ThiefHott Too much of everything

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

durmangirl I Ain't didn't got no doubt for disney, but there is weather in the film is thunderstorm and rain. After jane found the treasure in dead man's cave and during the celebrated -like celebration of her as a lost girl, one of the boys mistakenly found the whistle at first.As captain book And his crew captured Peter pan and all the lost boys, and even the treasure,Which this prevents captain hook of Peter pan not getting hurt and Peter calls her a traitor, and all because she does believe in fairies tink's light is about to go out. Which is why is a mistake and sacrifice and should not had happened in the first place from disney. And jane also has a pet dog-animal called nana ii a saint berand.

ifyougnufilms It's worth watching this sequel just to enjoy the old-style Disney nostalgia of the final scene when Peter says a last, sweet farewell to the grown-up Wendy. Since 1966 the Disney machine has demonstrated repeatedly that when Walt("No sequels!")Disney himself quit quality-monitoring the productions, a large part of the heart of the movies was lost. Return to Neverland, though it has some notable virtues, once again illustrates this essential loss. Some of the sequel's characters are less endearing, especially Jane, who, darkened by wartime responsibilities, is used in the contemporary you-go-girl fashion to demonstrate that girls can be as selfish, crude, and violent as boys. (She demonstrates this in part by spitting mucus on her hand for a ritual handshake!) The music as written and performed is boring and even for its time seems strangely old fashioned: cheesy, forgettable nineties pop. "Do You Believe in Magic.." is thrown in as an afterthought for nostalgia's sake. The obligatory sight-gag scenes with the Lost Boys are tedious filler(they were also a problem in the original). However, there are several things to admire in this film: It was daring to set the real-world-time as W W II London, and the art in this section works well. The Canadian and Australian Disney studios in general do a good job with art styles throughout and the blend of CGI and cel is smooth. Several critics were bothered by the loss of the crocodile, but thanks to comic animation styling, the octopus filled the part of the Hook's nemesis successfully. Some critics complained about the voice casting, but for the most part it works quite well for the main characters. Most of the classic characters, Tink, Hook, Smee are back and nicely delineated. Jane, poor girl, is less intriguing -- just used to deliver a contemporary message, while it is really Wendy and Peter who carry the old enchantment.

spikey-5 A brief synopsis of this film's plot sounds, at first, to be an ideal and suitable sequel to the original and yet ....This film isn't simply bad, it is heart breakingly terrible. The voice casting alone, above the myriad other flaws, completely ruins the film and prevents any suspension of disbelief. The main child characters sound too adult to ignore, and London in the Blitz is apparently a town in the United states judging by the accents and slang. The mindless Americanisms (schmaltzly "I love you's" called out by British troops leaving for battle in a hallmark way, thoughtless rehashing of details from the original and rushed personal development by the lead) further drag it into the mire.The plot is predictable and pedestrian, in that you can almost see the numbers over which it was painted. Heartstring remain untugged, blood remains unstirred and yawns unstiffled.This film contains none of J. M Barries style, appeal or themes, but instead slaps characters with the same name into a bland repeat of the actions and events he wrote, their sequel tactics writ small and emotionless. Even the youngsters at which it is aimed will sneer and loose interest long before the awful teeny band sings its squeaky cacophony over the welcome end credits!

TheLittleSongbird Return To Neverland isn't terrible, but it does fail on many levels, so can't be classed as a good sequel. The animation and the story were the redeeming qualities, but unfortunately the songs and the characters fall flat.The animation is mostly bright and colourful, but falls flat in the dark backgrounds. The story wasn't bad either, trying to keep Hook from getting the treasure and everything. I also liked the war scene, because that was quite interesting on an animation perspective, and brought some intrigue on a contextual level. I was unimpressed by the trailer, but the film itself wasn't bad, but loses the charm about 15 minutes in. I will say it has a great message about cherishing your childhood.The first problem was that the kidnapping scene took far too long, despite the breathtaking animation of Hook's ship, and I hated the change to Hook. In the original and the criminally underrated TV series Peter Pan and the Pirates, which are both classics, he is complex and vindictive, but here he was manipulative in a negative way, and lacked menace. The best character was Jane, but that isn't saying much, and Peter's new voice was horrible, too bolshy. The songs were terrible and forgettable immediately after you've finished watching the movie, likewise with the dialogue. The main problem was that it isn't a true sequel at all, compared to the first film and the book. And the octopus, why replace the crocodile may I ask?I'm sorry that this is mostly negative, but Return To Neverland was very disappointing. Though better than the trailer suggested, it is still a pretty charmless film, with a 3/10(Adequate) Bethany Cox