That should likely tell you what I expected about this film before heading into it. Why did I watch it? Good question, and I have no idea. I was bored and I was saving The Martian for a later-date, also, Crimson Peak and Goosebumps aren't until Friday. With that being said, I'll try and focus on certain positives about the film before I head into the thick of it. After all, everybody that pays attention to movie ratings will know that the consensus says that Pan is bad. The film was a critical failure and has thus far been a flop for Warner, which has had an uneventful year as they wait for the DC Cinematic Universe to kick off.
With occasional sparks of whimsy, Pan works to offer-up an original perspective of the Neverland mythology, in it, it follows his encounters with Blackbeard and his affiliation with Captain Hook. The cast wasn't selected without a certain poise, Levi Miller isn't a known-actor, and his role as Peter Pan is his first major film appearance, but holds himself together well enough. Truth, his character isn't fleshed out much more than what's already been known and established, but he does fine. The actor that compliments him mostly, and who is, probably, the most charming and endearing out of all the characters would have to be Garrett Hedlund's role as Captain Hook. I knew the actor already for his performance in On the Road, when he played the saving grace of that film, and he's allowed to show a certain likability in his performance. Hugh Jackman has a presence as Blackbeard. Like everyone else, he isn't allowed to completely encumber the role, but he does well. I'd describe him as a cross-between Jack Sparrow and Jim Carrey's performance as Count Olaf, though in a lesser film.
The scene with the workers at Neverland doing a rendition of a known-song from the 90s is both the stupidest and best thing about this film.
The film is below-average though. And while those are the positives, the negatives are overbearing enough to make those other variables feel almost insignificant. Computer Generated Imagery. CGI. That stuff. I don't usually like becoming too upset about it. It doesn't bother me too much. But it's terrible in this. Pan is an example of a film that couldn't be done without it, but it sure as hell could have been done better than what it was, and with a budget of 150 million, it should have been.
Something about the film never really kicks into second-gear, and it's something I can't particularly find the words to address. I never really find myself connecting to any of the characters or feel anything other than apathy toward what is shown on the screen. Is it the cast? I think they did fine. The special effects? I mean, it's bad a lot of the time, but also has glimpses of inspiration, even still, that isn't enough to take everything down to such a level. I think the biggest criticism I have for Pan is that it brought nothing to the table that hasn't already been done before. Yes, it's a 'side' to the Peter Pan myth that hasn't been done, but it has themes, stylization, and tone that has long-since been done and done better by films before it. Had the film been done well, and not simply competently, perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue, but the film doesn't stand-out. It has nothing… and by the end of the film, my friend and I left it talking about anything but the film we had just finished watching.
Rating: Below Average