Neverland

As many others have commented,this movie lacks as much as it has to offer. The cinematography is poor and the editing is worse. Long transitional scenes seem to have been added just get get characters from one place to another while padding the screen time.Many have mentioned that t he acting was poor, but Wil Wheaton is a fairly good actor and he simply doesn't shine, here. So I think I would blame it on the direction. The story is the strongest reason to see this. It holds pretty close to the original Peter Pan, up to a point. It has a certain "What if Peter Pan Took Place in the Real World" point of view but still seems so bizarre, since the lost boys act so immature even though they've grown up physically. These guys are in their 20's and still act like little boys (Can Wendy be our mother?. And most of them look a bit too much like male models, which I found distracting. However, the bizzarreness is what attracted me to this film. That and the fact that I got to see Wil Wheaton acting out a role far from Wesley Crusher or the mentally ill homeless guy on CSI. This one's wort a look-see.. if you appreciate low-budget, badly acted, badly photographed movies with a twist.

I'll skip the plot summary, since we all know the story, don't we?

A great idea. I was excited as soon as I held the box.

Then the film started. A long, long, agonizingly long title sequence (consisting of someone taking random, wildly unplanned shots of a neon sign spelling the film's title) begs the mental image of the director saying "yeah, but when we cut it together it will look great".

Then we see the actors. Oh...my...GOD!!! Patronize your local high school's drama club, it'll be on that level. Peter tries, as does Wendy, to act, and the effort is admirable. They at least believe what they are doing. That doesn't make them talented unfortunately.

The show screeches to a halt at Neverland, with Captain Hook coming off like Uncle Ernie from Tommy, and a poorly written and executed musical number by Tiger Lily.

You have to lay this one at the director's feet. He BLEW a great idea.

I don't mind digital video, its a great way to introduce new talent who can't find the budgets other filmmakers can. But this? Blech. So many shots have poorly chosen color schemes meant to pass for style, and often it looks like someone smudged grit on the lens before rolling the tape.

Thank God Tinkerbell knows what she's doing as an actress. The bright spot in this wonderfully conceived but horribly executed mess. And Hook channelled Vincent Price to some effect, but somebody decided to mangle his performance in the editing room.

Having an ethnically and sexually diverse cast does NOT equal social commentary. I only say that, because the film does give off a "superior" air, indicating it was meant to mean something. Instead, it merely repeats the themes of the original text.

I do mind paying the rental premium for what comes off as someone's high school video project.

In short, great idea, horrid acting (save for Tink), awfully self conscious style, nice sets, terrible writing, inconsistent tone, some decent music.

The good things cannot overcome the three biggest flaws...horrid acting, mind crashingly bad acting (save one), and ridiculously amateurish direction.

2 out of 10

Variety was absolutely correct when it referred to the movie as "... A Dark Reimagining of Peter Pan." In the end however, a range of factors led the movie to be nothing more than an attempt at breaking the mainstream cycle of "acceptable" films.

The idea of taking the well-known story of Peter Pan and applying it to modern times, in an attempt to display current social problems is respectable and clever. What the audience received however was a movie in which the acting was lacking. Scott Mechlowicz surprising given some of his other works, appears dazed, and as if he is reading his lines off of a queue card. Melany Bell, although decent at times, tends to set the wrong emotions. Rick Sparks is just annoying as hell, and fails to really play slightly neurotic case of the "boy who wouldn't grow up." He comes off as more of the defiant adolescent, who rebels not because of his fear of society, or his fear of his inability, but rather due to his arrogance. Gary Kelley gave an excellent performance as Hook, although I would say that his performance didn't exactly fit in with the story-line, except for the fact that is disturbing, if not outright creepy. The majority of the other minor characters serve as nothing more than mouthpieces for the screenplay.

Transitions in Neverland are painfully slow. In that dull, menacing, and irritating montages continue for minutes at a time, prompting me to fast forward. It almost appears as if they were added to boost the time of the film, due to the fact that they add absolutely nothing other than substandard music, vexing sounds, and shamefully dull images.

The cinematography is by all means nothing special, nothing too innovative. There is one scene in which Hook is lecturing his employees that displays some amount of editing and camera talent. There were at times however, where the audio did not match the images on the screen.

Overall, this film is a decent introductory film for director and screenwriter Damion Dietz. It tried to take a good idea and make a good film, but in my opinion failed. It relied too much upon stereotypical understandings of society's youth, an odd, if not unnecessary overriding homosexuality component, and what appears to be attempt to manipulate every aspect of Peter Pan as much as possible. It did, honestly, try to emulate the book more than say, the Disney version, but the extremes to which it is taken results in something of chaos.

Also, it is interesting to note that a large majority of the highly positive reviews were the first, and only reviews of some IMDb members.

I will admit that I purchased this movie just for the fact that Wil Wheaton was in it. Having seen it however I do enjoy it and think it is well written. It is definitely not a family version of the film, but a good interpritation. I truly enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone who has a very weird sense of humor and reality. I had the chance also to speak with Wil Wheaton about it not too long ago and even he said he was really happy and proud of it. It is definitely a different interpretation of the film, dealing with drugged up fairies, teenage lost boys, and drag queen Tiger Lilly. I do however warn that it does have strong language.

This movie never promises to be anything that it isn't. The description basically tells you that it's low budget and shot on DV tape. If you were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings - then yes, you will be very disappointed.

If you go into it knowing that it's an independent film that was done on a minimum budget by someone just getting started in the business, then it's really not that bad.

Being someone who is just starting out in the world of movie making, I could appreciate the effort and work put into it.

So if you like weird, cult, independent, low-budget movies (and who doesn't?), then check this movie out. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best), I'd give it about a 6 or 7. My friend thought it was totally weird and didn't like it at all.