Neverland
- Mini-série télévisée
- 2011
- 1h 30min
NOTE IMDb
6,3/10
11 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueSome places may look familiar. Some characters may ring a bell. But in this world, where time stands still, an adventure awaits like none you've ever seen before.Some places may look familiar. Some characters may ring a bell. But in this world, where time stands still, an adventure awaits like none you've ever seen before.Some places may look familiar. Some characters may ring a bell. But in this world, where time stands still, an adventure awaits like none you've ever seen before.
- Récompenses
- 3 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
Not too shabby two episodes in! Interested to see where it goes, but hard with Peter Pans story already over told... want to see if the plot is taken anywhere unique though...
not better than others. not worst. only new adventures in a new frame. for fans of Peter Pan - a must see. for the others - good occasion to discover a prequel who did few explanations, who use magic and the enthusiastic young characters for a trip in essence of a well known story, same fascinating, seductive and charming. it is difficult to say anything about "Neverland" . bad or good. because it has an interesting start point of story - Dickens would be proud as source of memories - and the technology did a great job. but the film has not the force to be a revelation. decent acting, nice adventures. and nothing else. but enough for a nice evening after a work day.
Ingredients;
Handfuls of Oliver Twist, Cap'n Hook, Peter Pan, Pocahontas, The Pied Piper, a pinch of Pirates of the Caribbean, and cup of Harry Potter.
Stir well as you throw in some sugar & bitter herbs.
Over-bake for 3 hours.
Top generously with cheeze.
Yeh - it's slightly weird-good-bad-interesting like that. Like a strange dish thrown together with similar, familiar ingredients you have on hand, and which you use in large amounts for volumn bc extra people may show up.
I typically pick out the green beans, and select more of the stuff I like.
Probably infuriates the cook . . .
Not a terrible kids movie. But no block buster.
Not a complete waste of time, but not anything to write home about.
Somewhat engaging, but not totally immersive.
Got kids?
Need 3 hours of quiet?
Feed them this.
The little ones will fall asleep from the digestion overload . . .
For the ADDs, around halftime, possibly promise a desert or treat if they sit still & keep watchin' . . .
Stir well as you throw in some sugar & bitter herbs.
Over-bake for 3 hours.
Top generously with cheeze.
Yeh - it's slightly weird-good-bad-interesting like that. Like a strange dish thrown together with similar, familiar ingredients you have on hand, and which you use in large amounts for volumn bc extra people may show up.
I typically pick out the green beans, and select more of the stuff I like.
Probably infuriates the cook . . .
Not a terrible kids movie. But no block buster.
Not a complete waste of time, but not anything to write home about.
Somewhat engaging, but not totally immersive.
Got kids?
Need 3 hours of quiet?
Feed them this.
The little ones will fall asleep from the digestion overload . . .
For the ADDs, around halftime, possibly promise a desert or treat if they sit still & keep watchin' . . .
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.
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.
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
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
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesBob Hoskins previously played Smee in Hook ou la Revanche du capitaine Crochet (1991). This was the first time when the same actor played the same character in two completely different stories involving other overlapping characters in two forms of media.
- GaffesCaptain Bonnie notes that Orion is "in the wrong place" and Polaris is not visible. From anywhere far enough away that Polaris is not visible, Orion would also not be visible, or the parts of it that were visible would not remotely resemble Orion as we see it from Earth.
- Versions alternativesIn the director's commentary on the Vivendi Entertainment DVD, Nick Willing refers to two version of the film: one for Sky Movies (which he also calls the British version) that he mentions (at 2:01:50) cut out the moment when Hook reveals to Peter that he killed Peter's father; the other for the Syfy Channel, who he mentions (at 2:45:14) wanted to end the movie on Peter and on an up-note, so their version switched the last two scenes of the screenplay and ends with Peter's return to the Lost Boys with gifts while the Sky Movies version ends with Hook looking directly at the camera after Peter returns.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Neverland have?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 30 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 16:9 HD
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant