Pan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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