Great Film overall

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

As a Disney-sequel it is fine. I was not blown away by a star quality animated movie, but I was pleasantly surprised by certain aspects of it. The animation was actually pretty good with fluent movements and vibrant colours. Hook's ship and its flight through London was awesome. The voice actors they hired for this sequel sounded much like the original voice actors, and that is a plus that surprised me. Hook is more a VILLAIN in this rendition and I found it good balancing his comedy out a little. His comedy here is not as funny, though.The main plot was suitable for a sequel to Disney's Peter Pan.. Wendy's daughter, Jane, does not believe in Peter Pan and all that stuff, because of WWII is around and she must act adult. But that is sadly a major flaw, too. In the beginning Jane is looked down upon by her siblings and in parts also Wendy for being resourceful. That is a bad handling of a message about being a child during war time. I liked everything about Return to Neverland except that major flaw. It could have been an outstanding Disney Sequel, but settled for the "less bad" category.

First off, before I get to the review, I'd just like to start off by mentioning a few things. This is my first negative or low rated review. After having already done some positive ones already previously, wanting to change this up a bit, and after reading the negative reviews of this movie on Amazon again, I was inspired and in the mood to type one myself. I'd also like to say that even though the Disney sequels (or cheap-quels, as some call them) aren't superior or up to par with the originals, I don't resent all of them that much, to the point of loathsome. There are a few that I find to be slightly better than other sequels and I still can get into anyway (despite their average to mediocrity to poorness in comparison), but not quite on the same level as the initials. Another thing I'd like to add is that I wish there were more sequels to movies that are just as good as the originals, if not better, more often, rather than the other way around. I wish that whoever came up with the dim idea of making sequels just to make extra money as the usual, sole purpose for their existence and others who followed that...well, I just think it probably should be against the law to rip-off the loyal supporters and the practice (and false advertising) should be banned (unless more thought and effort were actually put into them, and then those sequels can be made only, not for the sake of making the extra paper). It's a bunch of horse-feathers how it is, how too much greed is allowed to come into play and that they can get away with it so easily. And I wish that those involved in these particular projects were dropped and replaced with others who can or are willing to do better, which is how it should be done. Alright, now to the review, at last. I came across and caught this Disney sequel a few years after it was released theatrically and saw some or the majority (not sure which) of it less than a half a decade ago on the Disney channel. This is one of my least favorite Disney sequels and I wasn't feeling it all that much. I didn't care for it and it just didn't grabbed me the way few of the other Disney sequels have. I think the animation is nice and top-notch, and the reunion between Peter and Wendy is likewise, but that's all. There isn't much else I could mention that hasn't already been covered by the other reviewers on here and Amazon. Although one of the things I had beef with is the passing-through- the-Indian-camp scene, with none of the Indians from the past movie present in this one. I know that Disney are trying to please and appease the native community after that controversial part of the first Peter Pan and all, but if they weren't going to include them here, then they might as well could've and should've just left the Indian camp out altogether too. I mean, if they weren't going to feature them here, then what's the point? No Indians, no showing the Indian camp. I wish someone had thought of a way to solve that past problem and work their way around that. But then again, since this was mostly so dissatisfactory with how it turned out, it's better that they weren't brought back as nothing else or nothing more needed to be jacked up or ruined (other than a recurring act of political incorrectness). Count me in preferring Tick Tock the Croc to the octopus. The mermaids had very little screen time. Somehow I missed this fact when I watched it, but the sequel is actually set in WWII??? I always thought it was the first world war for some reason. Carrying on, as for the voice cast, some of the other reviewers on here mentioned that Peter doesn't sound quite the same as he did in the previous movie, but I didn't notice that, he sounded alright here as well to me. I can see that for most of the other voice actors, especially the most notable inconsistency and change with lost boy Cubby. I detest how in cases like these the casting people don't bother trying to bring in some new voice talent who do sound as perfect as the original cast and will just settle for anything else instead and are allowed to get away with it. A lot of things that Disney's Peter Pan movie had are lacking in the follow-up. I'm just not content with this one, but I would've if it were ameliorative due to it having been put in the right hands. This is simply among the Disney sequels (at least for me and some others anyway), that I'll pretend either doesn't exist or isn't considered to be a part of the studio/company's universe. I'll leave with this and let those who may be reading my review watch for themselves, but if any of y'all must, then wait for it to re-air on t.v., rent it or view it as a stream or download online. One more thing that's for sure: I won't buy anything that's a sequel or straight-to-DVD without seeing it on t.v., online, or reading reviews for myself first anymore.

The other day I decided to go for the Disney sequels, Peter Pan one of my top favorite Disney films and as nervous as I was to see the sequel "Return to Never Land", but I decided to go ahead and give it a look. You know what? It wasn't that bad, it was actually pretty enjoyable as far as Disney sequels go. I loved seeing the return of Captain James Hook, he and his sidekick, Smee, just cracked me up so badly in the first Peter Pan, they were back in Return to Never Land and are still crazy than ever. Despite the fact that the crocodile wasn't back, I would've loved to see that return, the octopus wasn't a bad addition. The jokes are still fun and the story is still magical. We got to see what life was like for Wendy when she finally had to grow up and had a family of her own.Wendy is all grown up and has a family of her own, a loving husband, daughter, Jane, and son, Danny. Her husband goes to war and tells little Jane that she is in charge, so Jane takes that very seriously and acts as head of the household. Despite that she is still very young, she doesn't believe in Never Land and her mother's tales, but when Captain Hook thinks he grabs Wendy, he grabs Jane and takes her to Never Land to capture Peter Pan. Peter saves Jane and offers her to join the Lost Boys and hopes to restore her faith in his adventures and fairies, but all she wants to do is go home.Return to Never Land is a fun Disney sequel that I have to admit that I was actually more impressed with. There are still a lot of great laughs and the story is still as adventurous as the first time when I watched the first Peter Pan. It was a little disturbing to hear the big difference of the voices, but I'm getting past it. After all, it's been over 40 years since the original Peter Pan, so I think it would've been hard to get the same actors. But I recommend Return to Never Land, it's a cute Disney sequel.6/10

My Take: An insult to its not-so-great predecessor. Walt Disney started a very powerful career since the Golden Age of Hollywood. Even during the 30's, already have they made a mass of pure entertainment, most notable is "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" in 1933. During the 40's and 50's, Disney has made films, animated and live-action that still has the star of excellence, "Fantasia" being my favorite. Their work continued during the 70's and 80's. By the 90's, they still have the power to shine, especially with classics like "The Lion King", "Mulan", "Aladdin" and the bunch.However, the 90's marked the heyday of their animated movies. Starting from the year 2000 and then on, it has become the long awaited beginning of the end for the brilliance that is Disney. Surely, if the great Walt Disney were alive today, and saw what has become of the studio he started, he would have a stopped it before it grew even worse. But alas, we can only think of that on our imaginations. Although some of their live-action films, mainly the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, are well-done, their animated films have lost some of its touch. Mostly aiding the help of Pixar for some quality computer-animated films, they decided to take things, on their own hands, resulting in to atrocious efforts like "Chicken Little". But before those, there was "Return to Neverland", a sequel to the classic "Peter Pan".Despite starting promisingly, "Return to Neverland" falls from the top to the very deep bottom by becoming a sad effort to boot. While kids are left with their imaginations and the animated characters, adults are left with a film that will lull them to sleep. The original "Peter Pan" wasn't much of a milestone for Disney, but at least it can hold its interest to its viewer for a length of age. "Return to Neverland", as of my opinion, won't even last a five years or less. This is definitely a straight-to-video effort standard compared to what Disney can do, or used to do.So, is it no wonder the film-going public mostly neglect Dinsey's efforts these days, with such disappointing money-wasters like this.Rating: * out of 5.