Neverland

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

An ambitious and smart modernization of the oft-told Peter Pan tale. I'm convinced this is almost what Baz Luhrmann would do if he got his hands on the material. (Of course he would have 1000 times the budget!)

Some standout performances and a great soundtrack make up for the choppy and at times migraine-inducing editing.

Overall, highly watchable and addictive. I'm hoping someone at the WB or HBO sees it and requests a pilot for a series! Looking forward to more magic from the talents involved.

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 agree with the other commentary on this movie. This movie is interesting in that it takes an otherwise "children's story" and sets in a hyper-reality, very much adult, setting. This allows the more adult aspects of the story to be explored. Adult issues such as drug abuse, sexual "norm" deviance, and avoidance of responsibility take center stage in this update.

While a grand experiment, this movie ultimately failed for me on several levels:

The cast of characters is far too large to allow for meaningful character development for ANY of the characters. The most prominent victims of this flaw are the lost boys. There are too many of them, and as such their decision to follow Wendy and leave Neverland seems more of a plot device than a real decision on their part, as is Peter's ultimate decision to return to Neverland alone.

The Darling kids' decision to leave their home in the first place home was another problematic issue for me. Sure, they try to explain it during Wendy's "story" to the Lost Boys in Tiger Lily's dressing room, but as is the case with literary writing, showing is always better than telling. And the short sequence with the parents in the beginning is not enough to show me the kids' rationale. Wendy telling it to me just didn't cut it.

And then there's the acting. Oh, the acting. "Bad acting" is being kind. It's a shame that an experiment of this caliber couldn't gain major funding and established actors, because the premise is fabulous. I find it very interesting that through most of the movie, the acting is horrendous from each member of the cast; however, the actors playing Wendy and Peter show their real chops during the last scene they play together. They both moved me incredibly during this final scene, and the fact that they were able to do so clearly demonstrates to me that the problem (at least for these two) was not the acting, it was the writing and direction. Both actors seem promising during this final scene, languishing in otherwise poor material. This movie felt like the writer began with the final scene and worked backward.

Overall, I love the premise. I related to Wendy's concern for the drug-addled man-boy refusing to grow up because, yeah, I've dated him, and she completely conveyed the frustration in trying to break through the haze and reach him intellectually. The DVD is watchable, although grainy in parts and particularly blurred during the pirate dungeon scene. Watchable once.

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.