User reviews

I wondered just how much similarity SyFy's version of a Peter Pan prequel would have with the Dave Barry/Ridley Pearson "Peter and the Starcatchers" series, and come to find out there actually is some. A powder that has the ability to make one fly ("Starstuff"), an obsessed crocodile ("Mr. Grin"), and the names of Peter's mates -- not the first group, who returned to England at the end of the first book, but the next group: Slightly, Tootles, Curly, Nibs, and The Twins.

There's also a bit of a hat tip to Michael Scott and his "The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel" series in "Dr. Flood", who introduced himself as the Alchemyst to Queen Elizabeth the First. Of course, her majesty's Alchemyst was Dr. John Dee, who actually had nothing to do with the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone; that was Nicholas Flamel...which brings us to yet another great series of books, this time by J.K. Rowling!

By the way, I'm almost 68 years old and I still enjoy books and movies of this sort!

This is a prequel dealing with Peter Pan (Charlie Rowe) as an orphan on the streets of London. Peter and his band of thieves work as pickpockets. Their evil mentor Jimmy Hook (Rhys Ifans) gets them to steal a magical treasure which transports them to Neverland. Once there Hook join with a group of pirates led by Elizabeth Bonny (Anna Friel) in search of more magic dust. Peter lands with the Indians and the beautiful Aaya (Q'orianka Kilcher) where the people don't age.

The story lack any pace. It drags along. With 240 minutes, this is way too long. It doesn't help that they explain away the magic. It reminds me of Star Wars explaining away The Force. Why can't they leave it alone? The acting is acceptable. All the big name give the expected performance. Charlie Rowe as Peter Pan is average. As for the production, it's got TV movie level. It's nothing to brag about. It's dark and dreary. Again all the magic is gone.

The cast, me being a Peter Pan fan and the fact I enjoyed Tin Man and Alice were what drew me into seeing Neverland. I was also dubious though as SyFy apart from a couple of surprises to me are notorious for making cheaply made, cliché ridden and terribly acted movies.

This in mind, while it is not quite as good as Tin Man and Alice, it is like them entertaining and interesting and alongside them and The Lost Future among the best SyFy have done.

Before I start, I didn't see Neverland as an adaptation of the timeless Peter Pan story and I don't think it was intended to be, more a prequel to it.

Is Neverland perfect? No it isn't I don't think. Neverland did bring some interesting ideas mostly scientific, which had potential to bring a fresh and intriguing slant to things. However, with a series this length, I would've loved more development to some of those ideas, the folded universe idea seemed great on paper but the finished product seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary.

Another thing is that I wasn't taken with the performance of Aaya. She is beautiful, but she seemed too old, and seemed at times more awkward and bland than brave and dignified. The most disappointing asset was the last twenty minutes.

Now the first half was good, with a nice Oliver Twist-like opening and set up the story quite nicely. The second half was even better, it was more tightly paced and had a little more story. That is on the other hand until the last twenty minutes, which felt very rushed, particularly with Peter's shadow which also felt tacky and forced.

Conversely, I very much liked the costume and set design, the sets were colourful and imaginative and the costumes were true to the Edwardian era and what I imagine pirates and Indians to look like. The special effects from the more scientific elements, the fairies and the crocodiles never do look that cheap and the opening seemed to have a very meticulous atmosphere.

The music is quite good too, maybe not quite good enough for a kind of "best musical score for a television programme/mini-series" award, but it does sparkle and has a sense of adventure. The story was interesting, paced well and with clever references. The sword fights are serviceable, not looking too clumsy, the dialogue is not too clunky and has some wit and of the relationships I found Hook's and Peter's on/off relationship and that of Hook and Elizabeth Bonny the most well done.

Neverland does have a great cast, with Aaya being the only glaring exception. Charles Dance is a great presence if deserving of more to do, and while not brilliant Kiera Knightley's Tinkerbell was actually better than I anticipated.

I was taken with Charlie Rowe as Peter, I had seen him once before and didn't like him much, but his Peter is spirited and loyal with some likability, though I noticed that Peter is not as cocky or as forgetful as I am familiar with him as. The best though were Rhys Ifans' charismatic Hook, Anna Friel's foxxy, beautiful Elizabeth and Bob Hoskins's amusing Smee. I liked the depiction of the lost boys too, Slightly especially reminds me of a cuddly teddy bear and acting-wise the most promising was Curly.

Overall, something was missing, but compared to the piece of whatever it could've been it was a worthy prequel to a story that had stood the test of time for over a century and will continue to do so. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I thought this was a very interesting take on the PETER PAN story - I liked Rhys Ifans' Hook and the Fagin-like origin with the "lost boys" and Charlie Rowe as Peter was a fairly rounded character and is certainly the stand out performance of the film - And Anna Friel is gorgeous as pirate Capt. Bonny!... Sadly the film falls apart with the tech side of things... the direction on this film is so boring and lack-luster, there are some edits that are just plain horrible and lazy - and speaking of horrible Q'orianka Kilcher as Aaya (tiger lily) is just awful... She is beyond wooden, she is lifeless and drains any life out of every scene she is in... which is too bad! Overall the film is visually interesting and well worth a courtesy watch!

I will start by saying the CGI in this was pretty terrible, and this is coming from someone who couldn't really catch Henry Cavill's upper lip in Justice League or the bad CGI in Black Panther. What I'm saying is that the CGI is very noticeably bad, but this is a TV special back in 2011, so...

If that doesn't bother you, then let's talk about the story. It was pretty solid and I enjoyed it. This is certainly not a prequel to Disney's Peter Pan or even the original J. M. Barrie novel. The events of the actual "Peter Pan" story would play out somewhat differently following from the events of this prequel.

But the prequel itself had a solid plot, pretty good pacing, and kept me engaged. However, what surprised me the most were the characters. I really didn't expect that a low budget TV special would put so much care into fully realizing the characters. It seems like the creators put a lot of thought behind every one of the characters, even the minor ones. Even if most of them didn't have arcs, they all had distinct personalities and their motivations were well drawn. And all of their choices made sense and were put together with thought. (Even the reason behind why time stands still in Neverland made sense.)

I also liked the diversity in the cast. It was of course 90% white, but there was diversity with respect to what time the characters came from, and their class differences, all of which were evident in their accents. And in the pirate ship, they had pirates from other nationalities which was also reflected in the accents. And I liked the portrayal of the Natives. (I don't know if they were all played by Native actors (and also, idk what was up with Q'orianka Kilcher's acting; I've seen her do a better job elsewhere)). I liked that they didn't call her Tiger Lily, but rather the Native name (of which "Tiger Lily" is the English translation). I like that all of them couldn't magically speak English, only two of them could and they had to translate for the others.

These seem weird little things to give this TV special credit for - but I've come to expect TV shows of this sort to be very careless about details like this. And attention to detail is always a win in my book.

I would have LOVED this as a kid. I had heard about it in college and wanted to watch it back then, but hadn't got around to it. But even now, I think it was a good use of my time!

Not too shabby two episodes in! Interested to see where it goes, but hard with Peter Pans story already over told... want to see if the plot is taken anywhere unique though...

I enjoyed almost every minute of this series. I thought it was far above the average SyFy flick. The special effects, while not perfect, are very adequate. The story is imaginative and refreshing. I found myself drawn in from the beginning. Watching Bob Hoskins as Smee again was pure joy.

Every part of the story was as logical and well thought out as any fantasy could be. Often in movies I find myself thinking "Why would they do that?" That was not the case in this movie. Other than some mistakes made that any child could make, the characters all acted logical within the parameters of their character.

Unlike some other fantasy TV that left us with nothing but questions at the end, (Lost, I'm looking at you.) origins and motivations for almost every character and aspect of the Peter Pan story is given, and satisfactorily explained by the end.

Another aspect of the series that I like is the fact that by the end Every story line and mystery is satisfactorily wrapped up with a nice big bow on top. Yet with this nice satisfying ending the door is still left open just enough for a sequel.

The only negative aspect I can find in this is the depiction of Tinkerbell. Somehow I found it lacking, but that could easily be attributed to personal tastes.

My favorite story growing up was Peter Pan and to this day i am still obsessed with it. I've always searched for a prequel to Peter's past but never found much. This was a dream come true.

The story changed a few things, pixie dust and what not but i applaud the writers courage and ingenuity in going in such a direction. The story was captivating, the graphics very good for a SYFY movie and above all it was exhilarating seeing the start to it all.

I sincerely hope they make a sequel, or a series out of it. There are so many old stories getting remakes, sequels and series but none more deserves it than this story. If you haven't seen it, go find it!! to the writers and syfy channel, PLEASE MAKE MORE!!!!!

Hi movie is a prequel to the Peter Pan and is a good movie.

It's shows how Peter Pan gets to neverland with his bunch of thieves friends and his mentor Captain Hook who becomes a pirate.

The movie is good and refreshing movie which could've been made better.

Acting is good location is good. Direction is ok.

A movie better than average

My Wife & I really looked forward to this special show and were so disappointed. The characters were interesting in the beginning and then mostly not that likable. Plot so far off and jazzed up with low budget special effects from the original story that it was painful to watch at some points. The events in Neverland were so "Dark" that it was hard to feel good at the end. Poor editing for the TV-Commercial format were like they literally chopped scenes for commercials. The most abrupt ending going to credits and commercials for the next shows not appreciated. SyFy Channel used to do better. Wished we had back the (3)hours of viewing time for something better. Feel sorry for everyone who watched the full 4 hours with commercials.

not better than others. not worst. only new adventures in a new frame. for fans of Peter Pan - a must see. for the others - good occasion to discover a prequel who did few explanations, who use magic and the enthusiastic young characters for a trip in essence of a well known story, same fascinating, seductive and charming. it is difficult to say anything about "Neverland" . bad or good. because it has an interesting start point of story - Dickens would be proud as source of memories - and the technology did a great job. but the film has not the force to be a revelation. decent acting, nice adventures. and nothing else. but enough for a nice evening after a work day.

When I first saw the trailer for Neverland a couple months ago, I got really, really excited. I'm a huge Peter Pan fan and decided I absolutely had to watch this. Well, even with all the hype, I was not really impressed. Here's my take on the good and the bad:

The Good:

The acting was awesome. Very good for a Syfy TV movie. The cast did a great job with their roles. Ifans did a great job of showing Hook's downfall and Anna Friel played her character very well to help him towards it. Peter was decent, but it could've been better (or worse). I expected them to do more with Bob Hoskins as Smee, but he just had a small supporting role. One of my favorite movies of all time is Hook, where he had a lot bigger role that he took off with. This one is a lot smaller, so it was hard to see how good he really is at the character. The special effects were decent. Again, they could've been better, but it is what I expect out of Syfy. The music was pretty good, but nothing compared to the genius of John Williams (composer for Hook).

The Bad:

The story. Oh man, the story. Well, was it really THAT bad? No, but for me, it is the most important part. Without spoilers, It took a lot of the "magic" out of Peter Pan. The beginning and midway through the first half, it was pretty good, but once it got to the last 20-30 minutes of the first half, I was extremely disappointed. Also, while they did tie it to the rest of the Peter Pan stories, they didn't do it well enough. They had their little references here and there, but I felt like it was just thrown in there and rushed, especially at the very ending. There are also a lot of plot holes and discrepancies when it comes to relating it to the original Peter Pan story (and others).

Overall: 3/5. For a Syfy TV movie/series, I guess this isn't so bad. Tin Man on the other hand was possibly the best thing they have done, and this doesn't even come close to it.

Ingredients; Handfuls of Oliver Twist, Cap'n Hook, Peter Pan, Pocahontas, The Pied Piper, a pinch of Pirates of the Caribbean, and cup of Harry Potter.

Stir well as you throw in some sugar & bitter herbs.

Over-bake for 3 hours.

Top generously with cheeze.

Yeh - it's slightly weird-good-bad-interesting like that. Like a strange dish thrown together with similar, familiar ingredients you have on hand, and which you use in large amounts for volumn bc extra people may show up.

I typically pick out the green beans, and select more of the stuff I like.

Probably infuriates the cook . . .

Not a terrible kids movie. But no block buster.

Not a complete waste of time, but not anything to write home about.

Somewhat engaging, but not totally immersive.

Got kids?

Need 3 hours of quiet?

Feed them this.

The little ones will fall asleep from the digestion overload . . .

For the ADDs, around halftime, possibly promise a desert or treat if they sit still & keep watchin' . . .

As a longtime fan of everything Peter Pan, I thought this was a great prequel to the story. It was an amusing tale with new twists that fit it with what we already know from the story. Although SyFy did take a few liberties and change or tweak things a bit, it still fits it with much of what we already know. The graphics were well done (more so than other shows by SyFy) and I quite enjoyed it! As for the actors in this two-part show, Charlie Rowe is a fresh new face and a fresh breath of air. He plays Peter beautifully and makes you want to jump in and join the lost boys! I expect to be seeing more of him in the future! Our favorite bad guy Captain James Hook is played but the great Rhys Ifans. It was an odd choice in my mind because whenever I think of him his more comedic roles come to mind first, but I think he played the part wonderfully! Overall, I think Syfy could have a great new series on their hands if they choose to make it (and I think they should!) They could show all the "possible adventures" Peter talks about them having in Neverland.

I've only seen part one so far, and I enjoyed it a lot. I like the characters, and the acting has been very good. The imagery is beautiful. I saw some very familiar faces. The costumes are all interesting as well.

I have wondered since I was young, how did Peter and the lost boys REALLY get to Neverland? Where did the Indians and pirates come from? And now I know! But how did Hook lose his hand, and what made him so mean? And how did the crocodile swallow the ticking clock? Looking forward to seeing part 2, so I can find out the answers to those and other questions.

I had looked forward to this but sadly was disappointed. Absolutely no fluidity to the story. I found the tale bleak and dark. Not a single character was slightly cheerful. I always enjoy Hoskin's work but the others were new to me. The female who played Aaya was particularly distracting to watch. Aside from her obvious inability to act, she was really quite unattractive in appearance and manner. Peter would have had no reason to be her friend. The Tinker Bell role made no sense either since she appeared to be dead in one scene and instantly came roaring back to life and then lay dead again. What??? The on again off again relationship between Peter and Hook was also offbeat. Since it was on TV I didn't lose much other than some time but I would absolutely steer the children away from this odd telling.

The sets look good from a distance, but the effects are terrible and green screen insertions are so bad, they look like they were made by a photoshop novice.

The editing is awful as well, the fighting scenes are laughably painful to watch. They mostly look like a parody.

I believe some of the directing and the dialogues are really lacking too, it takes some really good actors in all main characters to save the day.

Apart from all that, the story is great. It is a new spin on JM Barrie's books and Disney, with some inspiration from Regis Loisel's graphic novel and Dickens' books.

All in all, it was enjoyable eventhough it made my eyes and ears bleed at times.

Last night we rented NEVERLAND from RedBox and upon coming home I spot previewed the titles before my wife came down, and since it advertised several SCIFI channel films, such as the dreadful RIVERWORLD, I thought I had chosen poorly. (See IndyJones and Last Crusade). So when we began to dig into this, the casting of Bob Hoskins as Smee was a surprise jolt!!! An homage to HOOK by old Spielberg. OK, good casting. Then Kiera Knightly as voice of Tinkerbell. OK, a knod over to Pirate of the Carribbean. Better still.

Then we forgot the world for 4 hours straight!!! We never do that, but this one HOOKS you, pun intended, and takes the viewer for a surprisingly intelligent ride into fact and fantasy. I shall not give plot points away, enjoy this one yourself, but it is even better than the PETER PAN of a few years ago. It catches all of the plot points that BEGAN the story quite well. Rhys Ifan is almost a younger David WARNER in every respect and Charlie Rowe makes Pan a living, breathing young boy straight out of the world of Dickens in Edwardian London. Anna Friel - a charming, sexy counterpoint to the pirate legend. And Hoskins, only a six day shoot as Smee, bring a welcome touch of nostalgia for the show.

We did not get tired at all. 4 hours right through which we never do, only Sir Francis Urqhart in the classic HOUSE OF CARDS trilogy was so compelling. And this is a smart tale too. Again, intelligent thought and writing here.

Find it, clear the decks, grab some rum and splice the main brace for a wonderful evening just off the second star to the right straight on till morning.

If your like me who love these classic stories then you should agree with me that this mini-series is a contrived sci-fi mess. What makes this so bad is that it commits the sin that most fairy tale/ fantasy adaptations do these days; "trying to make sense of the story". When movies, TV shows or any other form of media attempt that it really destroys the magic and dignity of the stories. If you are like me and is a lover of classics I'd avoid this dung pile and stick with your books. Besides why watch this when there are far better Peter Pan adaptions such as; The Disney movie, Fox's Peter Pan and the Pirates, Hook, or even the 2003 live-action movie.