I just saw the movie. Here are my thoughts.

Thanks as well for your respectful reply! I meant to be!

I think this movie had good acting, of the camped-up variety by Jackman, and by a very promising Levi Miller, who exhibits a very wide range, and it's clear a lot of work went into art direction and creating visuals, that's undeniable. It really makes me feel uncomfortable to tell all of those involved that their work stinks. Joe Wright is a very good, original director normally, so this is kind of hard to swallow for me.

As a Peter Pan buff, however, I find that a lot of things are very wrong with this movie - that is, if you respect its source material, which is incredibly rich in itself. I think a good movie starts out with a great script. It's hard for even less than stellar actors to go wrong with a script that has good character descriptions, motivations and good dialogue. I felt that this was sorely lacking in this movie. I mean, according to Barrie, James Hook wasn't called Hook before he lost his hand, he was an 18th century-type British aristocrat gone horribly wrong, but he still stuck to fine language, foppish clothes and a noble code of honour. Where did all of that go?

In fact, James Barrie himself wrote an origin story, Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, that has nothing to do with this movie. Why ignore this? I keep championing the 2003 movie like some idiot I guess, because it does have CGI thrills and young kids I showed it to were mesmerized, but it also works very well as a movie for teenagers and adults, because it makes sense on a number of levels. Plus it took the plot, most incidents and even literal dialogue straight from the play. I'd like to see more movies do that.

The reason I dislike movies like these is the same as why I dislike most video games, which is what lots of young people are playing all day, and has become kind of the norm. It doesn't make any sense, characters are shallow caricatures or behave erratically, but it has loud barrages of sound, people kicking each other about endlessly, creatures from any era or tale thrown together, and lots of stuff flying around, preferably in your face, and that's it. People praise them, because their visuals are so much better than two years ago. Now you can see 100,000 hairs move and interact realistically, instead of 10,000 ones! So what?

If this becomes the norm instead of telling a great story, it just makes me very sad!

I don't think critics have become so jaded that they like to trash popular movies. I think it's more that they feel disappointed that producers have become so jaded that they mostly promote derivative 'franchise'.

Best,

Dicky

A telling anecdote, thanks! I'm glad Star Trek always resisted the tendency to have loads of epic space battles, chases and massive robot armies. I remember watching Revenge of the Sith in the theatre and seeing the screen filled with about 100 fighting spaceships.

It made no impression on me at all, I couldn't tell any plane from another, and there was no suspense. It gave me the impression that it was just getting filled up because George Lucas had bought the processor and memory power to have 100 spaceships move independently alongside each other. This impression happened to be reinforced by the rest of the movie and its fellow prequels. 😉

Dicky

I wonder, was "Man Of Steel" Racist? After all, Perry White is a WHite Character played by a Black Man.

No, a racially ambiguous character was played by a white actress. Any race could play Tiger Lilly if people stop with the ethnocentric view that Native Neverland means "Native American." Neverland is not America.

And I like how Pan actually made the tribe all different races.

Also, for all the people claiming "whitewashing" - just an FYI, some of the actors involved, like Hugh Jackman, do far more for the indigenous communities and for minorities than probably the majority of Hollywood. Hugh Jackman is as far from racist as you can get, and he wouldn't do a film that insults his children - who are both multiracial. He explicitly stated in a recent interview that he even asked to change certain parts of this movie to make it more sensitive to kids who are orphans. He partly made this movie for his kids. He has given acting opportunities and scholarships to indigenous Australian artists and even brings them to perform with him on stage when he does Broadway shows. He speaks out against discrimination. He protested the Australian government/policies that would shut down indigenous communities and drive them off their land.

If he felt there was "whitewashing" going on in this movie, I am certain he would not have done it.

Racist: 1. having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

If I like the movie, that means I liked the story.

If you are complaining that I didn't explicitly say "I like the story" then you are just nitpicking.

Before the movie opened, there were numerous threads started here which sent messages of doom for this film. Some reasons seemed valid ( such as those decrying connectivity to the original tale, use of too much CGIs based on the trailer, even issues on the casting, etc) but others seemed more troll-ish.

What I would like to point out is that after people have had a chance to see the film, quite a number of positive threads have emerged. I have sometimes been skeptical of IMDB ( as many people are) but this tells me that while some posts are outright dismissive of the opinions of others or have personal agendas to pursue), there seems to be a creeping respect for those disagreeing with their personal views. I find this healthy and elevates the discussions to a more enjoyable level.


Chacun a son gout 


I am a fan of PAN --

*I had a chance to read the original script, and with some changes brought into the script, I thought it was an excellent origin story even if there were some deviations from the Barrie narrative. For one, the timing of the kidnapping of the orphans during the bombardment of London in the second world war deviated from the Barrie timeline because it gave the "flying ship" a chance to hide in the busy skies full of fighting airplanes. I liked the tale of his parentage -- it is enchanting even if it was a fairy tale, so to speak. And that element including Peter's search for his Mum gave the movie its heart! The introduction of Blackbeard was certainly new ( even if there is mention in the Barrie book of Hook being the bosun in Blackbeard's ship) but it was a fascinating conflict between Peter and Blackbeard. There were moments of antagonism but there were also moments when they seemed they could relate to each other. The element of Blackbeard being in love with Peter's mother in the past was a new one and not part of the original script. That gave the story the reason why Blackbeard's feelings towards Peter was occasionally vacillating ( maybe he was thinking that Peter could have been his son had Mary stayed with him)...there were other elements in the plot which I appreciated and I disagree with those critics who say it is all empty storytelling.

*The issue of connectivity to previous adaptations did not bother me. Unlike franchises ( superhero movies or Harry Potter), the Peter Pan movies are adaptations and may not necessarily dovetail with each other -- whether we are talking about the characters or timelines. People complained that PAN never explained how the conflict between Peter and James Hook arose. The character of Hook in this movie was selfish and self-centered even if he teamed up with Peter against Blackbeard. To me that could have been the basis for the eventual rift between the two, albeit it was not further explored in this movie. Also, the issue of who the Neverlanders are is a source of disagreements -- if the creative minds ( screenwriter and director) wanted to paint a different portrait, to me that only enriches why this movie dared to be different. Just like in life, there are many perspectives and views which are not always in agreement. Take a look at paintings of the same subject -- traditional or classical artists will paint the subject a different way while impressionists and modernists may present almost unrecognizable artistic treatments.

*I liked the occasional references to the original narrative ( the hello from Tinkerbell, Peter's whimsical headgear at the end, the wink towards Hook's fear of crocs, the wink to "Jolly Roger" and " second to the right...and straight on till morning").

*I think the casting is very good - from the leads to the support cast! What an interesting mix of character portrayals. Even Hugh Jackman surprised me, as initially I thought it would just be an over-the-top portrayal as told by some critics. Surprisingly, there were moments ( quieter ones) which allowed us to see the character more intimately, including his vacillating relationship with Peter. But I must admit I liked him best in his dramatic entrance -- not just the impressive intro to the trapped miners... but when he delivers his speech he reminded me of some famous Brit stars of stage and history! ... Levi is a very good find -- his face alone mirrored the varying emotions ( wonderment, fear, love for his Mum, courage) that was required of our young hero. Rooney was both feisty ( as the warrior princess) and shy ( in her budding relationship with James Hook) while Garrett portrayed the brash young man who was self-centered well. I really like the actors who portrayed Smee and the tyrannical Mother Superior...and Bishop was a loyal bosun! Hey, the cameo by Cara was a delight because she made us believe that all mermaids look the same. Her model's face was perfect for the underwater scene.

*The visual design -- sets (the ships and the Neverland forest were actual sets) -- the costumes -- and other creative elements were well put together. Have you noticed that the color palette for Blackbeard, Peter and Hook's costumes, as well as the miners, were deliberately neutral to contrast with the colorful Neverland tribal territory scenery and people?

*The other creatives were equally a source of delight - I loved the gorgeous film scoring by John Powell ( even if the Nirvana songs seem to preoccupy most people's minds and ears) -- and the cinematography is awards-worthy. I have a feeling that the technical creatives will be recognized come awards time.

*There was excellent use of animation - such as that one illustrating the backstory on Mary and Blackbeard and the Fairy Prince. Also, CGIs were used very well -- my favorite was the sight of the ship of Hook and Peter trying to avoid the cannonfire of the enemy ship by going completely under - that drew laughs from me! I was touched when the image of Mary manifested to Peter at the end - it is almost heartbreaking! And it is amusing to hear how the older moviegoers (anyone who is not a kid) asked what was the sense of the colorful smoke that sprung up when a Neverlander was shot -- a young relative explained to me that she appreciated not having to see blood spilled over -- the plumes of smoke looked better compared to total gore. The earlier scenes of Peter wandering in the skies -- that is also complete fantasyland -- but it was equally enchanting and we realize it could very well exist -- in the world of a child's imagination.

For that is what the movie is all about -- what goes through the prism of a child's mind -- it must be all rich and wonderful ( even if colored with occasional horrific scenes, too) and makes the child in us keep hoping that sometimes we wish the real world were a little different!


I can't wait to see this again when it is released on BluRay/DVD...I have already ordered the soundtrack 

And I'm tired of your complaints. Every kid I know who saw Pan, loved it. In fact, every adult I know who saw it, loved it too. It is the online community that trashes it. Everyone I've spoken to in person in my every day life who saw it, enjoyed it. Most people who watch movies are not the type of people who would rate a movie on imdb or on a site like Rotten Tomatoes, so in all reality, I think imdb presents a skewed representation of what the public really thinks of a movie. People have different reasons for not seeing a movie. With this movie, unfortunately, I do think critics are the reason it bombed. Like Chappie, I gather that many people who chose not to go to the theater and will eventually see it on TV will end up liking it.

You know i don't think Ive heard you say anything good about any movie ever. If i didn't know any better i would say that your just made a career out of being a troll.

You're probably right, but it feels like a lost opportunity for a Native American actress to get a big part in a major motion picture.
It's like giving cis actors a trans part in a film. There may be no transphobia involved, but it's potentially taking a part away from a trans actor (or actress) who can play the part.