Return to Never Land (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
82 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Not a true sequel
mad4u68914 October 2006
Take this review with a grain of salt, because I am a massive fan of Peter Pan and all things properly based on the James Barrie classic. This sequel, however, made me cringe. I've enjoyed liberal interpretations before - Hook and Finding Neverland, for example - but this movie completely trashed whatever character Peter Pan is supposed to have. Peter Pan is not a hero - he is a mischievous and often forgetful boy. He is entirely selfish and entirely charming, and these are his two flaws. However, in "Return to Neverland," this character of "Peter Pan" is a mere ghost of the complex Barrie creation. Whatever beautiful messages Peter Pan has about nostalgia and childhood, "Return to Neverland" turns them upside down at worst, and simply ignores them at best.

The animation wasn't bad, though.
33 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Magical
pnc77715 February 2002
All you need is faith, trust and pixie dust! This is a surprisingly pleasant sequel. The C.G. Tinkerbelle is not as ...delicate as I remember from the first, but she is still made well and is just as spunky! I think they did a very good job on this movie...so good of a job that I would not classify it with normal sequels. I think it will be on the shelf with the other classics. They still have the Tink that turns red when she's mad, and the lost boys haven't changed a bit. Peter is just as I remember him, and in all this they did a great job. And overall, I love this movie. The credits did surprise me. They reminded me of the last page in the Little Golden Books I read as a child. Very similar artistry...very similar lay out.

Also, I'd like to add that the music was actually not torture for me to listen to...which counts for a lot for my opinion of cartoons.

I would not miss taking my children to this movie. It's even a sweet date movie.

I think you will like it.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A good Disney sequel
funky_little_angel30 December 2002
One thing I've noticed about most Disney sequels is that the storyline tends to be the opposite of the original. It's not different here. In the original "Peter Pan", Wendy has no intention of growing up too soon and instead goes to Never Land for a while, where she'll never grow up. But in "Return to Never Land", Wendy has grown up, gotten married and had kids of her own. Her son, Danny, who's still very young, is always intrigued by his mother's stories of Peter, but her older daughter Jane, who feels as though now her father's gone to war, she must protect her family, it means no more silly stories. And then the movie develops from there, when Jane is thought to be Wendy and is kidnapped by Captain Hook. Then, of course, Peter Pan meets her and then the story continues from there. Jane thinks she's really mature, and it's up to Peter and the Lost Boys to bring out her childish side again.

I think "Return to Never Land" is one of the better Disney sequels, as heaps of others have turned out to rip-offs of the original. If they thought this was going to be like the others, they would've released it straight to video. So, if you have to see a Disney sequel, then this is a pretty good one.
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
He's back....
chrisbrown645312 June 2002
"Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" is Disney‘s animated sequel to their truly classic 1953 adaptation of J.M. Barrie‘s beloved children‘s story. Time‘s moved on since the first movie and although Peter Pan never grew up, Wendy did. It‘s now World War Two and an adult Wendy is living in London, still telling tales of Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Tinkerbell and all the other inhabitants of Never Land to her two children; Danny, an awe struck little boy and Jane, a more cynical, pragmatic older girl who has no time for fairytales. However when Hook flies his sailing ship to London, kidnaps Jane and takes her to Never Land, she soon wishes she has paid more attention to her mother‘s stories.

With a budget of a ‘mere‘ $20M the film was produced by Disney‘s TV animation department (who have previously toiled over ‘straight to video/DVD‘ sequels for other Disney movies including "Cinderella," "The Lady And The Tramp," "The Lion King" and "The Little Mermaid"), but this was apparently always planned as a cinematic release. The film succeeds in combining the traditional feel of the original ‘50s animation with a more contemporary look, particularly for the intrepid young heroine Jane (whose modern looking bobbed haircut was actually highly fashionable during World War Two!). The use of computer generated animation does successfully enhance certain scenes, sometimes so subtly you don‘t even notice, and sometimes – in the case of Tinkerbell‘s magical pixie dust – to spectacular effect. However Hook‘s computer generated ship, while certainly impressive, unfortunately stands out uncomfortably from the traditionally animated environments that surround it. Overall though "Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" – only the second sequel to a Disney feature to be released on the big screen – more than deserves a cinematic outing, and will no doubt go down well with the latest generation of Disney fans, who have grown up with a VHS copy of the original at home.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
You don't know what you're missing
Rozie8316 February 2002
My friend and I went and saw this movie and felt like we were little again. It made us laugh and it was great to see some of our favorite characters come alive again. I hate to read about critics when they dissect the movie, all you need to know is that it's a wonderful sequel, that personally, I plan to see again. No matter what age you are you'll leave after with a smile on your face. Jane is the perfect portrayal of kids these days and what they're missing. So do yourself a huge favor and just go see it.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Rather unimpressive!
TheLittleSongbird20 March 2009
Return To Neverland isn't terrible, but it does fail on many levels, so can't be classed as a good sequel. The animation and the story were the redeeming qualities, but unfortunately the songs and the characters fall flat.

The animation is mostly bright and colourful, but falls flat in the dark backgrounds. The story wasn't bad either, trying to keep Hook from getting the treasure and everything. I also liked the war scene, because that was quite interesting on an animation perspective, and brought some intrigue on a contextual level. I was unimpressed by the trailer, but the film itself wasn't bad, but loses the charm about 15 minutes in. I will say it has a great message about cherishing your childhood.

The first problem was that the kidnapping scene took far too long, despite the breathtaking animation of Hook's ship, and I hated the change to Hook. In the original and the criminally underrated TV series Peter Pan and the Pirates, which are both classics, he is complex and vindictive, but here he was manipulative in a negative way, and lacked menace. The best character was Jane, but that isn't saying much, and Peter's new voice was horrible, too bolshy. The songs were terrible and forgettable immediately after you've finished watching the movie, likewise with the dialogue. The main problem was that it isn't a true sequel at all, compared to the first film and the book. And the octopus, why replace the crocodile may I ask?

I'm sorry that this is mostly negative, but Return To Neverland was very disappointing. Though better than the trailer suggested, it is still a pretty charmless film, with a 3/10(Adequate) Bethany Cox
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
RETURN to Never Land.
masonireton1215 April 2002
I am a 13 year old kid and I saw the movie and when I saw the war parts I was shocked and sort of felt sorry for wendy because she was in the war area but when the movie got to the where the ship is entering the second star to the right I heard sounds in that scene like: I'll get you for this pan if it's the last thing I do,ticking,and Peter famous line from "Peter Pan": Once you're grown up you can never back. I liked the lost boys, though in number one they used to fight alot.And pan wasn't mean to Jane he was just upset because tink's light was fading and the ending was almost sad because peter sort of felt that he didn't give a darn about wendy but she cared for him.my favorite lost boy is Slightly he rocks. Plus the songs were great I liked "So to be one of us" and "now that you're one of us" but My favorite song is the new version of "Do you believe in magic" it's a new version of the song then the oringal.the reason why disney wanted to do a sequal to peter pan is because they thought that we kids and adults might to see peter pan again and take us back to neverland and have us forget what's going in the world like the Terrorism war.The movie was a huge hit at my Regal cinemas in lincoln city,oregon everyone clapped and I yelled "GIVE US MORE PAN". Rumor has it that disney is thinking about doing a thrid Peter pan movie called: Peter Pan 3, the plot: it is going to be about peter's past,how tink came in his life,how hook and the pirates got to neverland,and how the lost boys got there too.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pan Is Back and he attempts to save Wendy's daughter from Captain Hook , Smee and his hoodlums
ma-cortes30 October 2014
Sequel to classic history with an enjoyable Peter Pan , adventures , imagination ,astounding as well as gorgeous sets and brilliant images , though it was originally planned as a direct-to-video release in which the protagonist of the story results to be Wendy's daughter and is set in London during World War II . The picture mingles action , feats , humor , tongue-in-cheek , fantasy and a lot of entertainment . The film centers about Peter Pan (voice by Blayne Weaver) , a nice adolescent who doesn't want grow up , Wendy , her daughter Jane and brothers . As Jane is kidnapped by Captain Hook from parents' home and they are going to Neverland . As main starring is abducted by Captain Hook and Peter Pan must come to the rescue in order to challenge his old enemy . Peter Pan , Tink and Lost Boys (they were boys who fell out of their prams while the nurses weren't looking , whereas Peter Pan is a permanent resident of Never Neverland, the lost boys are only temporary lodgers , if they seem to grow up, Peter Pan sends them home) will take on captain Hook , Smee and pirates henchmen . As Peter Pan's quest to go back Jane safely home is jeopardized until she can start to believe in the magic of imagination .

The film contains emotion , humor , fantasy , songs and a lot of fun . The plot is similar to Walt Disney's classic replacing Wendy with her daughter Jane who along with Peter undertake several adventures in Neverland ; as Pan with the help of her and the Lost Boys must save his friends by battling with Captain Hook and Smee once again . From the beginning to the end the amusement and entertainment is interminable . An entertaining movie , a little tiring when the characters are singing , but is still shines . The highlights film are the marvelous images when Peter Pan and Jane are flying throughout Neverland , it turns out to be colorful and delightful . Due to controversy over their appearance in original movie , as Disney attracted negative comments for their stereotypical depiction of Indians, as indeed did J.M. Barrie with his original play , it's probably for that very reason that the Indians do not appear in this 2002 sequel , though Peter and Jane briefly visit their places , however ; as they fly over Tipis , Indian tribes and skull monument . The giant octopus was created as a new nemesis for Captain Hook because it was felt that the Disney animators had exhausted all the comic possibilities of "Hook vs. the Crocodile" in the original Peter Pan (1953). The octopus's tentacles make a "Pock! Pock!" sound that is similar to the "Tick Tock!" sound heard from the crocodile in the previous film . Although original author J.M. Barrie is credited, this sequel and its original were the only major films versions of "Peter Pan" and both of them use little of his original dialogue . Because most of the original voice cast of the movie had died, including Hans Conried (Hook) and Bobby Driscoll (Peter Pan), an entirely new cast of actors had to be used to film this sequel such as Corey Burton as Hook , Jeff Bennett as Smee , Kath Soucie as Wendy , Roger Rees as Edward , Spencer Breslin as Cubby , Bradley Pierce as Nibs and Clive Revill . Many Peter Pan purists were very upset by the characterization of Tinker Bell as a petulant and voluptuous young woman as old film ¨Peter Pan¨ as its sequel the ¨Return to Never Land¨ . The fable will appeal to adventure and classic tale fan . Rating : 6,5/10 above average . It's a terrific familiar amusement that will appeal to vintage tale fans .

Other films and stage productions dealing with this classic personage are the followings : The original Broadway production of "Peter Pan", or "The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up" by J.M. Barrie opened at the Empire Theater on November 6, 1905 , it ran for 223 performances, closed on May 20, 1906, and starred nineteenth-century stage actress Maude Adams, who never made any films ; silent film ¨Peter Pan¨ (1924) starred by Virginia Brown Faire as Tinker Bell , it uses much of Barrie's original dialogue ; Peter Pan (1953) with voice by Bobby Driscoll, Kathryn Beaumont, Hans Conried ; ¨Hook¨(2001) with Steven Spielberg with Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook , Robin Williams , Freddie Highmore , Julia Roberts , Bob Hoskins as Smee , Maggie Smith and Caroline Goodall ; ¨Finding Neverland¨ (2004) by Marc Foster with Johnny Depp as James M Barry , Kate Winslet , Kelly McDonald as Peter Pan , Julie Christie , Radha Mitchell , and recent version ¨Peter Pan¨ by JP Hogan with Jeremy Sumpter , Raquel Wood and Jason Isaac .
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
If Wendy knew what Pan had done, could *she* still believe?!
innerspaceusa20 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***NOTE: my review contains spoilers, but none so spoiled as my expectations.***

Some will say that Disney has sold out in recent years. But MY gripe is not with marketing strategies, nor with flooding us with sequels to all these classics within a couple year's timespan. I can learn to accept that.

My gripe is with this character development of Peter Pan. It's kind of like the comic book that saw Luke Skywalker join the dark side, but without as good an excuse.

Another user commented that Peter Pan always bordered on violence. I just don't remember him being mean, though.

This movie has Peter Pan & the Lost Boys pulling a little girl's hair, destroying her journal to shreds, and getting ANGRY at her and calling her a traitor (at a time when she was innocent)! (Where is the magic of Neverland???)

Peter Pan lies to her also...in a plot to save Tinkerbell, he tells her he's sorry and wants to make it up to her...but he is just using her and has already explained why and how, to the Lost Boys!

I guess this film was made for little girls during a time of war. I guess by showing her have a change of heart, SHE is the real hero, and Peter Pan is irrelevant.

But I came to see Peter Pan! Do we really really have to have good guys do bad things and not know any better...and did the sequel really have to be a big fat trailer for the original classic?

Instead of endlessly discussing faith and believing, GIVE US THE OLD MAGIC...THE PURE FANTASY back. I still don't know WHAT to believe about this effort.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
another amazing Disney movie, ruined with a sequil
troyjien22 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
before i begin, i must say, that all of you immature fools who thought this was a good film should go and read the book! you are the people who are keeping Disney alive. and for the children who say they like this, well i think we should all fear the next generation if they really found THIS entertaining! this movie starts out by showing that it takes place during WWll. a bombing occurs and Windy, who is now an adult with two children, run to the shelter. after an overly dramatic 'escape', Windy's daughter, JANE, goes off on her brother about believing in peter pan. i do not recall his name, so for all intended purposes, I'll be calling him Jon. now, Jon can't be older than 5, and his sister, probably around 10, is screaming at him about believing in peter pan. now he goes off crying. I'm gonna skip ahead a little bit here for I refuse to waste any more time than i have to warning you about this morbidly horrible film. so Capt. Hook mistakes Jane for Windy, and takes her to Neverland. peter, making the same mistake, saves her. then there's about half an hour of the lost boys being annoying. she decides to leave on a boat, and then gets an offer from capt. hook that he'll take her home if she finds his treasure. then there's a song about farts, which i swear, will lower your IQ! within that song, Jane decides that she wants to be a lost girl. then peter and the lost boys get captured, and Tinkerbell becomes nice. now if any of you read the book, you'll know that Tinkerbell ISN'T nice! she could be nice, but you could tell that this whole plot was just to make 6 year old girls go "OH MY GOD! GIRL POWER! WOHO!" well, like i said before, i fear the future generation. also, the voice of peter is so HORRIBLE! it doesn't resemble the original at all! all in all, i must say that if you think this is better than the original, than i hope you will go blindfold yourself, and play kick the can in traffic. have a nice day.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I wish Disney were alive.
ImmortalCorruptor18 August 2002
This is a perfect example of why Walt Disney said very clearly "Don't let them make sequels to my movies." He didn't want Peter Pan 2, Snow White 2 and so on. The studio has made some great movies (Lion King, Little Mermaid), but has the creative well run dry? Aren't there thousands of wonderful fairy tales from around the world that could be done? This movie (short, like Tarzan and Jane short) felt more like an exploitation of a classic than a tribute to a timeless and charming film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
utterly charmless
spikey-528 December 2010
A brief synopsis of this film's plot sounds, at first, to be an ideal and suitable sequel to the original and yet ....

This film isn't simply bad, it is heart breakingly terrible. The voice casting alone, above the myriad other flaws, completely ruins the film and prevents any suspension of disbelief. The main child characters sound too adult to ignore, and London in the Blitz is apparently a town in the United states judging by the accents and slang. The mindless Americanisms (schmaltzly "I love you's" called out by British troops leaving for battle in a hallmark way, thoughtless rehashing of details from the original and rushed personal development by the lead) further drag it into the mire.

The plot is predictable and pedestrian, in that you can almost see the numbers over which it was painted. Heartstring remain untugged, blood remains unstirred and yawns unstiffled.

This film contains none of J. M Barries style, appeal or themes, but instead slaps characters with the same name into a bland repeat of the actions and events he wrote, their sequel tactics writ small and emotionless. Even the youngsters at which it is aimed will sneer and loose interest long before the awful teeny band sings its squeaky cacophony over the welcome end credits!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the best sequels!
Daawesomesquee20 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Well, the plot isn't big like it was in the original. But I have to say, Return To Neverland was great anyway!

First of all, I think I liked Peter more in this. Don't get me wrong, he was great in the original, but he was less cocky in this and I sorta liked that.

I liked how it was Wendy's daughter Jane, instead of the original characters like in most Disney sequels, it was more, I don't know, realistic.

Well, like I said, the plot isn't big at all, it's quite simple, but that doesn't spoil the goodness of the movie! I can see why they put it straight to Theatres instead direct-to-video, it is enjoyable!

There's one scene I just loved(Note:You may not wanna read this, it may ruin it for you, that's why I put Spoiler alert on), The scene near the end,where Peter and Wendy see each other again, and she's all grown up. Seriously, it's just aw!

But yeah, great movie!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
AWFUL!!
Ray75417 February 2002
After 50 years you would think they could come up with a better sequel. One could come up with something better in 15 min. and do a much better job. Disney must be desperate to release this picture and at best this is a direct to video type of item, and is not suitable as a theatrical release. But fear not, your children will probably enjoy this "movie" however adults will be shocked at this trash that Disney has chosen to inflict upon the general public. What happened to all the truly talented people who work at Disney?? Obviously they were not involved with this film.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Made for T.V. Movie on the Big Screen
daddymention17 February 2002
I figured since Disney would be releasing this film in theatres, it had to be pretty good. Unfortunately, this is not true. The quality of the animation is at best only T.V. quality, the exception being Tinkerbell's pixie dust, which looks pretty good. The story is rather weak and very brief. The film is barely more than an hour. Had it been direct to video, my expectations wouldn't have been so high. I really want to warn people not to spend their money on such a mediocre product. Disney, at one time, always represented quality without question. Today, they are nothing but a mass-marketing machine with xtreme advertising that is really better than the products themselves. This sequel is so poor, skip it even when it comes to DVD, unless you are sold on the classic cartoons that they include as a bonus. Disney will get you one way or another.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic
tkachmax4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was much better than the original, in my opinion. It had better songs, more exciting action, better voice acting, and funnier lost boys. It was a great tribute to Peter Pan and his legacy as well as a great movie. I watched it until I could play it over in my head any time I want to. I only had 2 problems with it:

1. It starts out by saying "The story always ends the same" and goes on to show an unprecedented ending.

2. Captain Hook is a Tom kind of villain-not too scary. I like him as a dark figure, not as someone who has to narrowly avoid death all the time.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
He's back... PARTY TIME!
marcheatham1 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why, but Peter's just SOOOO much cuter in this movie! *blush* Is it just me, or is he sort of drooling over Jane on the front of the DVD? What I really don't understand is the fact that none of the Indians were in it. Especially Tigerlily! I mean, if I could change anything about this movie, I'd have her notice Peter flying by with Jane, and wave or something. And then I'd do a close-up on Peter's face and reveal him crying in that one scene where he and the Lost Boys get captured.

This is how I found out lots of things I didn't learn in the first movie. Like that feather thing on Hook's frequently-destroyed hat is really a pen. Not to mention his real name. (James) And how much Peter likes baseball, Tootles likes football, and Tinkerbell likes pulling on everyone's hair. I mean, I knew she liked to when I saw the first movie, but when I saw this one, I realized this might actually be one of her hobbies! Or addictions.

In closing, Peter still looks pretty good in tights.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A fun return to childhood with the characters we love
Amelia-1117 February 2002
Though this sequel, of course, comes no where near the first (could anything?), it provides a lot of fun for Peter Pan fans young and old. It wouldn't be enjoyable to one who hasn't seen Peter Pan in awhile or not more than once--but for those who love Peter, they'll recognize the parallels between the films instantly and fall in love with it as quickly as they did the first. Although the Peter's animation is a bit off, Hook, the pirates, and the lost boys look, act, and sound amazingly like the originals. Only see this film after watching the original, and only if you're not going to compare it to it. :-)
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cute, nice to see our favorite characters are back
Smells_Like_Cheese10 January 2008
The other day I decided to go for the Disney sequels, Peter Pan one of my top favorite Disney films and as nervous as I was to see the sequel "Return to Never Land", but I decided to go ahead and give it a look. You know what? It wasn't that bad, it was actually pretty enjoyable as far as Disney sequels go. I loved seeing the return of Captain James Hook, he and his sidekick, Smee, just cracked me up so badly in the first Peter Pan, they were back in Return to Never Land and are still crazy than ever. Despite the fact that the crocodile wasn't back, I would've loved to see that return, the octopus wasn't a bad addition. The jokes are still fun and the story is still magical. We got to see what life was like for Wendy when she finally had to grow up and had a family of her own.

Wendy is all grown up and has a family of her own, a loving husband, daughter, Jane, and son, Danny. Her husband goes to war and tells little Jane that she is in charge, so Jane takes that very seriously and acts as head of the household. Despite that she is still very young, she doesn't believe in Never Land and her mother's tales, but when Captain Hook thinks he grabs Wendy, he grabs Jane and takes her to Never Land to capture Peter Pan. Peter saves Jane and offers her to join the Lost Boys and hopes to restore her faith in his adventures and fairies, but all she wants to do is go home.

Return to Never Land is a fun Disney sequel that I have to admit that I was actually more impressed with. There are still a lot of great laughs and the story is still as adventurous as the first time when I watched the first Peter Pan. It was a little disturbing to hear the big difference of the voices, but I'm getting past it. After all, it's been over 40 years since the original Peter Pan, so I think it would've been hard to get the same actors. But I recommend Return to Never Land, it's a cute Disney sequel.

6/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Better than the original
chris.davey3 May 2002
What a wonderful surprise! In this sequel, Disney has managed to balance the reality of the Second World War (the blitz, in London) with the make-believe of Peter Pan. The story is really about the difficult balance between childish wonder and youthful responsibility. Jane is the daughter of Wendy, and, as a younger child, enjoyed the wonder-filled stories her mother told her about Peter Pan. Now, a couple of years later, she is trying to be responsible and look after her little brother and her mother - for her father, away serving in the army. She feels that she can't be 'a believer' and be responsible at the same time. The movie is complemented by excellent 'background' songs which enhance the magic, and humour, drama, the quirkiness of the surreal Neverland (the octopus manages to be a little scary, but also, as amusing as the crocodile in the original) and values that appeal to parents and children alike. In fact, having taken children to this movie on two occasions, I can confirm this is another Disney classic.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great Disney Sequal.
masonireton1214 April 2002
This is a great movie,the art,the background,the music,the cast, and the animation. I liked the voices and and gags. My favorites charaters are the lost boys:Slightly and Cubby. Peter Pan flys again. Return to neverland is a great sequal to the 1953 movie, the way Hook goes back to neverland is great and the opening credits are cool.Faith,trust and Pixie dust.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is a good movie
struong13 February 2002
Peter pan is a very good movie. My friends and i love watching it because it brings out the kid in you and make you remember how fun your childhood was. Also Peter Pan 1 was ever good and if you watch that you have to watch Return to Never Land.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
the best sequel ever
turtlesouls2 September 2002
This is the best Disney sequel ever made,in my opinion. My sister and I just love this one. It's a lot better than the first Peter Pan. It has a better plot than any other Disney sequel. Most Disney sequels are not true to the orignal characters. As a result,they don't have nearly as much of the orignal magic. This rare example of a good Disney 2nd has almost as much,if not more,of that famous magic than it's predecessor. All in all,this is an extremely good movie.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing, doesn't touch the original story
garrettderose11 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Return to Neverland...

First of all, this movie is pretty pointless and plot-less. Maybe I'm spoiled with the original "Pan" or Spielberg's "Hook" (which is one of my favorite films of all time) - but I think that such a fantastical place such as Neverland needs a bit more exploration for the viewer. I've grown up with Peter Pan and his Lost boys. I'd like to see more of Neverland and less 'stuff' What I mean by 'stuff' is all the shenanigans that are constantly going on. This movie has ADHD for sure. I know it's geared towards kids, maybe that's why I'm having such a hard time connecting to it. If they're going to introduce some dramatic themes like war and timeless love, they could at least follow up with some depth. They skimmed the surface on everything that could've been something. Instead, Disney decided to give us a montage of slapstick worthy of having the Benny Hill 'Yakkety Sax' playing on repeat for the entirety of the Neverland scenes. Speaking of music... the very few musical sequences feel forced and unnecessary. I remember there's some Evanescence-Amy-Lee-ish lament in the beginning which in the lyrics reiterated events that happened 2 minutes ago. Both me and my girlfriend were scratching our heads, wondering if it was a joke.

"Return to Neverland"... I don't feel as if I just revisited the place I did when I was a kid. I feel as if I've just visited some spin off place where quick dollars and poor writing are placeholders for adventures and dreams.

GG Disney. I just hope this girl with her scene-girl A-line haircut (which I'm SURE is accurate for WW1/WW2 era) doesn't end up as an animatronic feature on the ride @ Disneyland.

To sum things up: If you want Pan - watch Hook, or maybe a good stage version. If you want Emo Loony Toons, I advise you to rent this movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nothing special
abrafocus22 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Being a semi-1 fan of the original Peter Pan, I was almost looking forward to seeing this movie. I was disappointed. I am glad that Jane ended up being the hero, but that's all that I found cool.

***Spoilers ahead***

The story begins at about the beginning of WWII. Jane's mother is Wendy, and her father has to go to war. Several years later, she gets into an argument with her brother. She is kidnapped by Captain Hook, who thinks she is Wendy. He takes her to Never Land, and sets a trap for Peter. He gives Jane a whistle to blow when she finds the treasure that Peter had "stolen" from them.

Earlier, Jane had declared that she didn't believe in fairies, even after she sees Tinker Bell. At that point, Tinker Bell's health starts failing. Remember, the story goes if someone says "I don't believe in fairies," a fairy somewhere drops dead. But of course, t's all fiction.

Jane however, thinks twice about it, and throws away the whistle, after she discovered the secret hiding place of the treasure. Unfortunately, a lost boy finds the whistle, and blows it. Minutes later, Jane goes to see Tinker Bell, who had been dying, because of what Jane had said. Luckily, she is healed by Jane, thanks to her faith, and Jane goes to rescue Peter.

The voice cast is the only other amazing thing about this movie; they almost sound exactly like the original cast from the original Peter Pan, over 50 years ago.

The story is a 6/10, but overall, it's a 5.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed