Peter Pan 2: Return to Never Land

pourquoi c'est toujours en anglais?

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

pourquoi c'est toujours en Anglais?

I figured since Disney would be releasing this film in theatres, it had to be pretty good. Unfortunately, this is not true. The quality of the animation is at best only T.V. quality, the exception being Tinkerbell's pixie dust, which looks pretty good. The story is rather weak and very brief. The film is barely more than an hour. Had it been direct to video, my expectations wouldn't have been so high. I really want to warn people not to spend their money on such a mediocre product. Disney, at one time, always represented quality without question. Today, they are nothing but a mass-marketing machine with xtreme advertising that is really better than the products themselves. This sequel is so poor, skip it even when it comes to DVD, unless you are sold on the classic cartoons that they include as a bonus. Disney will get you one way or another.

After 50 years you would think they could come up with a better sequel. One could come up with something better in 15 min. and do a much better job. Disney must be desperate to release this picture and at best this is a direct to video type of item, and is not suitable as a theatrical release. But fear not, your children will probably enjoy this "movie" however adults will be shocked at this trash that Disney has chosen to inflict upon the general public. What happened to all the truly talented people who work at Disney?? Obviously they were not involved with this film.

before i begin, i must say, that all of you immature fools who thought this was a good film should go and read the book! you are the people who are keeping Disney alive. and for the children who say they like this, well i think we should all fear the next generation if they really found THIS entertaining! this movie starts out by showing that it takes place during WWll. a bombing occurs and Windy, who is now an adult with two children, run to the shelter. after an overly dramatic 'escape', Windy's daughter, JANE, goes off on her brother about believing in peter pan. i do not recall his name, so for all intended purposes, I'll be calling him Jon. now, Jon can't be older than 5, and his sister, probably around 10, is screaming at him about believing in peter pan. now he goes off crying. I'm gonna skip ahead a little bit here for I refuse to waste any more time than i have to warning you about this morbidly horrible film. so Capt. Hook mistakes Jane for Windy, and takes her to Neverland. peter, making the same mistake, saves her. then there's about half an hour of the lost boys being annoying. she decides to leave on a boat, and then gets an offer from capt. hook that he'll take her home if she finds his treasure. then there's a song about farts, which i swear, will lower your IQ! within that song, Jane decides that she wants to be a lost girl. then peter and the lost boys get captured, and Tinkerbell becomes nice. now if any of you read the book, you'll know that Tinkerbell ISN'T nice! she could be nice, but you could tell that this whole plot was just to make 6 year old girls go "OH MY GOD! GIRL POWER! WOHO!" well, like i said before, i fear the future generation. also, the voice of peter is so HORRIBLE! it doesn't resemble the original at all! all in all, i must say that if you think this is better than the original, than i hope you will go blindfold yourself, and play kick the can in traffic. have a nice day.

This is a perfect example of why Walt Disney said very clearly "Don't let them make sequels to my movies." He didn't want Peter Pan 2, Snow White 2 and so on. The studio has made some great movies (Lion King, Little Mermaid), but has the creative well run dry? Aren't there thousands of wonderful fairy tales from around the world that could be done? This movie (short, like Tarzan and Jane short) felt more like an exploitation of a classic than a tribute to a timeless and charming film.

I am a 13 year old kid and I saw the movie and when I saw the war parts I was shocked and sort of felt sorry for wendy because she was in the war area but when the movie got to the where the ship is entering the second star to the right I heard sounds in that scene like: I'll get you for this pan if it's the last thing I do,ticking,and Peter famous line from "Peter Pan": Once you're grown up you can never back. I liked the lost boys, though in number one they used to fight alot.And pan wasn't mean to Jane he was just upset because tink's light was fading and the ending was almost sad because peter sort of felt that he didn't give a darn about wendy but she cared for him.my favorite lost boy is Slightly he rocks. Plus the songs were great I liked "So to be one of us" and "now that you're one of us" but My favorite song is the new version of "Do you believe in magic" it's a new version of the song then the oringal.the reason why disney wanted to do a sequal to peter pan is because they thought that we kids and adults might to see peter pan again and take us back to neverland and have us forget what's going in the world like the Terrorism war.The movie was a huge hit at my Regal cinemas in lincoln city,oregon everyone clapped and I yelled "GIVE US MORE PAN". Rumor has it that disney is thinking about doing a thrid Peter pan movie called: Peter Pan 3, the plot: it is going to be about peter's past,how tink came in his life,how hook and the pirates got to neverland,and how the lost boys got there too.

What a wonderful surprise! In this sequel, Disney has managed to balance the reality of the Second World War (the blitz, in London) with the make-believe of Peter Pan. The story is really about the difficult balance between childish wonder and youthful responsibility. Jane is the daughter of Wendy, and, as a younger child, enjoyed the wonder-filled stories her mother told her about Peter Pan. Now, a couple of years later, she is trying to be responsible and look after her little brother and her mother - for her father, away serving in the army. She feels that she can't be 'a believer' and be responsible at the same time. The movie is complemented by excellent 'background' songs which enhance the magic, and humour, drama, the quirkiness of the surreal Neverland (the octopus manages to be a little scary, but also, as amusing as the crocodile in the original) and values that appeal to parents and children alike. In fact, having taken children to this movie on two occasions, I can confirm this is another Disney classic.

"Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" is Disney‘s animated sequel to their truly classic 1953 adaptation of J.M. Barrie‘s beloved children‘s story. Time‘s moved on since the first movie and although Peter Pan never grew up, Wendy did. It‘s now World War Two and an adult Wendy is living in London, still telling tales of Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Tinkerbell and all the other inhabitants of Never Land to her two children; Danny, an awe struck little boy and Jane, a more cynical, pragmatic older girl who has no time for fairytales. However when Hook flies his sailing ship to London, kidnaps Jane and takes her to Never Land, she soon wishes she has paid more attention to her mother‘s stories. With a budget of a ‘mere‘ $20M the film was produced by Disney‘s TV animation department (who have previously toiled over ‘straight to video/DVD‘ sequels for other Disney movies including "Cinderella," "The Lady And The Tramp," "The Lion King" and "The Little Mermaid"), but this was apparently always planned as a cinematic release. The film succeeds in combining the traditional feel of the original ‘50s animation with a more contemporary look, particularly for the intrepid young heroine Jane (whose modern looking bobbed haircut was actually highly fashionable during World War Two!). The use of computer generated animation does successfully enhance certain scenes, sometimes so subtly you don‘t even notice, and sometimes – in the case of Tinkerbell‘s magical pixie dust – to spectacular effect. However Hook‘s computer generated ship, while certainly impressive, unfortunately stands out uncomfortably from the traditionally animated environments that surround it. Overall though "Peter Pan In Return To Never Land" – only the second sequel to a Disney feature to be released on the big screen – more than deserves a cinematic outing, and will no doubt go down well with the latest generation of Disney fans, who have grown up with a VHS copy of the original at home.