PAN: Bomb of the Year?

Sad to hear. The Ads I've seen looked intriguing enough that I thought I might make an effort to see it (which is quite a statement, since I usually see an average of less than one movie per year in the Theater), but after seeing these comments, maybe I'll hold out for a better option for my yearly voyage.

 

I must be the only person who liked Hook. Granted, I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but I have good memories of it (and even then, as the child of a movie buff, I at least had some semblance of an idea of what made for a 'good' or 'bad' movie).

 

I was under the impression this movie was more about Captain Hook before he became Captain Hook. Where does Peter Pan come into it? The trailer I saw was very confusing with the plotline vs the title.

 

Shhhhh! Don't say that so loud! And add to it the plot twist that all the kids in Neverland want to kill each other to win a game! And they're all going to a school to learn how to do magic!

Here's some more excerpts from horrific reviews of Pan:

“‘Pan’ is, for the most part, ugly to look at, shrill to listen to, and performed by actors who have been encouraged to camp it up madly in the style usually favored by aging British sitcom stars playing storybook characters in Christmas panto productions.”

"At once thinly conceived and maddeningly over-designed, irreverent and over-serious, and chock-full of strained references (to World War II, environmentalism, and drugs, among other things) and creepy violence, ‘Pan’ is an elaborate flight of fancy with no vision–which makes it strangely compelling in spots.”

“No amount of CGI can distract from the acting, which comes across as more of an extreme sport than an art form. Jackman bloviates and sneers as if he’s onstage, trying to ensure that every gesture reaches the cheap seats. And Hedlund channels John Wayne, but with less subtlety, as he swaggers and flirts, belaboring every syllable as he drops his pitch by an octave."

“That’s a lot of lousy ideas crammed into the first 30 minutes. The whole movie’s like that. You walk out of ‘Pan’ feeling flattened and bummed out. Reportedly a $150 million production, it represents a larger strip-mining operation: the pillaging of a durable but not invincible pop culture myth, born in 1902, when J.M. Barrie wrote of an infant version of Peter Pan."

It goes on and on...

http://www.thewrap.com/11-cringe-worthy-pan-reviews-critics-say-never-to-neverland/

 

Peter's clearly in the trailer - very prominently:

 

Same here. The same goes for Alice In Wonderland - in fact, I hated that one with a passion as a kid, but it still gets remade every little while.

 

Absolutely scathing review in the news today here. The reviewer did not like that flamethrowers were used in the movie, a children's movie, to kill the fairies. Imagine that.

 

OK, my memory was very bad. I saw it once when the trailer dropped and never again. This movie looks like it should be called Blackbeard instead.

 

True, there's a lot of focus on Hugh Jackman... even though he barely looks like Hugh Jackman.

 

I don't think I've made it all the way through any of the ten million versions of Alice.

 

Give it an updated rewrite so Peter Pan is a hipster-metrosexual type and Neverland is a more neon version of Williamsburg. Captain Hook is a Donald Trump-type trying to shut down the thriving hipster community and build luxury condos. The rest of the movie writes itself.

 

Based on the trailer, if every ticket came with a tab of LSD, this movie could be huge. Huge enough not to notice an Indiana Jones ripoff character.

 

I always find it a little strange that Hollywood feels the compulsion to do this story over and over again. I really do think the potential audience for this sort of thing gets smaller with each passing year...

 

Over and over and over and over and over and over...
Hollywood, once again, not trying very hard to be creative.

 

People in the industry are making money working on these types of generic movies( fair enough they gotta eat). But,I honestly don't know how Hollywood can survive with so many flops time and time after again.

 

Hollywood needs a colonic & daily enemas!

 

No s

 

Smiling hyena.

 

One of a handful.

 

That's funny.

 

It looks bad, but I'll be surprised if it stinks as much as the 2003 version.

 

Let's face it, Peter Pan is a Woman in green tights, not a real young Boy.

 

I lost interest when they passed on Devery Jacobs in favor of Rooney Mara for Tigerlily. I'm usually anti-PC, but that was egregious.

http://bubblemag.blogspot.com/2014/03/5-better-actresses-for-tiger-lily-who.html

 

I disagree. It's meant for kids, and that audience remains a constant - there'll always be youngsters who don't know the story out there.

Besides, "Pan" does give the material a new spin, as it's a "prequel" kinda thing. It might not be a good version of the story, but at least it's not the same old...

 

I'm not so sure as many kids will be interested in the story as before as time marches on.

I could be wrong though.