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.
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.