Neverland

This is a prequel dealing with Peter Pan (Charlie Rowe) as an orphan on the streets of London. Peter and his band of thieves work as pickpockets. Their evil mentor Jimmy Hook (Rhys Ifans) gets them to steal a magical treasure which transports them to Neverland. Once there Hook join with a group of pirates led by Elizabeth Bonny (Anna Friel) in search of more magic dust. Peter lands with the Indians and the beautiful Aaya (Q'orianka Kilcher) where the people don't age.

The story lack any pace. It drags along. With 240 minutes, this is way too long. It doesn't help that they explain away the magic. It reminds me of Star Wars explaining away The Force. Why can't they leave it alone? The acting is acceptable. All the big name give the expected performance. Charlie Rowe as Peter Pan is average. As for the production, it's got TV movie level. It's nothing to brag about. It's dark and dreary. Again all the magic is gone.

The cast, me being a Peter Pan fan and the fact I enjoyed Tin Man and Alice were what drew me into seeing Neverland. I was also dubious though as SyFy apart from a couple of surprises to me are notorious for making cheaply made, cliché ridden and terribly acted movies.

This in mind, while it is not quite as good as Tin Man and Alice, it is like them entertaining and interesting and alongside them and The Lost Future among the best SyFy have done.

Before I start, I didn't see Neverland as an adaptation of the timeless Peter Pan story and I don't think it was intended to be, more a prequel to it.

Is Neverland perfect? No it isn't I don't think. Neverland did bring some interesting ideas mostly scientific, which had potential to bring a fresh and intriguing slant to things. However, with a series this length, I would've loved more development to some of those ideas, the folded universe idea seemed great on paper but the finished product seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary.

Another thing is that I wasn't taken with the performance of Aaya. She is beautiful, but she seemed too old, and seemed at times more awkward and bland than brave and dignified. The most disappointing asset was the last twenty minutes.

Now the first half was good, with a nice Oliver Twist-like opening and set up the story quite nicely. The second half was even better, it was more tightly paced and had a little more story. That is on the other hand until the last twenty minutes, which felt very rushed, particularly with Peter's shadow which also felt tacky and forced.

Conversely, I very much liked the costume and set design, the sets were colourful and imaginative and the costumes were true to the Edwardian era and what I imagine pirates and Indians to look like. The special effects from the more scientific elements, the fairies and the crocodiles never do look that cheap and the opening seemed to have a very meticulous atmosphere.

The music is quite good too, maybe not quite good enough for a kind of "best musical score for a television programme/mini-series" award, but it does sparkle and has a sense of adventure. The story was interesting, paced well and with clever references. The sword fights are serviceable, not looking too clumsy, the dialogue is not too clunky and has some wit and of the relationships I found Hook's and Peter's on/off relationship and that of Hook and Elizabeth Bonny the most well done.

Neverland does have a great cast, with Aaya being the only glaring exception. Charles Dance is a great presence if deserving of more to do, and while not brilliant Kiera Knightley's Tinkerbell was actually better than I anticipated.

I was taken with Charlie Rowe as Peter, I had seen him once before and didn't like him much, but his Peter is spirited and loyal with some likability, though I noticed that Peter is not as cocky or as forgetful as I am familiar with him as. The best though were Rhys Ifans' charismatic Hook, Anna Friel's foxxy, beautiful Elizabeth and Bob Hoskins's amusing Smee. I liked the depiction of the lost boys too, Slightly especially reminds me of a cuddly teddy bear and acting-wise the most promising was Curly.

Overall, something was missing, but compared to the piece of whatever it could've been it was a worthy prequel to a story that had stood the test of time for over a century and will continue to do so. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I enjoyed almost every minute of this series. I thought it was far above the average SyFy flick. The special effects, while not perfect, are very adequate. The story is imaginative and refreshing. I found myself drawn in from the beginning. Watching Bob Hoskins as Smee again was pure joy.

Every part of the story was as logical and well thought out as any fantasy could be. Often in movies I find myself thinking "Why would they do that?" That was not the case in this movie. Other than some mistakes made that any child could make, the characters all acted logical within the parameters of their character.

Unlike some other fantasy TV that left us with nothing but questions at the end, (Lost, I'm looking at you.) origins and motivations for almost every character and aspect of the Peter Pan story is given, and satisfactorily explained by the end.

Another aspect of the series that I like is the fact that by the end Every story line and mystery is satisfactorily wrapped up with a nice big bow on top. Yet with this nice satisfying ending the door is still left open just enough for a sequel.

The only negative aspect I can find in this is the depiction of Tinkerbell. Somehow I found it lacking, but that could easily be attributed to personal tastes.

Last night we rented NEVERLAND from RedBox and upon coming home I spot previewed the titles before my wife came down, and since it advertised several SCIFI channel films, such as the dreadful RIVERWORLD, I thought I had chosen poorly. (See IndyJones and Last Crusade). So when we began to dig into this, the casting of Bob Hoskins as Smee was a surprise jolt!!! An homage to HOOK by old Spielberg. OK, good casting. Then Kiera Knightly as voice of Tinkerbell. OK, a knod over to Pirate of the Carribbean. Better still.

Then we forgot the world for 4 hours straight!!! We never do that, but this one HOOKS you, pun intended, and takes the viewer for a surprisingly intelligent ride into fact and fantasy. I shall not give plot points away, enjoy this one yourself, but it is even better than the PETER PAN of a few years ago. It catches all of the plot points that BEGAN the story quite well. Rhys Ifan is almost a younger David WARNER in every respect and Charlie Rowe makes Pan a living, breathing young boy straight out of the world of Dickens in Edwardian London. Anna Friel - a charming, sexy counterpoint to the pirate legend. And Hoskins, only a six day shoot as Smee, bring a welcome touch of nostalgia for the show.

We did not get tired at all. 4 hours right through which we never do, only Sir Francis Urqhart in the classic HOUSE OF CARDS trilogy was so compelling. And this is a smart tale too. Again, intelligent thought and writing here.

Find it, clear the decks, grab some rum and splice the main brace for a wonderful evening just off the second star to the right straight on till morning.

I thought this was a very interesting take on the PETER PAN story - I liked Rhys Ifans' Hook and the Fagin-like origin with the "lost boys" and Charlie Rowe as Peter was a fairly rounded character and is certainly the stand out performance of the film - And Anna Friel is gorgeous as pirate Capt. Bonny!... Sadly the film falls apart with the tech side of things... the direction on this film is so boring and lack-luster, there are some edits that are just plain horrible and lazy - and speaking of horrible Q'orianka Kilcher as Aaya (tiger lily) is just awful... She is beyond wooden, she is lifeless and drains any life out of every scene she is in... which is too bad! Overall the film is visually interesting and well worth a courtesy watch!