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

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.

It takes a lot to surprise me, but I was shocked by this. This has to be one of the most subversive things I've ever seen... and not like a porn version of "Alice in Wonderland" or something like that. This low-budget movie very subtly and gradually melted away the Peter Pan mythology and rebuilt it in the most disturbing way. It was as if the filmmakers took the story of Peter Pan and forced it to grow up, without changing its core. A masterful concept that was handled extraordinarily well despite some obvious budget limitations. My wife cried at the end of this film and couldn't stop. While I found it challenging on an intellectual level, I didn't have the emotional response that she did. When I asked her why she found it so sad she told me that when she was young she would always dream that Peter would show up and fly her away to Neverland, and as she got older she of course had the "prince charming" fantasy. She told me that watching this movie was like the symbolic nail in the coffin of that dream. So not only did this movie freak me out, it made my marriage more depressing. In any case, it was powerful, entertaining, and thought provoking... and very captivating. So when someone says they hate this movie and they want to throw the DVD against the wall, I can understand where they are coming from.

Neverland delivers a strong, sometimes harshly realistic message, but we can't hate the messenger now, can we? Neverland gets an 8.

As many others have commented,this movie lacks as much as it has to offer. The cinematography is poor and the editing is worse. Long transitional scenes seem to have been added just get get characters from one place to another while padding the screen time.Many have mentioned that t he acting was poor, but Wil Wheaton is a fairly good actor and he simply doesn't shine, here. So I think I would blame it on the direction. The story is the strongest reason to see this. It holds pretty close to the original Peter Pan, up to a point. It has a certain "What if Peter Pan Took Place in the Real World" point of view but still seems so bizarre, since the lost boys act so immature even though they've grown up physically. These guys are in their 20's and still act like little boys (Can Wendy be our mother?. And most of them look a bit too much like male models, which I found distracting. However, the bizzarreness is what attracted me to this film. That and the fact that I got to see Wil Wheaton acting out a role far from Wesley Crusher or the mentally ill homeless guy on CSI. This one's wort a look-see.. if you appreciate low-budget, badly acted, badly photographed movies with a twist.

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.