Pan (2015) Poster

(2015)

User Reviews

Review this title
263 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Everything Felt Fake
jaysanchu0728 July 2022
Pan was a difficult watch. The overuse and reliance on BAD CGI created an artificial feel for Neverland, taking out any chance of beauty and fun, the imaginary world is supposed to boast of. Acting-wise, there was an obvious lack of chemistry among its leads due to flat out bad portrayals. Garrett Hedlund annoyed the hell out of me as Hook, with his overacted, impersonation of Harrison Ford. Rooney Mara, on the other hand, was bland as Tiger Lily, offering little to salvo the whitewashed criticism of her casting. The film's biggest downfall however, is its forced and rushed screenwriting. Apart from Peter, there was absolutely zero character development for everyone else, making it very difficult to care for the many faces on screen. Yet the makers made time to ensure the film pay homage to 90s grunge rock? Where did that come from?

As a childhood fan of Peter Pan, this 2015 adaptation murdered great memories I had. Everything felt fake, making its predecessors look grande despite the supposed handicap in filmmaking. 5/10.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
There is much to enjoy in this film
wheatley-2023016 June 2018
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.
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well, this happened...
TinkerLily17 October 2015
Sassy British descendant of Time Lord Cosette and Thumbelina's Prince Cornelius is orphaned with his flute necklace and surrounded by ninja-kicking nuns who sell children on the black market. After being abducted by Jean Valjean the Nirvana-loving dictator, he befriends Indiana Jones, who falls in love with Emily Blunt's Native American alter ego. He is then saved from flying crocodiles by the Cara Delevingne mermaid quadruplets (with glowing Rapunzel hair) who live in a sea of memories. He proceeds to discover he has the force, pixie-edition, and saves Atlantis the lost fairy-kingdom empire, adopting the title of "The Chosen One". And after all of this, we still don't find out what caused the proverbial bad blood between Peter Flute and Captain Indiana Hook. So there's that.

Despite all of this (or maybe because of it), I actually did enjoy the movie quite a bit. Even if the singing of Smells Like Teen Spirit left me confused and thinking of Moulin Rouge.
28 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cruising through gorgeous visual and beautiful shanties, but unfortunately also on shallow narrative
quincytheodore9 October 2015
Pan bears a lot of similarities to other adventure films, family animation and even role-playing games. It packs myriad of visual antics across the journey of self-discovery. However, it's also painfully one dimensional and predictable, using the "chosen one" plot to a fault. While it's admittedly aesthetically pleasing, this is not the innovative origin story it's advertised to be.

In a world tormented by pirates, one child must discover his destiny. You've seen this before. Some angles have been changed, but this is typical Peter's adventure to Neverland. It's so overused, one might find half the script in Final Fantasy games. Not to mention it's riddled with fantasy genre cliché and uninspiring romance subplot.

To their credit, the actors do a fine job. Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard is a good antagonist, he looks the part by carrying the character with ominous charisma, either it's by his flamboyant dialogues or even timely singing. He can appear funny yet still threatening. Well, as threatening as a villain in family flick can be.

While Blackbeard looks fit for Hook's replacement, Hook himself is played by Garrett Hedlund, who ironically tries too hard to be young Hugh Jackman. His delivery is forced to create a suave persona, but most of the times he just looks out of place. Levi Miller as Peter handles himself pretty well. The story focuses heavily on this boy's fate, and although he can seem rough at some scenes, he brings a commendable performance as the lead.

Graphical prowess plays important role, almost too much, and on its better parts Pan definitely has the stylish charm of fantasy vista. Setting is filled with colorful designs and details, although CGI takes the helm on most cases. Its soundtracks are splendid, it simply doesn't let go. From subtle chimes, loud symphony and even shanty version of popular songs, the audio is brilliant.

Pan would've been great if it didn't copy so many elements from other movies. In nearly every scene, there's a hint of Pirates of Caribbean, Mad Max and multitude of classic Disney flicks. The straightforward plot doesn't help either, it's tedious to see the predictable developments ahead. Ancient prophecies, letter from the past and hidden power manifestation are tired gimmicks. Please, you know he's gonna fly at some point.

For a movie that looks so appealing, Pan never really takes flight. One might find happy thoughts on the visual and songs, but the CGI charm and adventure gimmicks will not last through its boring plot.
50 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Mad Max for kids
Bergtop19 October 2015
I had low expectations for this movie seeing the low review scores but I just saw Pan and really enjoyed it. It was above all a visual stunning movie. We saw it in 3d and Neverland really came alive. The story is thin but OK enough to keep the movie going. It reminded me in a way of Mad max. Also visual stunning, lost of action, with duels, fighting, etc but with a razor thin story line. Above all my kids of 6 and 7 enjoyed it very much. It was kind of the first time that they saw such an action movie. It can be a little bit frightening sometimes for kids but not too much.

I would recommend seeing the movie with your family. If you are a real movie buff you better skip it.
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Missed the point of Pan
michaeltong-291809 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Pan is one of those films where it's hard to pinpoint what is wrong because the answer is basically everything. I'm confused as to how they managed to turn such a simple story into such a convoluted mess.

At his core, Peter Pan is just a boy who escapes to a magical fantasy land because he doesn't want to grow up. In Neverland he leads a crew of similarly disenfranchised kids, plays games with Indians, swims with mermaids, and fights pirates.

Simple right? Well not according to Joe Wright and the producers of this film. For some reason they felt the need to cram in every single cliché possible in order to 'modernize' the story despite the fact that the themes in Barrie's stories were already timeless.

Levi Miller stumbles here and there but he was well cast as Peter. However the script doesn't support the role. At certain points he becomes secondary in his own story. His desires don't move the plot forward and after the first 20 minutes he has very little to do except "learn how to fly". We never seem him turn into the character we know as Peter Pan except for the fact that *spoilers* he flies at the end. And don't even get me started on 'The Chosen One' thing.

Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara, is bland, and I'm not talking about the color of her skin. She's your typical warrior princess and for some reason they try to set up a possible romance between her and Hook. She's basically around to be walking talking exposition.

Jackman also does a good job, but his character, Blackbeard, isn't interesting. His motivations are paper thin. He wants to mine some fairy dust in order to live forever which doesn't even make sense because Neverland supposed to be a place where people don't age. Blackbeard is just shoehorned in there so they could have a villain other than Hook.

This brings me to one of the most pointless things in the film: Hook being Peter's ally. It doesn't amount to anything. You never get a sense of conflict between the two. You keep waiting for a point when Hook is going to betray Peter but it never happens. You want to see that scene where Peter cuts off his hand and feeds it to the crock, but it never happens. Hook's only motivation in this film is to escape and go home. He doesn't seem like he could turn into the devious Captain we know. At the end of the film, Hook and Pan are still friends and they just hint at a possible conflict in the sequel with a throw away line. Also, if you're a kid and this is your introduction to the character of Hook the 'twist' will go right over your head.

And why is Hook American? Who made this decision?

Another problem with Pan is the over-use and reliance of CGI. It looks fake, especially Peter's flying. Peter Pan was better animated in 1953, not in terms of graphical fidelity, but in motion. He had weight, he had grace, and he was agile. In Pan he just kind of floats like he's being dragged by a mouse cursor.

When you stretch the rules of reality too far it becomes unbelievable even in a world like Neverland. You have to have rules. In Pan there are flying pirate ships. Why? How do they fly? It's never explained. The ships can fly both in the real world and Neverland. There is no consistency.

I'm giving this film a 1 out of 10 because they squandered so much potential. The source material is so rich and this is the best they could come up with? I think a live action Peter Pan film could be successful but if they ignore the themes that make the story interesting in the first place it just won't resonate with the audience.
184 out of 259 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quite an adventure but not enough of an actual prequel
phd_travel8 October 2015
As an adventure story there is quite a lot of action and battles in grand and magical looking landscapes. There is a journey from orphanage to fairy land. The movie is entertaining enough and doesn't deserve to flop even though there are some faults. The story has too much repetitive fighting against Blackbeard and not enough use of the prequel to establish the main characters of Peter Pan like how Captain Hook got the way he did, Wendy, Tinkerbell etc. Compared to another prequel "Maleficent", this suffers in comparison because the characters and plot seem tangential. Even with a lot of ships flying around and stuff the first half is a bit boring. Things pick up when Rooney Mara comes in and she is a lovely Tiger Lily. Amanda Seyfried could have been shown more in realistic imagery and not so blurry. The boy who plays Peter, Levi Miller is endearing. Hugh Jackman is good Blackbeard.

Worth one watch.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Awkward and misguided
eddie_baggins11 May 2016
If there was a more awkward movie than Pan released in the last few years I'd certainly like to know about it as Joe Wright's big budgeted wannabe franchise starter is a lavishly coloured and extravagant picture that lacks knowledge of what it actually wants to be or who in fact it's aimed at and judging by the films flopping at the box office the world over, it seems as though audiences too struggled to figure out who should be watching this revamping of J.M Barrie's classic material or why they should be watching it.

Tonally all over the place and with a story that seems to meander about the motions until a highly lacking finale and lack of answers regarding certain story questions (a glaring one being how Hook and Pan in fact become enemies as they are adventures together here), for the first time in his quietly impressive directing career Wright seems completely lost within his narrative and fails to liven up proceedings despite throwing every known colour onto the screen, plopping in Nirvana songs and letting many of his actors ham it up to level 11 to try and cover up the fact Pan's story is actually rather dull in a world that should be anything but.

Our Pan here is played by newcomer Levi Miller and the poor young performer labours in his first major turn injecting Peter with neither the charm, smarts nor emotion that was needed for the role. When you consider however how his cast alongside a horribly miscast double act of Garrett Hedlund (who continues to frustrate as a lead actor) and the beyond bad Rooney Mara, the child performer didn't really stand much of a chance. The films only saving grace acting wise is Hugh Jackman who has a blast playing Blackbeard the fearsome pirate who will stop at nothing to collect that sought after pixie dust but while he has fun it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense having Blackbeard in this beloved tale.

Whilst normally it would not be something called out for by the masses it would've actually been nice for Pan to stick more closely to the original Peter Pan story that has enchanted readers and viewers for decades upon decades and while its commendable for a big budget film to take such a risk on a new take on a well-trod property, Pan is a stinging reminder of what can go wrong when money is thrown all over the place and scripts seem doctored to tick off as many set piece wish lists as possible and for the first time in his career Joe Wright has crafted an almost irredeemably bad piece of cinematic entertainment.

All those seeking a Peter Pan fix are much better off seeking out a copy of Disney's beloved animated take or even the similarly styled Steven Spielberg event Hook.

1 ½ awkwardly used Nirvana song out of 5
56 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Another movie that should only be seen in a decent cinema
kevin-3824227 January 2016
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.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Would have been better if it WASN'T a Peter Pan Story
entrepa-18 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
By the end of the film I was absolutely convinced that what was produced was NOT the original story or screenplay. Most likely the writer had a fun adventure planned out for a poor orphaned boy from WWII England. It was suggested that he was dyslexic, which I thought had some potential - being myself married to a brilliant dyslexic. In any case, I imagine that the writer took his screenplay to various producers who said something along the lines of "That's a nice story, but no one has ever heard of it. We can't SELL it. Can't you turn it into, oh, say Peter Pan? We can sell Peter Pan."

So the poor writer hacks and slashes his work to conform it to Mr. Barrie's tale and it becomes an abomination of both his original story and that of Peter Pan.

Visually impressive. A good performance by its young lead, but he is wasted on such a mishmash of a story. Hook? Grating on the senses. Tiger Lily? Perhaps in a different universe she would work, with an entirely different name. Blackbeard? Mr. Jackson should read the script before signing on to do his next film, although he does make a good villain. Nirvana??? Utterly inexplicable.
22 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I don't care what the critics say, I enjoyed it from start to finish!
migz062118 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Upon seeing the trailer I was hesitant that it might be good but I decided to give it a shot and watched it during its premiere.

And boy, was I surprised!

I absolutely loved the simple things that foreshadow the events of the actual story: James Hook using a hook in the mining scene, the ticktock of the bomb that he placed to set Peter free, Tiger Lily scaring Hook with the crocodile and many more. I have to give credit to the writer with his different take on the Peter Pan story.

Also, the friendship between Hook and Peter was great, they got each other's backs, with Hook saving Peter and vice-versa, kinda sad that they'll eventually end up as enemies since this movie established that relationship.

Everyone was right for the role, Hugh Jackman was amazing as the villain, how he looked here made me forget that he is Wolverine. Rooney Mara was dashing in her Tiger Lily role and performed well even though she was Caucasian in contrast to the natives. Garrett Hedlund played this cocky, playboy-type, off-character Hook who always provides the laughable comebacks. Levi Miller was great as Peter, that dude's going places.

Although, I have to note the lack of battle between Peter and Blackbeard, since the prophecy stated that the former will defeat the latter. They should have put at least a short duel between the two because that'd be amazing.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I don't care what the Rotten Tomatoes rating or critics say!
81 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Ton Of Fun To Watch
MegBeth8 November 2015
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!
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Visuals will have you say "Holy Pudding". The story will have you say, "Ehh"
rgkarim10 October 2015
Robbie K here bringing you another review on the latest movies to hit the theater. This weekend we start off with another iteration about the famous boy who flies, fights off pirates, and flirts with mermaids. That's right I'm talking about Peter Pan. Over the decades we've experienced numerous spins on the tale, and yet I can't recall too many films portraying Peter's origins. Well hold on to your hats folks, because director Joe Wright has brought his tale to the silver screen entitled Pan.

Let's start with the story. We know all the classic elements of Peter Pan, but perhaps you have questioned the origins of our title character. Pan's tale dives into the impoverished England, once more strolling down the Oliver Twist orphan path as the opening of Peter's tale. The origin lacks much in terms of originality, but bypasses gross details to get to the meat of the story. Once Peter is abducted to the ageless Neverland, the tale begins to liven up. Pan forgoes a lot of the character development and emotional buildup for superficial thrills. Peter's relationship with a lot of characters evolves rapidly, from simple hellos to becoming their wards. Fans will certainly not suffer a drawn out plot, but may not like the rapid and abrupt scene transitions. I give Wright his props for adding some darker moments while maintaining the kid friendly environment, but I felt he was a little to ADD in organizing the story. Peter's journey reaches many impasses, however they blow over without much struggle with our good guys able to overpower their oppressors with ease.

The characters that are part of this plot were also lacking. Acting wise I give them a round of applause, each member certainly doing their best to breathe life into their characters. Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard has the gruff and ruthlessness of a pirate Captain, but soon becomes annoying with his constant screaming and pompous braggart. I did enjoy the use of metal songs as his anthem, a nice touch of modern metal. Garrett Hedlund as Hook captures the classic voice, but his look and presence comes off more Midwestern desperado than future pirate. Levi Miller plays the adolescent Peter quite well, nailing the devious, adventurous, and vulnerable sides of Pan while keeping everything balanced. However it is Rooney Mara who takes first place, bringing a nice balance of wonder, courage, and emotion as the warrior princess Tiger Lily, minus a few flat moments.

Simplistic story and characters aside, Pan's action is surprisingly higher intensity than I expected. The opening chase between pirate ship and plane is quite exhilarating with all the stunts, explosions, and elements of a World War II movie. From there the action remains dynamic as our characters navigate the various hazards of the world, interjecting combat and comedy to keep it entertaining. Again these conflicts sometimes end without much of a struggle, and a bit anticlimactic at times. Still I appreciate Wright slightly breaking the PG mold and adding some quality edge to the mix. I warn parents there are a few moments that might seem a tad too mature (i.e. executions), so evaluate your children's psyche before attending this film.

Finally the best quality of Pan for me was the setting. Wright's team designed a world that is majestic enough to have you say "Holy Pudding". The jungle is ominous, filled with deep foliage that offers shelter from the pirates, while also concealing ominous predators. Pirate ships are decorated to mirror their "helmsmen", such as Blackbeard's ship being cold and lifeless to personify the merciless man he is. And mermaid lagoon, while not as passive as it was in the cartoon, still held the serenity, especially once the gorgeous glowing, (CGI enhanced) mermaids who glow showed up. Even the costumes help pull you into the moment, the pirates having styles that span from traditional buccaneers to more formal, butler ware…okay not everything makes sense. Fortunately the tribal people bring about the hunter atmosphere, blending multiple cultures into their attire and dwellings. While certainly not the most impressive, Pan's world has the color, whimsy, and magic that captured all our hearts years ago.

Overall Pan is not the best movie to "soar" into theaters. However, it offers a good, kid friendly movie to entertain until the holiday season arrives. It's a fun thrilling ride for all ages that lays foundation for other movies, (either existing or new), while recapturing the moments you grew up with. Unfortunately the story just wasn't as put together as I hoped it would be, or as thrilling as the trailers made it out to be. Worth a trip to theater? Only for the special effects and setting can I say it is worth a theater trip, but your money is best saved for other films.

My scores are: Adventure/Family/Fantasy: 7.0 Movie Overall: 6.0
20 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A discombobulated mess
casey-annak26 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
My husband and I sat down to watch this one Sunday evening and it was so bad I almost turned it off. But inertia is a powerful force and passively sitting through the movie in its entirety seemed easier than trying to figure out who was sitting on the remote.

I wanted to like Pan. I really did. It was one of my favorite Disney movies as a kid and a live action origin story sounded fun and exciting. However, the movie completely missed the mark.

The first act of the movie takes place in an orphanage taken straight from Oliver Twist. Corrupt nuns hoard rations and abuse children, ultimately selling them off to fantastical pirates. The head nun resembles more of a deranged terrier with her growling and barking than an actual person. One dimensional characters aside, Levi Miller shines as Peter, a brave, clever, and mischievous child.

It's when the pirates enter as cirque du soleil style abductors that the movie starts to fall apart. For some reason they have been abducting children from the orphanage in pairs until the fateful night that Peter is abducted that they seem to be gunning for the entire population of the orphanage. Not sure how the nuns were going to explain that away. Whoever designed the pirate costumes couldn't decide whether they were trying to channel Mad Max or Burning Man. There was no common thematic approach, which just made the lot look disorganized and in-cohesive.

Anyway, the kids are taken aboard a flying pirate ship that proceeds to engage in a gun battle with London fighter pilots before hitting turbo boost and traveling to Neverland. This is where I almost turned off the movie. The kids are thrown into a mining pit with thousands of other slaves and then enters Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) to the forced chorus of Smells Like Team Spirit by Nirvana. Yeah, did I mention that this was supposed to be taking place during WWII? The inclusion of the song only served as a distraction, did nothing to further the story line or set the scene. Jackman's version of Blackbeard can't figure out if he is supposed to be evil and menacing or more slapstick. Either way the character comes across as obnoxious and annoying.

It's about this time that Peter is introduced to James Hook played by Garret Hedlund who proceeds to channel a weird Jack Nicholson-esque rendition of Hook. I kept expecting him to bust out the phrase, "Here's Johnny!" Some things happen. Peter learns that he may be the "chosen one" from a prophesy and Hook helps him escape the mines.

They eventually come upon the natives, the leader, Tiger Lily, is white washed by a subdued and uninteresting Rooney Mara. For some reason the writers feel the need to insert a love interest between Tiger Lily and Hook, which doesn't work, it makes no sense, and it just leads to a lot of stupid simpering and lingering hand holding between the two characters.

The superficial side stories detract from the main story, which is supposed to be a hero's quest for Peter. At times Peter seems like a supporting character in his own journey as the story line meanders and doesn't do much in the way of story development. And all the while there is some over the top CGI that looks horrible and reminds you that you are watching a very bad movie.

The movie culminates with Peter leading the kingdom of fairies in a battle against the pirates in which the fairies easily win. As the credits were rolling I turned to my husband and asked, "So why couldn't the fairies have just done that without Peter?"

This movie could have been so good! The story could have been super simple and still magical. But the writers and director seemed like kids in the candy store. Too much star power, which they didn't know how to harness into great performances, too much CGI, which just comes across as fake and distracting, and too many superficial story lines that never amounted to anything.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good but not completely successful
neil-47619 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Peter is left, as a baby, at an orphanage by his mother: he never sees the letter she leaves for him as it is hidden by the horrible nun who runs the place. World War II coincides with pirates from Neverland kidnapping the boys in the orphanage in order for them to be put to work in Blackbeard's fairy-dust mines. It turns out that Peter may be the prophesied Chosen One (yes, another Chosen One story) to put an end to Blackbeard's reign of terror, aided by likable older prisoner Hook.

So what we have here is a Peter Pan prequel which sets out to answer many of the questions we never asked and, in so doing, raises as many questions as it answers, not to mentioning not answering some of the questions we did ask! At the risk of spoilering, the unanswered questions include why the World War II setting, how did Hook lose his hand, and how did he and Peter become enemies – both of these are left open for the sequel, no doubt, although they'll have to get a move on because, while Peter may be the boy who never grew up, I doubt whether newcomer Levi Miller can pull off the same trick.

There is a lot to enjoy here. The action never lets up for a second, the film is visually stunning with fabulous effects, Hugh Jackman and Kathy Burke are both enjoyably effective pantomime villains, and the rest of the cast are fine (it's good to have a Peter with an English accent for a change, even if the exact location does wander about a bit). There are plenty of nods to the established Peter Pan mythos, with some nice additions. And it is an excellent family film – maybe a bit intense here and there for the little ones, but otherwise solid.

But, for me, it was just a little bit wide of the mark: it didn't quite connect in the way I had hoped it would.

The 3D is fairly successful.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Lost Spirit of the The Lost Boys
ferguson-68 October 2015
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.
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
One of those untold origin stories that should have been left untold
TheLittleSongbird12 June 2016
To get one thing straight, there is no pleasure taken panning this film. Being someone who has liked some of Joe Wright's previous work (especially 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Atonement' and 'Hanna'), who likes Hugh Jackman and adores the source material that 'Pan takes inspiration from.

Although it is not a film without redeeming merits, 'Pan' was hugely disappointing. It starts promisingly but then stumbles downhill once we get to Neverland and apart from the odd bright spot doesn't properly get back up again. As an origin story inspired by J.M. Barrie's magnificent story with its complex themes and rich characters, to say that it disrespects the source material is being kind to the word disrespect. But it is very underwhelming on its own merits too, while 'Anna Karenina' didn't do much for me 'Pan' is the one time where Joe Wright has come close to hitting rock bottom.

'Pan' starts off really promisingly, with a real sense of threat and false security. A lot of effort went into the production values, and there are frequent points where it does show, especially in the visually dazzling scene where the children are stolen, the whole film is exquisitely photographed, the set design is very colourful and eye-poppingly vivid with a wondrous-looking Neverland and lavish costumes apart from the ridiculously gaudy ones for the Indians. The incidental score has the right amount of whimsy and rousing energy. There is one good performance, that of Hugh Jackman who is clearly enjoying himself with glee as campy, energetic but sinister Blackbeard.

Not all the visuals work. There are so many special effects that it does start feeling too much and making the spectacle take over the story. Apart from the ships, the scene where the children are stolen and to a lesser extent the translucent mermaids, the effects are less than special, very amateurish-looking digital doubles, skeleton birds that look worse than a low budget video game from 15-20 years ago and very over-sized crocodiles that make them seem more goofy than threatening. Equally, there is a lot of spectacle, but they are very mixed when it comes to execution. Sometimes the spectacle dazzles, but at other times they're little more than nauseating kitsch. It does seem that all Wright's efforts went into the visuals and spectacle but he completely forgets telling a story and making the characters interesting, for Wright this is pretty inept.

Apart from Jackman, the rest of the cast struggle. Well actually Nonso Anoozie is pretty good, just that his screen time isn't enough to shine. Amanda Seyfried is suitably compassionate, but again very little to do. Levi Miller does do his best as Peter, he's suitably perky, has charisma and is cute as a button, but his character doesn't ever really go anywhere and he doesn't give as much charm and emotion as he should have done, Peter's trademark mischievous side is more cocky and desperate. Garrett Hedlund overacts dreadfully as a wannabe Indianna Jones/Han Solo and Brendan Fraser-esque-hero sort of Hook, constantly speaking in a way that seems to impersonate James Stewart and John Huston and very poorly, that he becomes very annoying with no foreshadowing whatsoever of the dark and complex character Hook as we know him would become. In a controversial piece of casting, Rooney Mara looks completely bored and miserable. Cara Delevigne is a pretty pallid presence though is disadvantaged by throwaway writing, and Adeel Akhtar gives a performance so stereotypical it might cause offence. None of the characters are interesting or colourful enough, although Jackman gives it everything even he can't disguise that Blackbeard's motivations and such are paper thin.

On top of the spectacle, 'Pan' also includes musical numbers. These musical numbers manage to be even more memorable than the incidental score, and that is not a good thing. Although spiritedly performed, they are not only jarringly anachronistic in style, but they are also out of place, too randomly thrown in and almost like Wright was trying to be a wannabe Baz Luhrmann, which doesn't suit Wright at all (was taken right out of the film once the characters started singing Nirvana). The script is also prone to anachronisms and often sounds completely stupid and too heavy in the cheese and schmaltz factor. There isn't really much of a story, and what there is of it is executed poorly with very little new to say, most of it not even trying to make sense to the point of being incomprehensible. There are some good ideas here but they are badly rushed through, the whole children as slaves idea was the one strand that was properly elaborated upon and had some emotional impact of some kind. Consequently, the whole point of the story is completely lost in translation, and not only was the whole Peter and Hook as friends poorly developed, plus they didn't seem believable as friends (Peter seemed as annoyed with Hook as much as those watching the film were), but there is next to no foreshadowing of them as enemies either which would have made Hook much more interesting. Most of the story is basically an excuse to include as many set pieces and musical numbers as possible, regardless of whether they were important and of good-quality or not.

Overall, a big disappointment. A few good things here and there, but this "untold" story should have stayed untold. 3/10 Bethany Cox
19 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pan, a prequel for the movies Peter Pan.
cutiea-090959 October 2015
"Sometimes, friends begin as enemies. And sometimes, enemies begin as friends. Sometimes, in order to truly know how things end, we must first know how they begin." As the quote implied, the movie Pan is ultimately a prequel to any Peter Pan movie.

Peter, who is played by Levi Miller, lives out his life in an oppressive London orphanage. This twelve year old finds himself and the rest of the orphanage in a strange and beautiful world of Neverland. It's here, in mine run by child laborers, which he is swept into an ancient prophesy. Chased by the pirate captain Blackbeard, played by Hugh Jackman, Peter finds new friends Hook, played by Garrett Hedlund, and Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara and answers about his family.

As the movie ends several different questions are left up in the air. I'm still a little unsure which friend was now an enemy. I can figure from previous movies that Pan and Hook become enemies but it isn't directly stated. In fact it's quite the opposite. So I'm thinking there is at least one movie in the works as a sequel.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bobbles along aimlessly
Leofwine_draca6 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
PAN is yet another young person's fantasy adventure flick, made on a massive Hollywood blockbuster but completely missing the magic that belongs in children's films such as these. It's another hulking and overlong CGI adventure, crazily attempting to tell of Peter Pan's back story in which Hook is a random US adventurer and ally and the big bad is a plummy Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard. Sadly, this misfiring oddity is just as shallow and irritating as Spielberg's HOOK, with misguided acting on the part of the child stars and plenty of ham ladled in from the adults. The CGI ships and scenery looks entirely fake and there's no kind of narrative consistency, the story merely bobbling along aimlessly instead.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fly, float, and fall along pirates and Peter – fantastical drama with small bits of fun Warning: Spoilers
Poor Peter! Such an unfortunate child! But he is to be redeemed, and his adventure begins...

Flying, floating,and falling, faaalling,faaaaalling!! There was so much of that in PAN. Maybe too much. Lots of fighting and persecution: pirates vs. children, pirates vs.natives, pirates vs. fairies. At first the movie felt slow. We meet Peter in an orphanage, surrounded by a world war II setting,and horrid nuns.

I love Joe Wright's movies, (Pride and Prejudice, Anna Karenina, Atonement) they are filled with drama and wonder. Perhaps precisely this was Joe Wright's intention with PAN: to show Peter PAN's dark nightmarish origins instead of all the sunny and colorful happy-happy portrayed in other versions of Peter Pan.

I'm giving it a 7 because this movie will satisfy the fantasy/drama genre fans, but as an all-audiences movie, it didn't meet its full potential. It is entertaining for adults, for the most part. It might be scary for children.

One of the problems in this movie is that it feels like a stage, as if watching a theater play. This is especially noticeable in the second part of the film - with the tribal territory.

Although a very energetic film, I was taken aback by the brutality, children slavery, killing of children (being kicked into an endless pit), the prevalent role of a merciless pirate (of course brilliantly performed by Hugh Jackman), and the subject of destructive mining (which exhausted the fairy dust gems). Was all that really necessary? I guess the writers wanted to emphasize the ugliness that Peter had to live through before he could discover happiness.

Nonetheless, I just kept wanting greater enchantment and heart. For instance, why were the fairies, which are quintessential of fantasy and magic, reduced to just sparkles? It's so different from our classic view of the fairies in Disney's animated Peter Pan.

More things I wondered about...What was Black Beard's motivation? Eventually midpoint in the movie, in a subtle scene, we figure it out. Jackman's performance is good, but his character seems too wicked for a children's movie.

Not funny, just fantastic! Hook is the only one that shows bits of humor.Clearly the film was not conceived to elicit laughter. It was conceived to elicit empathy for the misfortune of the children and Peter. But it could have had been more fun. It did however keep me on the edge-of-my-seat: with all the perils and troubles chasing Peter.

I just kept searching for that emotional connection between the characters. There is however, one emotional thread that keeps the movie together: the child's eagerness to find his mother. "You will find me in this world, or another…" was a written message from his mother. That's Peter's motivation. Eventually Peter gets assigned the title of "chosen" one, the savior of the fairies. Will he find his mother at the end? I won't reveal it here. But the ending scenes were my favorite: these had heart and charm and magic...

The fantasy element is undeniable astonishing – those flying ships and the different worlds they go to are a feast to watch. But sometimes it felt too repetitive. For sure,there is lots of action. Every second of the movie is filled with adventure, haphazard adventure I would say. Peter is always being chased by something or someone. Giant birds, crocs, pirates, etc., are there to put Peter's life in constant danger. There's a mermaid rescuing scene that is quite magical.

About the music, that Nirvana "teen spirits" chant was creepy! Maybe that was the intention exactly... What can you expect from enslaved children working in a mine for a wicked pirate?

Overall, the actors did their best with the script they had. They put their heart in their performances. Black Beard is Peter's nemesis. Peter is the determined boy who, with the help of a mining runaway, Hook and the natives' princess (Mara), sets on a quest to survive and find his mother. This native princess confused me-—I thought she was Peter's mother! She looked like a foreigner among the natives. But that was an intentional casting choice, they wanted to portray a multicultural native tribe.

In the end, I walked out of the theater thinking "that was okay." But I had no feeling of excitement or wonder or joy. It was an average dark fantasy movie experience. Worth watching once. Although I will caution parents-- I think some scenes might not be appropriate for very young children...
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Damn you Warner Bros for greenlighting this garbage.
just_in_case10 December 2015
When this was first announced they sold it as being different and man the tone of the early trailers just really made me feel like they were going to go deep and abstract. The trailer song made me shiver. My dumb ass thought it might even be something like "The adventures of Baron Munchausen" full of metaphors and abstractions like "What dreams may come". Like it was going tell a more emotional story about the relationship of the main actors.

Nope boring run of the mill peter pan adaptation with a couple characters swapped to claim uniqueness. Damn I just rewatched the first trailer and it totally sold me on a different story.

What makes matters worse is the world is very well designed and there's several hints at what could have been a really trippy adventure, but for some reason they went incredibly cheap on the CGI which in several spots is just unbearably bad.

The story doesn't really make any sense. "chosen one"? For what? and what exactly does he provide? He can control fairies? but the fairies were perfectly capable of throwing a couple pirates around. The relationship between Blackbeard and his mother was really dumb and illogical, there's so much more they could have done with that. In general it just felt crap and plodded along and then just rolled over at the end.

Man I'm just so angry. I would have killed to have Terry Gilliam to do this, or David fincher, Darren Aronofsky. It sucks because Hugh Jackman was wasted. Thats the one thing they got right. The design and portrayal of Blackbeard was cool, but his story was so Blasé. I liked the inclusion of modern music but instead of making it a theme with a story nope you get one cool song and then generic music for the rest of the film.(I know there was another one but it sucked)

Damn you Warner Bros for greenlighting this garbage.

Im giving this a 1/10 because of how insultingly wasteful they were with such a great idea. I've seen better execution of concepts like this out of 50k indie movies. When we talk about twist of fairy tale concepts I have to give the nod to Maleficent. Again the trailer was chilling and though the movie had innumerable flaws it was the mature emotional experience we were looking for. Guess now were just going to have to wait for the Fables trilogy they'll inevitably screw up.
58 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Movie, wrong audience
emilychantry22 October 2015
I took my nephew and niece to see this movie this past week, and one thing was clearly noticeable. The movie is a bit to overwhelming for small kids.

However, if you don't go to this movie to see a funny and uplifting 'Hook' remake, but instead go to see a more deep and thrilling retelling of a childhood tale, you will be most pleasantly surprised. The movie, from this point of view, is fantastic.

I feel bad that it has received such harsh reviews from parents that apparently took their small kids to a movie without first at least watching the trailer. Its a bit darker then its predecessors, but is clearly shown that way through the trailer.

Let me put it this way, if the trailer looks like a movie you want to see, you will not be disappointed here.
100 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pan was another enjoyable version of the Peter Pan story
tavm14 October 2015
Just watched this with my movie theatre-working friend, who had seen this before and enjoyed it. I did too. This was quite an enjoyable early story of Peter Pan and his then-friendship with James Hook as well as Tiger Lilly. And then there's the villain of Blackbeard who's perfectly portrayed by Hugh Jackman. I especially liked it when he did his version of the Nirvana song. We saw this in 3-D which was pretty impressive though it would have been just as enjoyable in the regular format. Good humor and plenty of awesome action sequences abounded. Part of me did wonder how Hook and Pan would eventually be enemies but since this isn't cannon with the other Pan movies, I wasn't too concerned. Really, I'll just now say I highly recommend Pan.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
brightly-colored action adventure
SnoopyStyle10 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It's WWII London. Peter (Levi Miller) was left by his mother on the doorstep of the Home for Boys and he's still waiting for her to return. Kids have been disappearing. One night, pirates come to take Peter and his friends away. Pirate leader Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) has enslaved the boys to mine Pixum, fairy dust, and looking to wipe out all fairies. Peter is made to walk the plank and discovers that he is able to fly. He escapes from Blackbeard with the help of James Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Smiegel. They are captured by Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara). Recognizing the pan necklace from his mother, she reveals that Peter's mother is Blackbeard's possession Mary. She had fallen in love with the fairy prince and he is the child of their love.

I really like the start of this movie. Peter Pan is brash, mischievous and heroic. I even like transferring the story to WWII which allows for a fun dogfight in the skies of London. Then the movie goes to Neverland and the problems start to pile up. I also like the wild colorful action extravaganza. It does get repetitive during the climatic action scene but the exuberance fits Neverland.

For some reason, the story forces Peter to turn into a self-doubting taciturn. The flying story really hurts Peter's character development. He turns into non-Peter Pan and not even the same character from the first act. Blackbeard is a black-feathered peacock. He's not scary enough. Garrett Hedlund is not flamboyant enough to be Hook. Rooney Mara is perfectly fine as an action heroine but her pale white skin is really distracting. They may as well paint her face as some kind of warpaint like the Maori war paint. Her pale skin is too old Hollywood. I can see a wild Peter Pan movie being made here but the little problems overwhelm it.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good, Not Great
JupieSmurf21 September 2015
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.
22 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed