Pan (2015)

That was an excellent one.

just watch it!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Peter (Levi Miller) is left at an orphanage. When he is 12, it is WWII London. The orphanage is in cahoots with Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman- doesn't swear or show his butt) to supply them with children. Blackbeard has a magical flying ship and whisks the children away to Neverland where they mine Pixum. There is a prophecy of a special child who can fly and will lead a revolt against Blackbeard. I'll let you fill in the details.Garrett Hedlund plays Hook, a good guy, in a role that looked like it was written for a younger Harrison Ford. Hook wants to get a little fairy tail as he was a thing for Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara) technically not a fairy. She supplies us with the mandatory tough female role model.The role of Tinker Bell was reduced as was Tinker Bell.The film was formula for kids. The violence seemed less than my Saturday Morning cartoons. It is an entertaining film for kids about 8-14.

Eragon hear, here we go again with yet another riveting review, of a rather awesome film by director Joe Wright, Starring Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard Garrett Hedlund as Hook, Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, and Introducing Levi Miller as PAN, this is the backstory to the Peter Pan Saga, I thought the story was well thought out professionally executed by a 10 star Director, I thought that Pan was played by a excellent young actor Levi Miller first rate. his face said all that needs to be said in this movie Hugh Jackman a veteran in the film industry plays the villain with an intensity rarely seen today, the story line is just what the Peter Pan saga needed a backstory so we now know where Peter pan came from and how Hook enters the story. In closing i give this film one hundred out of one hundred stars

Making a Peter Pan movie is tricky business. You need to inject the project with a heaping dose of fun (what the original is based on), but at the same time treat the material with a certain type of gravitas. In short, you need to be deadly serious but have fun at the same time. That is a concept that only the best directors (see: Steven Spielberg with "Hook") can see to fruition. Unfortunately, "Pan" lacks the focus to decide exactly what it wants to be, which in turn leads to a very large audience disconnect problem.For a basic plot summary, "Pan" begins in WWII England, where young Peter (Levi Miller) is living in a boys home after being dropped on their doorstep as an infant by his mother (Amanda Seyfried). One night, a band of mysterious, flying pirates starts snatching boys from the reformatory, and Peter is included, being taken away on a pirate ship to Neverland. There, he meets Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman), the most ruthless pirate in existence. Peter is not afraid, however, an even demonstrates an uncanny ability to fly, suggesting he may be the fulfillment of an age-old prophecy. Helping him reach that goal is Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), leader of the natives. Along the way, Peter also meets up with a fellow rebel...James Hook (Garrett Hedlund).Like I said, the biggest and most obviously-identifiable problem with "Pan" is that it just lacks a strong focus or sense of purpose. It was advertised quite heavily and mysteriously enough to attract interest, yet it is clearly a children's film from the get-go. It never takes on the gravitas needed to appeal to an older audience. Also, the film firmly sets itself in "prequel territory", but then chooses to not develop any of those elements and instead stick to pure adventure. Again, not a terrible approach, but it was as if the film-makers needed to decide exactly what they were doing instead of trying to throw a whole bunch of things in the pot and hope for an edible stew to emerge.The most unforgivable sin of "Pan", however, is that it takes the "wink and nod" approach to a Pan prequel. Though I know that the Pan canon is all about fun and childhood, it also needs to be "done with a straight face", so to speak. As soon as you start treating the story with any less the reverence it deserves, it starts to break down, and that clearly happens here. Instead of trying to actually tell a prequel story, "Pan" is only set as such so it can through in a reference to what will happen in the future here and there.About the only positive I can say about "Pan" is that it isn't an outright train wreck. I'm sure some children will enjoy it, as they will be sucked into the adventure of the piece. For any more mature audiences, though, it is pretty hollow. 1.5 stars would be my exact rating.

I find the movie quiet awesome.The script,the cast everything was good..I don't understand the bad rating and the awful reviews.The movie was really interesting,they showed us a whole other story..they showed us how everything begins.I loved the movie ,it was really smart,everything in place ...i was intrigued by the fact that Hook was nice person ,i found it amazing ...and some reviewers are so stupid to judge that fact ..they've been expecting just to see what the already knew ..just Peter Pan and his fight against Hook but no small minded people NO.The movie was prequel (if you don't know what that means.. Google it).So explain to me why some of you wondering where Wendy was?Why Hook and Peter were friends?Why Hook has his hand? Wtf people? ITS THE BEGINNING!!!!!!! Get a moment to realize that and then watch the movie.It was fantastic side of the story I've couldn't imagined being better.Some parts were very intelligent .At the beginning of the movie, the prologue and at the end the dialogue between the two stars Peter and Hook.Great job.