Peter Pan

I had low expectations for this movie seeing the low review scores but I just saw Pan and really enjoyed it. It was above all a visual stunning movie. We saw it in 3d and Neverland really came alive. The story is thin but OK enough to keep the movie going. It reminded me in a way of Mad max. Also visual stunning, lost of action, with duels, fighting, etc but with a razor thin story line. Above all my kids of 6 and 7 enjoyed it very much. It was kind of the first time that they saw such an action movie. It can be a little bit frightening sometimes for kids but not too much.

I would recommend seeing the movie with your family. If you are a real movie buff you better skip it.

'I don't believe in bedtime stories' - Peter

Popcorn, M&Ms and a large drink... roll the film... The story of Peter Pan has been the source for a multitude of films. To know more about his past is an interesting proposition, but the trailers seem confusing. Is James T. Hook an ally or even a friend of Peter Pan?

Kid's Korner rating: 2.75 stars* Parent's Rating: 3 stars

Do you know the story of Peter Pan, the legendary tale from J.M. Barrie about Wendy, Tinkerbell, Captain Hook, Neverland and the boy who could fly? His story must have a beginning and is begging answers to the questions of where did he come from and how did he get introduced to all of these iconic characters on this magical island? Pan is the origins viewpoint of director Joe Wright (Atonement) of the boy who is perpetually 12-years-old and the defender of fairies and orphans. Peter (Levi Miller) is an orphan during World War II, who lives with the hope that his mother will come back to retrieve him. While living in the confines of the nightmarish orphanage, Peter and a multitude of other boys are inexplicably kidnapped by pirates and taken to the island that is controlled by the dreaded Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Peter must come to terms with a prophecy that has him at the heart of the deliverance of Neverland from this tyrannical pirate. He must partner with the local inhabitants and a strange ally named James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund) to determine if Peter is really the saviour of this magical land.

Pan is a lesson in trying to do too much in a short period of time. The story is placed against a visually stunning backdrop of childhood dreams. Wright provides the magical land that would be expected of the J.M. Barrie story, but like Peter and James Hook in the film, the director seems to get lost along the way. There are so many elements and characters to take in and retrofit into the familiar children's fairy tale it becomes muddled in the delivery. The actors convey confusion of what type of film they are participating in and their performances do not capitalise on the talent that they represent. Also, with all that Wright is attempting to do with the film, the pacing of the film struggles under the weight of expectation and causes it to drag for the first half. Then he seems to attempt to make up for lost time in the second half and the journey comes in a rapid fire delivery that leads to confusion. Even though the visual cinematic experience is pleasurable, the overall experience is inevitably perplexing, which will lead to a multitude of questions from little ones during or after the film. Children and parents can enjoy the film together, but an explanatory discussion will be in order in the car ride home afterwards.

As an origins story, The writers were not original in where they pulled their source material for Pan, which is not a bad thing. There is no masking of who Peter Pan represents in Neverland. See if any of this storyline sounds familiar, a prophecy says that the son of Mary will one day come and be the messiah for the people of this land. Once Peter is fully aware of his role, he will have three days to rise to the challenge and save Neverland. Even though the overall story is a bit confusing at times, this film production paves the way for many discussions on who Peter is meant to represent and who the true Saviour of the world is for all of us.

Dad asked the question on the ride home, 'What did we think of the film?' What was up with the Nirvana song in the introduction of Blackbeard. Weird! It was fun, but a bit confusing at times. Overall we liked it, but it was not as magical as it could have been.

Reel Dialogue: What are the bigger questions to consider from this film? 1. What does the Bible say about orphans? (Isaiah 1:17, John 14:18) 2. Why is family important? (Matthew 22:36-40, Romans 15:2) 3. Who is the real Messiah? (The Gospel of Luke)

Kid's Korner are shorter reviews written by Russell Matthews's kids perspective and based on a five star rating system @ Russelling Reviews #russellingreviews #panthemovie

Like the recent "The Force Awakens," this is a movie that should really only be seen in 3D on a 100-foot screen and all-around loudspeakers. Why? Because where it excels is in its visual and audio presentation, which is simply superlative. As a viewer, you need to be captivated by this aspect of the cinematography because, in all other respects, it's a so-so film.

To be fair, it's decently acted, although perhaps not outstandingly so. None of the acting performances stank, but the actors weren't given a lot to work with so far as character depth was concerned. Some of the parts were played for laughs which, of course, is fair enough in a film of this genre. The part of Hook was ambiguous -- we all know that Hook turns out to be a villain, so it isn't clear why he's a good guy (and a rather insipid one) here. Still, perhaps the film-makers are already planning a sequel that will do for Hook with "Revenge of the Sith" did for Darth Vader?

In the end, what lets Pan down is the storytelling. If this were a children's book, rather than a blockbuster movie, by about page ten you'd be wondering what the heck was going on. So much of the plot makes no sense. Why is it such a big deal that Peter can fly? What does it prove if he can? The fantasy world is full of ships that fly about with no visible means of support, so clearly magical flight is unremarkable. Why do the characters keep bursting into song? It's not a musical, right? The characters in the original book have a certain amount of depth, and as a reader you can't help wondering what their back-stories are (which, of course, is a hallmark of great character writing). Pan ought to answer that question, but it doesn't -- we don't really learn anything about why Peter, Tiger Lily, Smee, et al., are who they are.

You can have the original Peter Pan performed on a packing-crate stage by high school kids, and it can still be magical. But if you take all the high-tech whizzbangery away from Pan, I wonder what is left? Not a great deal, I suspect.

For all that, worth watching in the right environment.

Greetings again from the darkness. Writer J.M. Barre first introduced the world to Peter Pan just after the turn of the twentieth century. Children and adults alike were enamored with "the boy who wouldn't grow up". The stories were filled with the mischief created by Peter and his Lost Boys buddies from their Neverland home, and although there existed elements of danger (Captain Hook), Barre's story was mostly about holding on to the joy and carefree world of childhood.

Sadly, these days we don't encourage kids to be kids. Instead, we push them to take on responsibility and act 'grown up' … heck, most kids today never really experience free play time with their friends. Everything is organized and scheduled (just check the calendar on the fridge). Writer Jason Fuchs and director Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) have created a Peter Pan "origin" story that lacks any touch of whimsy or enchantment from the original books or the numerous film adaptations: the 1953 Disney animated classic, the 1991 Steven Spielberg/Robin Williams/Dustin Hoffman vehicle, the underrated 2003 live action version from director P.J. Hogan, or even last year's Live TV broadcast featuring Allison Williams as Peter.

This one begins with a talented Parkour-enabled Mother (Amanda Seyfried) dropping off her infant son on the steps of an orphanage. She leaves only a note and a pan flute medallion. Flash forward twelve years and Peter (Levi Miller) is questioning the mysterious disappearance of kids from an environment straight out of a Dickens novel, as well as the hoarding talents of the evil Mother Superior (Kathy Burke). Soon enough Peter finds himself, along with scores of other youngsters, slaving in the fairy dust mines belonging to Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Are you depressed yet? Things only get bleaker as Peter escapes with his new friend James Hook (the name is no coincidence). They soon encounter the tribe that protects the Fairy Kingdom and the fairy dust that Blackbeard so values. Part of the tribe is Tiger Lilly (Rooney Mara) who believes that Peter is "the chosen one" who has come to lead and protect them. Lots of fighting ensues, plus some soaring giant crocodiles, flying pirate ships, and a trio of mermaids (all played by supermodel Cara Delevingne).

Re-imagining the classics is about the closest thing we get to creativity in Hollywood these days, so it's not the idea of the project that so bothers, but rather the approach. Where is the fun? Where is the sense of wonderment? In fact, young Peter's destiny seems to be an urgency to assume more responsibility as a leader … not live the carefree days of fun and games that Mr. Barre had set out.

Newcomer Levi, who plays Peter, ranks right there with director Joe Wright's previous discovery of Saoirse Ronan, as child actors with big time screen presence. Young Mr. Miller has a grasp of the script and character and is the best part of the film. Hugh Jackman plays Blackbeard, but can never really reach the necessary level of intimidation or theatricality. For some reason Garrett Hedlund plays Hook as if he is imitating Christian Slater who is imitating Jack Nicholson playing Indiana Jones. It's so over-the-top that we must assume Hedlund was directed to bring some comic relief to the bleak environment. Much has already been written about the casting of ultra-Caucasian Rooney Mara in the role of Tiger Lilly, though she performs the role quite well (avoiding the screeching of her lines in the manner of Jackman and Hedlund). Rounding out the cast is Adeel Axhtar as Smiegel/Smee.

Some of Wright's action sequences and CGI are quite impressive, though it's difficult to overlook the obvious influences of Terry Gilliam, Baz Luhrman, and even George Lucas and James Cameron. Particularly painful and out of place are the Luhrman-influenced musical interludes of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and The Ramone's "Blitkrieg Bop". Even the pixie dust effect reminds of Dorian Gray, though Jackman only gets one brief scene in which to capitalize.

Devotees of the J.M. Barre source material will be no doubt disappointed and confused, but the theatre was filled with youngsters who couldn't seem to care less that Joe Wright had taken a classic story in the opposite direction. They enjoyed the visual effects as evidenced by the numerous "oohs" and "ahhs". So let's allow that reaction to speak for itself, rather than saying this version just didn't pan out.

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.