Pan

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.

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.

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.

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!