Neverland

I've only seen part one so far, and I enjoyed it a lot. I like the characters, and the acting has been very good. The imagery is beautiful. I saw some very familiar faces. The costumes are all interesting as well.

I have wondered since I was young, how did Peter and the lost boys REALLY get to Neverland? Where did the Indians and pirates come from? And now I know! But how did Hook lose his hand, and what made him so mean? And how did the crocodile swallow the ticking clock? Looking forward to seeing part 2, so I can find out the answers to those and other questions.

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.

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.

I wondered just how much similarity SyFy's version of a Peter Pan prequel would have with the Dave Barry/Ridley Pearson "Peter and the Starcatchers" series, and come to find out there actually is some. A powder that has the ability to make one fly ("Starstuff"), an obsessed crocodile ("Mr. Grin"), and the names of Peter's mates -- not the first group, who returned to England at the end of the first book, but the next group: Slightly, Tootles, Curly, Nibs, and The Twins.

There's also a bit of a hat tip to Michael Scott and his "The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel" series in "Dr. Flood", who introduced himself as the Alchemyst to Queen Elizabeth the First. Of course, her majesty's Alchemyst was Dr. John Dee, who actually had nothing to do with the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone; that was Nicholas Flamel...which brings us to yet another great series of books, this time by J.K. Rowling!

By the way, I'm almost 68 years old and I still enjoy books and movies of this sort!

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' . . .