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

A black Wendy? A juvenile delinquent Michael? A community college drop-out John? Obviously this isn't your grandparent's Peter Pan. These and many other stylish changes can be found in Damion Dietz's update of the J.M. Barrie classic, while sticking closely to the plot points of the original.

In fact, Neverland does follow the main points of the story fairly closely, which is scary considering the result. It's actually pretty amazing how easily Dietz was able to change certain plot points to make them fit a more contemporary backdrop. When he is introduced, Peter is looking for the keys to his car, nicknamed, appropriately enough, "My Shadow." Neverland is a run-down amusement park peopled by drug-addled "faeries" and runaway "lost boys." Tiger Lily is a performing drag queen from one of the park's cheezy revues. The pirates are costumed "cast members" of the park and Captain Hook a disgruntled janitor. Even the crocodile makes an appearance, in the form of a costumed nebbish whose one-night stand with Hook has him stalking the man for another "taste." All fit perfectly into the scheme of the Dietz update.

So much so, that when certain anachronistic fantasy elements are presented, it is pretty strange. Cute, but kind of creepy, too, given the hyper-real Kids-meets-Urbania motivations of this film. Especially when Tinkerbell makes with the "fairy dust" so that the "kids" can fly away to Neverland in a kaleidoscope of imagery and MTV jumpcuts with a grinding, hard-edged musical backbeat.

One aspect which could have used some fancifying, however, is the main character of Peter Pan. As presented by Dietz, he is an arrogant, snot-nosed punk; a poster child for disaffected youth and a thoroughly unlikeable hero who thinks he has the answer to all of life's problems. Oh, he's pretty enough, but whereas the Peter Pan of the original novel, was a high-flying sprite who was ageless and literally lived in a fantasy world, Dietz Pan is a brooding, whiney, trash-talking runaway, who simply refuses to grow up. Countered by a grounded and grown-up Wendy, who emerges as the true hero of the story, Peter comes across as the kid that everyone thinks is cool until the chips are down and he proves himself unworthy of the praise.

By contrast, the homoerotic motivations of Gary Kelley's Hook add dimension to what has always been a literary cypher. He fairly bristles with contempt for the lost boys living in the maintenance tunnels of the park, because they represent that which he has lost. His pomposity is also given a dark edge by his dead-end job as a janitor and his hate for the one "boy" he has always wanted, but could never have.

Setting the story in a theme park is an inspiration, as it allows for all the various fanciful "characters" which lend the novel its charm--pirates, mermaids, indians, etc.--to move about freely, without dragging the film too far from the reality it is grounded by. In the end, however, this updated version is pretty desolate and joyless, so don't expect to be humming "you can fly" when you're done watching it. If, however, what you're looking for is a creative and fascinating departure from form, a la the various contemporary updates of Shakespeare's work, then Neverland is an amazing study in social satire with a classic spin.

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.

This movie never promises to be anything that it isn't. The description basically tells you that it's low budget and shot on DV tape. If you were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings - then yes, you will be very disappointed.

If you go into it knowing that it's an independent film that was done on a minimum budget by someone just getting started in the business, then it's really not that bad.

Being someone who is just starting out in the world of movie making, I could appreciate the effort and work put into it.

So if you like weird, cult, independent, low-budget movies (and who doesn't?), then check this movie out. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best), I'd give it about a 6 or 7. My friend thought it was totally weird and didn't like it at all.

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.