3D Pan (2015) (1 Viewer)

[StephenDH]

I don't know why this was so badly received, it's no worse than most other fantasy movies and better than some.

The 3D is fine but the movie itself is marred by Garrett Hedlund's OTT performance in a role that cries out for Brendan Fraser.

 

[Dick]

I, too, am bemused by the low-end critical reaction. Obviously, PAN is fabricated entirely from a storyline having nothing to do with J.M. Barrie, but also it is a speculative origin story, pre-dating events in the famous novel. Probably my biggest gripe about it is that it doesn't go quite far enough -- we not observe the transformation of Captain Hook from friend of Peter Pan into his mortal opponent. We do not even reach the moment when Hook's hand is bitten off by the crocodile. So, there is a gap between this story and the PETER PAN we are familiar with (perhaps that section is intended as sequel to PAN...is that what the "in production" film called NEVERAFTER on IMDB will be?). Beyond that, I find this film rather magical, and it actually has some emotional resonance having to do with Peter's wanting to find his mother. The 3-D is excellent, and, yes, there is a lot of "pop-out" which we all know is usually lacking in today's 3-D. The musical score is wonderful. The performances are mostly excellent. I kind of agree with Stephen about Garrett Hedlund as Hook -- there just isn't any trace of a dark side that might lend itself to his becoming a villain out to get Pan later on. But I would recommend this film as a good example of how we should sample any movie with a plot of interest to us, regardless of what the critical reaction his been. After all, we have no great critics anymore -- they're dead. The ones we have now are wannabe's -- a bunch of Twittering, Tweeting, Facebook amateurs no better, more insightful or more knowledgeable about film history or film-making than any of the people who post their own personal reviews on Amazon or IMDB.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Obviously it is fabricated entirely from a storyline having nothing to do with J.M. Barrie, but also it is a speculative origin story, pre-dating events in the famous novel. Probably my biggest gripe about it is that it doesn't go quite far enough

I think it was intended to be the beginning of a new trilogy about the origin of Peter Pan, but given the box office reaction, the other parts will likely not be made.


I think that's actually a problem with filmmaking today - sometimes they're so concerned about launching a potential franchise, or being able to do sequels, that they hold things back instead of telling a complete, compelling story. I appreciate that when Christopher Nolan made his Batman films, he didn't have an entirely trilogy worked out, and instead focused all of his energy on making the movie he was doing at the time the best it could possibly be, without worrying what a sequel or next installment would look like.

 

[StephenDH]

See also John Carter: an OK film marketed by idiots which then tanked and took a whole franchise with it. A more enterprising age would have reissued ERB's books to go along with it.

 

[Dick]

I think it was intended to be the beginning of a new trilogy about the origin of Peter Pan, but given the box office reaction, the other parts will likely not be made.

Too bad, although two more films, as opposed to one rather short one, would seem like another case of Peter Jackson's way-y overindulgent THE HOBBIT trilogy. You're right -- this franchise shit can certainly ruin an otherwise good idea.