Neverland (2003)

Let's be realistic.

A Major Disappointment

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Variety was absolutely correct when it referred to the movie as "... A Dark Reimagining of Peter Pan." In the end however, a range of factors led the movie to be nothing more than an attempt at breaking the mainstream cycle of "acceptable" films.The idea of taking the well-known story of Peter Pan and applying it to modern times, in an attempt to display current social problems is respectable and clever. What the audience received however was a movie in which the acting was lacking. Scott Mechlowicz surprising given some of his other works, appears dazed, and as if he is reading his lines off of a queue card. Melany Bell, although decent at times, tends to set the wrong emotions. Rick Sparks is just annoying as hell, and fails to really play slightly neurotic case of the "boy who wouldn't grow up." He comes off as more of the defiant adolescent, who rebels not because of his fear of society, or his fear of his inability, but rather due to his arrogance. Gary Kelley gave an excellent performance as Hook, although I would say that his performance didn't exactly fit in with the story-line, except for the fact that is disturbing, if not outright creepy. The majority of the other minor characters serve as nothing more than mouthpieces for the screenplay.Transitions in Neverland are painfully slow. In that dull, menacing, and irritating montages continue for minutes at a time, prompting me to fast forward. It almost appears as if they were added to boost the time of the film, due to the fact that they add absolutely nothing other than substandard music, vexing sounds, and shamefully dull images.The cinematography is by all means nothing special, nothing too innovative. There is one scene in which Hook is lecturing his employees that displays some amount of editing and camera talent. There were at times however, where the audio did not match the images on the screen.Overall, this film is a decent introductory film for director and screenwriter Damion Dietz. It tried to take a good idea and make a good film, but in my opinion failed. It relied too much upon stereotypical understandings of society's youth, an odd, if not unnecessary overriding homosexuality component, and what appears to be attempt to manipulate every aspect of Peter Pan as much as possible. It did, honestly, try to emulate the book more than say, the Disney version, but the extremes to which it is taken results in something of chaos.Also, it is interesting to note that a large majority of the highly positive reviews were the first, and only reviews of some IMDb members.

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.

This is the worst version and interpretation of peter pan I have ever seen. And believe me I have seen a lot of movies. Don't rent it, don't see it, don't go and watch it, it is simply a big waste of time. I could not see it though the lines were poor the acting is terrible and the score is weak and lame. Why do a movie like this? I wonder hoe the director came up with is idea. No really how could you expect an artist butcher a nice story like Peter Pan. Well I confused it with an other movie back to never land at first with but it was a total disaster and waste. To recapitulate it all it is a big fat waist of money and resources.

Wendy: Peter, are you gay? Peter: Hell no! I'm pansexual.At point I was laughing my but off! I new from the start that it was a low budget film, but it sparked my interest about Peter Pan and it bring the story up to date; it makes it almost more believable.A lot a freaky turns, like Hook a janitor? And he is into doing kinky things with his "Hook" and bad boys.OK its hard to explain I guess, but you do get what you except and a bit more. SO if you are a big Peter Pan fan like myself, bunch of my crazy friends, we will enjoy. Neverland is more of a have to see film and don not truly believe the comments of others. It s a film you must see to judge. Oh and one more question . . . Do you believe in fairies?