been invented yet. Because I think three songs were in this film and every time I heard one, I was more tempted to turn it off.Like I said, the graphics were good, the story telling wasn't that bad and costume design was also pretty good and sets and stuff. But the film as a whole makes me final thoughts 5/10
brightly-colored action adventure---It's WWII London. Peter (Levi Miller) was left by his mother on the doorstep of the Home for Boys and he's still waiting for her to return. Kids have been disappearing. One night, pirates come to take Peter and his friends away. Pirate leader Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) has enslaved the boys to mine Pixum, fairy dust, and looking to wipe out all fairies. Peter is made to walk the plank and discovers that he is able to fly. He escapes from Blackbeard with the help of James Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Smiegel. They are captured by Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara). Recognizing the pan necklace from his mother, she reveals that Peter's mother is Blackbeard's possession Mary. She had fallen in love with the fairy prince and he is the child of their love.I really like the start of this movie. Peter Pan is brash, mischievous and heroic. I even like transferring the story to WWII which allows for a fun dogfight in the skies of London. Then the movie goes to Neverland and the problems start to pile up. I also like the wild colorful action extravaganza. It does get repetitive during the climatic action scene but the exuberance fits Neverland.For some reason, the story forces Peter to turn into a self-doubting taciturn. The flying story really hurts Peter's character development. He turns into non-Peter Pan and not even the same character from the first act. Blackbeard is a black-feathered peacock. He's not scary enough. Garrett Hedlund is not flamboyant enough to be Hook. Rooney Mara is perfectly fine as an action heroine but her pale white skin is really distracting. They may as well paint her face as some kind of warpaint like the Maori war paint. Her pale skin is too old Hollywood. I can see a wild Peter Pan movie being made here but the little problems overwhelm it.
Damn you Warner Bros for greenlighting this garbage.---When this was first announced they sold it as being different and man the tone of the early trailers just really made me feel like they were going to go deep and abstract. The trailer song made me shiver. My dumb ass thought it might even be something like "The adventures of Baron Munchausen" full of metaphors and abstractions like "What dreams may come". Like it was going tell a more emotional story about the relationship of the main actors. Nope boring run of the mill peter pan adaptation with a couple characters swapped to claim uniqueness. Damn I just rewatched the first trailer and it totally sold me on a different story. What makes matters worse is the world is very well designed and there's several hints at what could have been a really trippy adventure, but for some reason they went incredibly cheap on the CGI which in several spots is just unbearably bad. The story doesn't really make any sense. "chosen one"? For what? and what exactly does he provide? He can control fairies? but the fairies were perfectly capable of throwing a couple pirates around. The relationship between Blackbeard and his mother was really dumb and illogical, there's so much more they could have done with that. In general it just felt crap and plodded along and then just rolled over at the end. Man I'm just so angry. I would have killed to have Terry Gilliam to do this, or David fincher, Darren Aronofsky. It sucks because Hugh Jackman was wasted. Thats the one thing they got right. The design and portrayal of Blackbeard was cool, but his story was so Blasé. I liked the inclusion of modern music but instead of making it a theme with a story nope you get one cool song and then generic music for the rest of the film.(I know there was another one but it sucked) Damn you Warner Bros for greenlighting this garbage.Im giving this a 1/10 because of how insultingly wasteful they were with such a great idea. I've seen better execution of concepts like this out of 50k indie movies. When we talk about twist of fairy tale concepts I have to give the nod to Maleficent. Again the trailer was chilling and though the movie had innumerable flaws it was the mature emotional experience we were looking for. Guess now were just going to have to wait for the Fables trilogy they'll inevitably screw up.
Missed the point of Pan---Pan is one of those films where it's hard to pinpoint what is wrong because the answer is basically everything. I'm confused as to how they managed to turn such a simple story into such a convoluted mess.At his core, Peter Pan is just a boy who escapes to a magical fantasy land because he doesn't want to grow up. In Neverland he leads a crew of similarly disenfranchised kids, plays games with Indians, swims with mermaids, and fights pirates.Simple right? Well not according to Joe Wright and the producers of this film. For some reason they felt the need to cram in every single cliché possible in order to 'modernize' the story despite the fact that the themes in Barrie's stories were already timeless.Levi Miller stumbles here and there but he was well cast as Peter. However the script doesn't support the role. At certain points he becomes secondary in his own story. His desires don't move the plot forward and after the first 20 minutes he has very little to do except "learn how to fly". We never seem him turn into the character we know as Peter Pan except for the fact that *spoilers* he flies at the end. And don't even get me started on 'The Chosen One' thing.Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara, is bland, and I'm not talking about the color of her skin. She's your typical warrior princess and for some reason they try to set up a possible romance between her and Hook. She's basically around to be walking talking exposition.Jackman also does a good job, but his character, Blackbeard, isn't interesting. His motivations are paper thin. He wants to mine some fairy dust in order to live forever which doesn't even make sense because Neverland supposed to be a place where people don't age. Blackbeard is just shoehorned in there so they could have a villain other than Hook.This brings me to one of the most pointless things in the film: Hook being Peter's ally. It doesn't amount to anything. You never get a sense of conflict between the two. You keep waiting for a point when Hook is going to betray Peter but it never happens. You want to see that scene where Peter cuts off his hand and feeds it to the crock, but it never happens. Hook's only motivation in this film is to escape and go home. He doesn't seem like he could turn into the devious Captain we know. At the end of the film, Hook and Pan are still friends and they just hint at a possible conflict in the sequel with a throw away line. Also, if you're a kid and this is your introduction to the character of Hook the 'twist' will go right over your head.And why is Hook American? Who made this decision? Another problem with Pan is the over-use and reliance of CGI. It looks fake, especially Peter's flying. Peter Pan was better animated in 1953, not in terms of graphical fidelity, but in motion. He had weight, he had grace, and he was agile. In Pan he just kind of floats like he's being dragged by a mouse cursor.When you stretch the rules of reality too far it becomes unbelievable even in a world like Neverland. You have to have rules. In Pan there are flying pirate ships. Why? How do they fly? It's never explained. The ships can fly both in the real world and Neverland. There is no consistency.I'm giving this film a 1 out of 10 because they squandered so much potential. The source material is so rich and this is the best they could come up with? I think a live action Peter Pan film could be successful but if they ignore the themes that make the story interesting in the first place it just won't resonate with the audience.
Great Movie, wrong audience---I took my nephew and niece to see this movie this past week, and one thing was clearly noticeable. The movie is a bit to overwhelming for small kids. However, if you don't go to this movie to see a funny and uplifting 'Hook' remake, but instead go to see a more deep and thrilling retelling of a childhood tale, you will be most pleasantly surprised. The movie, from this point of view, is fantastic. I feel bad that it has received such harsh reviews from parents that apparently took their small kids to a movie without first at least watching the trailer. Its a bit darker then its predecessors, but is clearly shown that way through the trailer.Let me put it this way, if the trailer looks like a movie you want to see, you will not be disappointed here.
Best Pan Movie.---This is without a doubt the most enjoyable pan movie I have come across. I have just reached home from the cinema, and want to go back so I can watch it all over again.I was able to watch this film in 3D boy did it stimulate my acrophobia,there was some view and angles from some amazing heights that I literally held my breath at times,The film had some truly amazing sets,and scenery with a melody of vibrant colors and musicality from you entered into Neverland, with the aforementioned heights and the displays of camera movements to fully embrace the dreamy state of it all was beautifully doneIt was great to see this rendition of Peter pan answering such questions as,why Pan is able to fly? and why he has so much confidence? Pan ended with you (me) wanting more, needing to find out what happened between Pan and Hook. It has everything you want in a family movie. The only down side in my opinion (not the strange songs that didn't seem to fit because I did sing along in the cinema), but the natives? who actually looked like a bunch of kidnapped Londoners who escaped and put on colorful native clothing.... They didn't look native at all.I need it to do better, because ... I need Pan 2.