Pan

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.

The visuals are stunning. Hugh Jackman is just great, clearly relishing his role. His performance alone makes the film worth a watch. The story is capable of dragging you in. You have to forget your Peter Pan pre-conceptions and accept that this is different. Be prepared to go with the flow.

Going into this movie, I knew it wouldn't do well at the box office. Unfortunately, that is true, due to the negativity surrounding it. It did indeed bomb at the box office... By default, does that mean it's a bad film? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I found it a ton of fun to watch!

The biggest problem the movie has is there are quite a few scenes that seem to rush themselves. Aside from that, the characters are a sheer delight to watch; all the cast members were clearly having a ton of fun in their respective roles and one can't help but feel that when watching. The music is absolutely enchanting and the visual effects are gorgeous; one scene in particular, though barely a minute long, has a beautiful combination of music, cinematography, and character intensity.

Fans of the source material may not like the changes they made, but try to watch this movie with the unbridled ambition of a child's imagination and judge the movie as a movie on its own merits first... and who knows? You may enjoy it too!

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.

I won tickets to the movie premiere in London. The movie is good. But I am glad I had free tickets, because I would not have wanted to pay so much to see it (movie tickets in London are generally quite expensive, around £14 per ticket)! But if you're in America and can get a ticket for $5, then I would probably do that, otherwise I'd wait to rent it on a rainy day.

Hugh Jackman was amazing as Captain Blackbeard, he's a great actor. Even the kid who plays Pan, Levi Miller, did a very good job (he was a better actor in Pan than Daniel Radcliffe was in the early Harry Potter movies, if that comparison helps). Garrett Hedlund's acting seemed a bit over-the-top, but I am not sure if that's what he was aiming for because he thought that it fit with the character's personality? Or if that's just his acting style? His acting reminded me of Brendan Fraser's acting in The Mummy. Rooney Mara was believable as Tiger Lilly.

Plot was good, cinematography and movie sets were great. But the action sequences at times felt a bit too long and drawn out. Didn't find many of the jokes funny at all, but perhaps kids would enjoy them. All in all, a nice family movie that's good to rent on a rainy day.