Post by Kieran on Nov 20, 2012 20:46:08 GMT 2
SPOILERS AHEAD.
This review may come off negative toned, but I didn't hate this film. I can see the effort they put into it as a general prequel to Peter Pan, and I do appreciate some aspects of it. It was entertaining and I think it's worth the rental price. I just think it works only as a stand-alone story inspired by Peter Pan, not as a prequel to any canon.
It most certainly doesn't work as a prequel to Barrie's Peter Pan at all.
Because in Barrie's canon:
- Neverland is on Earth, not on another planet.
- Neverland could be found only if the island wanted to be found, not accessed through some crystal ball portal at any given time.
- Peter's a little boy, not a teenager. And for all I remember so are the Lost Boys.
- Peter wasn't an orphan the way he's painted in this film.
- And he had a deep mother issue which was non-existent in this film.
- He barely speaks of his father, but this film makes the father a crucial person in his psychological and emotional growth and life.
- By the time he lost his shadow, he'd forgotten all but one memory, that was of his mother, but according to this film he remembered his entire life at that point.
- The indians were their enemies until the rescue of Tiger Lily during Wendy's time in Neverland. But in this film they befriend the indians at the first meeting.
- Fairies are born out of babies' first laughters, not from an alchemist's experiements.
- They're indeed called fairies, not "tree spirits".
Should I go on? Nah. You see why, if they attempted to make a prequel to Barrie's, someone forgot to tell them that reading the book would be very helpful.
But for many of the same reasons listed above, this can't work as a prequel to the 2003 film adapatation as it was remarkably faithful to the novel...and Tinkerbell looked and acted entirely different. This can't work as a prequel to the movie Hook, either, because that offers an entirely different backstory to itself in its literal content. To the Disney animation, then? Nope; Tiger Lily is much younger in that one, Peter's a pointy-eared elf, the Lost Boys are little kids, Tink's entirely different...And I doubt this is meant as a prequel to any little known adaptation without mentioning which one.
So what exactly is this trying to be a prequel to?
Whatever. Let's dig into it anyway.
The actors of Peter, and the other boys too, I suppose...They were something like fourteen or fifteen when this was shot. As in clearly on their teenage years. So this was teenagers in Neverland, not really children. Yes, technically teenagers are considered still children but...not in the same way young children are, those to whome I've always imagined Neverland to be most appealing. They didn't even do anything that childlike to balance the physical and voice age appearence. (For example, in the english spoken version of the Disney cartoon show Quack Pack wherein Donald's nephews are voiced by women as they always are, by their voices you might think they're totally teenagers, but their still remarkably childlike behaviour such as playing with toys, indicates that they're supposed to be 13-years olds, tops. In my language dubbing they even are voiced by 13-years old boys.) Well, in Neverland there was that one childlike behaviour moment between Peter and Tink but to me that came off as a bit contrived. Maybe mostly because the dialogue in the scene made it feel like the moment was written for the sole purpose of reminding the audience that Peter's still a child at heart instead of as a genuine part of the character's nature. It's hard to explain. The moment was just done wrong and didn't fit in very well. God, this teenagers-in-Neverland annoys me right now.
Behaviour issues aside, a bit more on the appearence issues...Jeremy Sumpter was 13-years old, turned fourteen during the filming of Peter Pan and passed believably for a 12-years old, 99% of the film anyway. Charlie Rowe was probably close to 15 years old at the start of this one's filming, and really...No. Just no. His voice was constantly that of a teenager who's about to break it, Jeremy's was still kid-ish and only at some points it could be heard that he may be slightly older than twelve really...And he had more childlike roundness left than Rowe had. Not to mention that Sumpter was shorter. And when he had his growth spurt during the filming, they tried to work around it to hide it. In Neverland they didn't even try to make him look small. Even the bloody cover has a total teenager flying in the sky...I can't believe Rowe was also considered to be cast for a 12-years old character in X-Men: First Class at the same time as for Peter in Neverland...(IMDB claims so.) There is no way he could pass off as a 12-years old! (I really think that if you want to cast an actor for a 12-years old character, generally taken they can't be older than thitrteen to begin with. Of course as we're individuals, there are exceptions. One being the kid who played 12-years old Sam Karras in The Deep End of the Ocean. I'd have never guessed he was a teenager during the filming. But Rowe isn't one of those exceptions.)
Well, regardless how annoying that teenage stuff is to me, and how this film for several reasons can never hope to work as a prequel to any existing adaptation of the original story...It didn't distract too much while watching. I had this thought in the back of my mind; 'Yeah, I'm still watching this because this is related to Peter Pan.', as in I didn't get sucked into the story or anything, it wasn't very captivating. But I enjoyed this film and I think it works as a stand-alone story.
The characters...
Tiger Lily was quite tame...And it was contradicting even in the movies' contents itself, because they literally said "She's named so, because she's as wild as she is beautiful." But then she literally doesn't do anything wild or even semi-wild. I remember her in this movie as quite helpless and whiny, actually. Weird. Another thing I found weird is that she was a grown woman. I'm used to her being around Peter's age. Beautiful she was but otherwise as a character she was a bit of a disappointment.
Hook was interesting and well portrayed version. Nicely different from the other versions, but I'd still like to get a more fitting background story for the canon version. I think something less Peter-related would be also interesting, and that this film's version of the character itself in nature, is too far from that vicious and eerie pirate captain to be believeable as the same character. (Mainly because of the timeline they set.)
Captain Bonnie was a surprising original character addition. Not bad, though. I enjoyed the relationship between her and Hook and how it developed. I wish they'd told more about her. A female pirate captain was a nice touch in a prequel to a story that would revolve around boys and men with mother issues...Even if she really doesn't connect to those aspects in any way. It just was somehow nice little spice. I don't know what I'm trying to say.
I have mixed feelings for all the explanations they gave as for Neverland's existence and powers, and the way it could be accessed...On its own it's all clever and fascinating, but it doesn't meet my...taste?...for a serious prequel attempt. I mean, it's too sci-fi for something I've imagined to be a place of fantasy and magic ever since I was five...and even when reading the original novel as an adult. Nice try, Syfy guys, but that's not Neverland to me. So, their sci-fi take on it is generally ok by me when I think of it as a stand-alone fanfiction story. Although...even so it bothers me a little, one detail of it; frankly, it completely destroys the faschination of fairies that some alchemist created Tinkerbell and she shined only because she had some freakin' star dust still inside her, or something. HMPFH! >:/ But then again, they weren't even called fairies but "tree spirits"...But still.
The relationship and backgrounds of Peter and Hook is interesting, and a nice idea. But in my opinion does not work too well for the canon relationship and situation. Or maybe it might work well enough, be plausible, but at least I think it would have to take decades or centuries of fighting and trials before their feelings for each other and situation could've become as horrific and estranged as it is in the original story...but this movie's ending clearly shows this all happened, like, days before the original story begins. Sorry, too rushed for my logic.
I mean, sure, Hook killed Peter's father. But Peter was only 3-years old when also his mother died. I know people may have hazy memories from that age, (I do), but Peter wasn't indicated to have any of his parents. And Hook loved Peter's mother which is why he took Peter in and raised him as his own son. And we don't know in which circumstances the father was killed. And for all it seems, he developed genuine love for and was always good to the boy, a decent father-figure. (As decent as you can be, being a thief who uses orphan minors as his gang.) If Peter never really knew his biological parents, he couldn't possibly have formed significantly strong emotional bond to them whereas he must've to Hook, him being the only parent he had memories of and as said, having been so good and loving to him. I thought the only reason Peter gave any thought to his dead mother was because he'd never had a replacement mother. Yeah, there is the fact that if Hook hadn't killed his father, he would've never suffered in the work house from where Hook soon saved him. But still.Peter could not know if his life had been better or worse with his biological father, because he never knew him. While Hook had been a loving parent to him since age five to fourteen. (I refuse to think they'd meant the character to be twelve! And even if. That's seven years of genuine family bond.)
This is why I don't think Peter could become utterly hateful and bitter towards Hook in just a couple of days, just because of the parental history revealations that were quite vaguely given. It's just too complex history, little to no bond between him and his biological parents, and too strong bond of love between him and Hook, to be entirely turnd upside down just like that.
And for the same reason I don't think Hook would start passionately hating and wanting to obsessively and brutally murder Peter just like that. For all I understood, Hook started to really change at Peter's supposed death, it being too huge of an emotional blow. But Peter was saved and appeared back within a day or so, didn't he? Was that really enough time to grow distant to all the love and bond they'd had, or start to think the boy had grown up wrong? Well, Hook did have that lust for power working against him and Peter was cosntantly trying to stop him...and cut off his hand...so I guess Hook had more of a justification to become cold and violent towards someone he loved than Peter had, but still...I find it hard to believe that he'd that quickly become downright obsessively murderous towards a boy he'd loved and raised as his own child from early childhood to (pre)-teens.
I find that relationship idea and story setting psychologically very faschinating and the background story intriguing, and thus may write fanfiction on it - but fixing some of the obvious continuity issues with many of the characters, and setting this movie's events further back the timeline instead of days before the original story.
I mean, Hook didn't seem to have become mentally ill or anything. Just power-hungry. It just can't be set days before the original story!
I appreciate the dark feel they kept to Neverland's concept in the way the chaacters talked and thought about it. As for its portrayal as a place more literally...I think it could've been darker. The indians were too friendly and forgiving. There wasn't any wild life shown either, if my memory serves correctly. They refered to that the indians hunted, but...The nature just didn't get justice. Even less so by the ending in which Peter visited London and brought all kinds of comforts from the city, including new shoes for everyone.
But I especially liked the tree-sprits' ability to robb people off of all their memories of identity and people they'd loved. But that one they ruined by making it totally pointless for Peter. They didn't really take it into any depths. Peter was a gaga for a few scenes of which most of time he spent imprisoned, doing nothing but sit on his ass. And anyway, what's the point of losing memories if you're just gonna get them all back the next day?
This film has remarkably many flaws in logic and timelines, in itself but especially as a prequel, but then again it could be much worse in that. The actors were fine, although I prefer Jason Isaacs as Hook. But I don't know if he would've suited this version of the character or the other way around. So Hook's actor was well picked for the version.
As said; nice effort, enjoyable as a stand-alone story, and it was worth the price of the rental. I think it might be worth a second view someday. Maybe I'll even buy it into my collection, when the price goes low enough.
This review may come off negative toned, but I didn't hate this film. I can see the effort they put into it as a general prequel to Peter Pan, and I do appreciate some aspects of it. It was entertaining and I think it's worth the rental price. I just think it works only as a stand-alone story inspired by Peter Pan, not as a prequel to any canon.
It most certainly doesn't work as a prequel to Barrie's Peter Pan at all.
Because in Barrie's canon:
- Neverland is on Earth, not on another planet.
- Neverland could be found only if the island wanted to be found, not accessed through some crystal ball portal at any given time.
- Peter's a little boy, not a teenager. And for all I remember so are the Lost Boys.
- Peter wasn't an orphan the way he's painted in this film.
- And he had a deep mother issue which was non-existent in this film.
- He barely speaks of his father, but this film makes the father a crucial person in his psychological and emotional growth and life.
- By the time he lost his shadow, he'd forgotten all but one memory, that was of his mother, but according to this film he remembered his entire life at that point.
- The indians were their enemies until the rescue of Tiger Lily during Wendy's time in Neverland. But in this film they befriend the indians at the first meeting.
- Fairies are born out of babies' first laughters, not from an alchemist's experiements.
- They're indeed called fairies, not "tree spirits".
Should I go on? Nah. You see why, if they attempted to make a prequel to Barrie's, someone forgot to tell them that reading the book would be very helpful.
But for many of the same reasons listed above, this can't work as a prequel to the 2003 film adapatation as it was remarkably faithful to the novel...and Tinkerbell looked and acted entirely different. This can't work as a prequel to the movie Hook, either, because that offers an entirely different backstory to itself in its literal content. To the Disney animation, then? Nope; Tiger Lily is much younger in that one, Peter's a pointy-eared elf, the Lost Boys are little kids, Tink's entirely different...And I doubt this is meant as a prequel to any little known adaptation without mentioning which one.
So what exactly is this trying to be a prequel to?
Whatever. Let's dig into it anyway.
The actors of Peter, and the other boys too, I suppose...They were something like fourteen or fifteen when this was shot. As in clearly on their teenage years. So this was teenagers in Neverland, not really children. Yes, technically teenagers are considered still children but...not in the same way young children are, those to whome I've always imagined Neverland to be most appealing. They didn't even do anything that childlike to balance the physical and voice age appearence. (For example, in the english spoken version of the Disney cartoon show Quack Pack wherein Donald's nephews are voiced by women as they always are, by their voices you might think they're totally teenagers, but their still remarkably childlike behaviour such as playing with toys, indicates that they're supposed to be 13-years olds, tops. In my language dubbing they even are voiced by 13-years old boys.) Well, in Neverland there was that one childlike behaviour moment between Peter and Tink but to me that came off as a bit contrived. Maybe mostly because the dialogue in the scene made it feel like the moment was written for the sole purpose of reminding the audience that Peter's still a child at heart instead of as a genuine part of the character's nature. It's hard to explain. The moment was just done wrong and didn't fit in very well. God, this teenagers-in-Neverland annoys me right now.
Behaviour issues aside, a bit more on the appearence issues...Jeremy Sumpter was 13-years old, turned fourteen during the filming of Peter Pan and passed believably for a 12-years old, 99% of the film anyway. Charlie Rowe was probably close to 15 years old at the start of this one's filming, and really...No. Just no. His voice was constantly that of a teenager who's about to break it, Jeremy's was still kid-ish and only at some points it could be heard that he may be slightly older than twelve really...And he had more childlike roundness left than Rowe had. Not to mention that Sumpter was shorter. And when he had his growth spurt during the filming, they tried to work around it to hide it. In Neverland they didn't even try to make him look small. Even the bloody cover has a total teenager flying in the sky...I can't believe Rowe was also considered to be cast for a 12-years old character in X-Men: First Class at the same time as for Peter in Neverland...(IMDB claims so.) There is no way he could pass off as a 12-years old! (I really think that if you want to cast an actor for a 12-years old character, generally taken they can't be older than thitrteen to begin with. Of course as we're individuals, there are exceptions. One being the kid who played 12-years old Sam Karras in The Deep End of the Ocean. I'd have never guessed he was a teenager during the filming. But Rowe isn't one of those exceptions.)
Well, regardless how annoying that teenage stuff is to me, and how this film for several reasons can never hope to work as a prequel to any existing adaptation of the original story...It didn't distract too much while watching. I had this thought in the back of my mind; 'Yeah, I'm still watching this because this is related to Peter Pan.', as in I didn't get sucked into the story or anything, it wasn't very captivating. But I enjoyed this film and I think it works as a stand-alone story.
The characters...
Tiger Lily was quite tame...And it was contradicting even in the movies' contents itself, because they literally said "She's named so, because she's as wild as she is beautiful." But then she literally doesn't do anything wild or even semi-wild. I remember her in this movie as quite helpless and whiny, actually. Weird. Another thing I found weird is that she was a grown woman. I'm used to her being around Peter's age. Beautiful she was but otherwise as a character she was a bit of a disappointment.
Hook was interesting and well portrayed version. Nicely different from the other versions, but I'd still like to get a more fitting background story for the canon version. I think something less Peter-related would be also interesting, and that this film's version of the character itself in nature, is too far from that vicious and eerie pirate captain to be believeable as the same character. (Mainly because of the timeline they set.)
Captain Bonnie was a surprising original character addition. Not bad, though. I enjoyed the relationship between her and Hook and how it developed. I wish they'd told more about her. A female pirate captain was a nice touch in a prequel to a story that would revolve around boys and men with mother issues...Even if she really doesn't connect to those aspects in any way. It just was somehow nice little spice. I don't know what I'm trying to say.
I have mixed feelings for all the explanations they gave as for Neverland's existence and powers, and the way it could be accessed...On its own it's all clever and fascinating, but it doesn't meet my...taste?...for a serious prequel attempt. I mean, it's too sci-fi for something I've imagined to be a place of fantasy and magic ever since I was five...and even when reading the original novel as an adult. Nice try, Syfy guys, but that's not Neverland to me. So, their sci-fi take on it is generally ok by me when I think of it as a stand-alone fanfiction story. Although...even so it bothers me a little, one detail of it; frankly, it completely destroys the faschination of fairies that some alchemist created Tinkerbell and she shined only because she had some freakin' star dust still inside her, or something. HMPFH! >:/ But then again, they weren't even called fairies but "tree spirits"...But still.
The relationship and backgrounds of Peter and Hook is interesting, and a nice idea. But in my opinion does not work too well for the canon relationship and situation. Or maybe it might work well enough, be plausible, but at least I think it would have to take decades or centuries of fighting and trials before their feelings for each other and situation could've become as horrific and estranged as it is in the original story...but this movie's ending clearly shows this all happened, like, days before the original story begins. Sorry, too rushed for my logic.
I mean, sure, Hook killed Peter's father. But Peter was only 3-years old when also his mother died. I know people may have hazy memories from that age, (I do), but Peter wasn't indicated to have any of his parents. And Hook loved Peter's mother which is why he took Peter in and raised him as his own son. And we don't know in which circumstances the father was killed. And for all it seems, he developed genuine love for and was always good to the boy, a decent father-figure. (As decent as you can be, being a thief who uses orphan minors as his gang.) If Peter never really knew his biological parents, he couldn't possibly have formed significantly strong emotional bond to them whereas he must've to Hook, him being the only parent he had memories of and as said, having been so good and loving to him. I thought the only reason Peter gave any thought to his dead mother was because he'd never had a replacement mother. Yeah, there is the fact that if Hook hadn't killed his father, he would've never suffered in the work house from where Hook soon saved him. But still.Peter could not know if his life had been better or worse with his biological father, because he never knew him. While Hook had been a loving parent to him since age five to fourteen. (I refuse to think they'd meant the character to be twelve! And even if. That's seven years of genuine family bond.)
This is why I don't think Peter could become utterly hateful and bitter towards Hook in just a couple of days, just because of the parental history revealations that were quite vaguely given. It's just too complex history, little to no bond between him and his biological parents, and too strong bond of love between him and Hook, to be entirely turnd upside down just like that.
And for the same reason I don't think Hook would start passionately hating and wanting to obsessively and brutally murder Peter just like that. For all I understood, Hook started to really change at Peter's supposed death, it being too huge of an emotional blow. But Peter was saved and appeared back within a day or so, didn't he? Was that really enough time to grow distant to all the love and bond they'd had, or start to think the boy had grown up wrong? Well, Hook did have that lust for power working against him and Peter was cosntantly trying to stop him...and cut off his hand...so I guess Hook had more of a justification to become cold and violent towards someone he loved than Peter had, but still...I find it hard to believe that he'd that quickly become downright obsessively murderous towards a boy he'd loved and raised as his own child from early childhood to (pre)-teens.
I find that relationship idea and story setting psychologically very faschinating and the background story intriguing, and thus may write fanfiction on it - but fixing some of the obvious continuity issues with many of the characters, and setting this movie's events further back the timeline instead of days before the original story.
I mean, Hook didn't seem to have become mentally ill or anything. Just power-hungry. It just can't be set days before the original story!
I appreciate the dark feel they kept to Neverland's concept in the way the chaacters talked and thought about it. As for its portrayal as a place more literally...I think it could've been darker. The indians were too friendly and forgiving. There wasn't any wild life shown either, if my memory serves correctly. They refered to that the indians hunted, but...The nature just didn't get justice. Even less so by the ending in which Peter visited London and brought all kinds of comforts from the city, including new shoes for everyone.
But I especially liked the tree-sprits' ability to robb people off of all their memories of identity and people they'd loved. But that one they ruined by making it totally pointless for Peter. They didn't really take it into any depths. Peter was a gaga for a few scenes of which most of time he spent imprisoned, doing nothing but sit on his ass. And anyway, what's the point of losing memories if you're just gonna get them all back the next day?
This film has remarkably many flaws in logic and timelines, in itself but especially as a prequel, but then again it could be much worse in that. The actors were fine, although I prefer Jason Isaacs as Hook. But I don't know if he would've suited this version of the character or the other way around. So Hook's actor was well picked for the version.
As said; nice effort, enjoyable as a stand-alone story, and it was worth the price of the rental. I think it might be worth a second view someday. Maybe I'll even buy it into my collection, when the price goes low enough.