Neverland

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'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.

This is a prequel dealing with Peter Pan (Charlie Rowe) as an orphan on the streets of London. Peter and his band of thieves work as pickpockets. Their evil mentor Jimmy Hook (Rhys Ifans) gets them to steal a magical treasure which transports them to Neverland. Once there Hook join with a group of pirates led by Elizabeth Bonny (Anna Friel) in search of more magic dust. Peter lands with the Indians and the beautiful Aaya (Q'orianka Kilcher) where the people don't age.

The story lack any pace. It drags along. With 240 minutes, this is way too long. It doesn't help that they explain away the magic. It reminds me of Star Wars explaining away The Force. Why can't they leave it alone? The acting is acceptable. All the big name give the expected performance. Charlie Rowe as Peter Pan is average. As for the production, it's got TV movie level. It's nothing to brag about. It's dark and dreary. Again all the magic is gone.

Not too shabby two episodes in! Interested to see where it goes, but hard with Peter Pans story already over told... want to see if the plot is taken anywhere unique though...

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!