The other day, after seeing PAN for the first time, I briefly summarized my first impressions ( thread on PAN promotion) --
I also made the following observation --
Here are my full impressions of the movie, after a second pass of the screening --
SPOILERS*******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS******SPOILERS
SPOILERS*******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS******SPOILERS I do not understand why there were so many negative impressions about the screenplay. It is not as if the work of Jason Fuchs did not meet general approval when Hollywood producers gave it enough positive votes ( as a potential good candidate for enjoyable movie-viewing, if produced) to land it on the Black List of 2013!
I thought the fairly dark tale of where Peter came from was a fresh and inspired story. That he was the child borne of the love between a human woman and a fairy prince was enchanting and explained why he possessed certain natural gifts. That his Mum had to leave him in an orphanage was heart-wrenching, because she decided to fight for the Neverland tribe and the fairies whose existence was being threatened with extinction by Blackbeard's ambitions. The setting of those dark days in London, as the second world war found him in an orphanage was also very poignant, as he tried so hard to look for a mother who was unknown to him.
As he was eventually transported to Neverland and began to understand the reason for the kidnapping and the nefarious plans of the megalomaniac Blackbeard...and meeting a few people also trapped by Blackbeard...and eventually escaping to find the tribe of the Neverlanders as well as appreciating the wonders of the place -- the story flowed smoothly and ramped up to the final confrontations . It set up the time for his future adventures, with the plot being woven smoothly, almost poignantly at certain moments, and thrillingly as the foes met to decide whose will and might will prevail.
He did meet a lot of very fascinating characters, each one had a very interesting persona. There was Blackbeard whose ambitions overwhelmed everything!! That his persona was at most times flamboyant and ruthless as well showing some moments of poignancy was fascinating to Peter. Part of his becoming Peter Pan was his strength to fight such a strong antagonist -- learning about his enemy's physical and psychological strengths and weaknesses. His relationship with Blackbeard was not evident on the script -- the film added to the backstory by showing that Mary was the love of Blackbeard's life and her turning away from him and to the Fairy Prince explained the enmity of Blackbeard with the fairies and eventually Mary. In the first scene with Peter in his cabin, I wondered if Blackbeard had entertained the thought that Peter could have been his son, if Mary had not left him... But the brief glmpses of Mary in the film gave the movie its heart!
My only gripe with the film treatment of Blackbeard was the omission of his real reason for such ambition -- in the film, it was a personal vanity project ( almost like Tomas/Tommy/Tom looking for the fountain of youth...but in the script, it was more than that, as Blackbeard wanted total world domination. That initial assumption would have added a more interesting appeal as Peter becomes a savior of the world!
Also, there was never an explanation of why Peter became a boy who did not want to grow up! If Neverlanders were not supposed to age ( or if they used the pixum to keep them alive), then how come the Chief was already an old man? It would have been interesting to know why Peter decided that the world of childhood was what he wanted -- which seemed the opposite of how he acted as he tried to be mature in fighting Blackbeard. But maybe it was because Neverland had so much beauty and leaving it would have meant going into the real world!
Some have complained that the change in the relationship between bosom buddies Peter and James Hook was not explained, although the cynics say that is for some future sequel plans ( if that still will come to pass). It did not bother me one way or the other...It was clear though that young James Hook was self-centered and mostly selfish --which could be the reason for the eventual conflict between Peter and Hook.
But the budding romantic relationship between Hook and Tiger Lily also left questions unanswered. As I said, one has to give the origin story a bit more leeway... not all questions relating to the Barrie tale need to be answered in this backstory.
Again, I would judge the film purely on its own. And not try to tie it in to every plot detail and every characterization from the original Peter Pan tale. And if you can stop for some moments of whimsy -- try to view it from the world of a child's imagination smiley-happy082
Here are my impressions of the actors ---
Hugh Jackman was a revelation! My impression from various articles and some reviews was that it was mainly a too-flamboyant and an over-the-top performance, although some had noted that it was solid and that it was among the positive points from the movie. It was such a pleasant surprise to see a more layered, more nuanced portrayal! He gave an excellent portrait of Blackbeard, a man who is altogether self-indulgent and ruthless in the pursuit of the eternal fountain of youth! Hugh with his deep voice ( how amazing that his nuanced vocal delivery was despite the false teeth prosthetics that he wore for the entire movie!) was frightening and amazingly mesmerizing as a despotic leader!
Despite the plumage and the bling ( loved the earring and laughed at the rings!), he looked very manly ( first surprise!) as he walked in his fitted metallic top and pants that belonged to another century, scaring people along. He did not look foppish at all - it is as if he used the costume to dazzle and cower the kids into submission! He commanded every scene he was in -whether he was intimidating, oddly persuasive, and even pensive in some scenes with Peter. And when he was putting forth his rationale for his mission, he sounded like a Brit who was very much at home on the classical stage of Shakespeare --enunciating the message in the tradition of very well-spoken figures of the British stage and British history! Almost like Burton...and Winston
Great British accent for Hugh all throughout -- why ever not, he came from a Brit ancestry!
That was the second impressive surprise for me!
He was also impressive in his scenes with Peter, as if he wanted Peter to like him...or obey him at the very least. Peter saw through him of course!
His fight scenes with Rooney were very well-choreographed. It made the fighting scene between a strong man and a supposed warrior woman very credible! And that scene when she flicked off his wig was another acting moment for Hugh. He showed surprise and contempt at the same time. Funny! Even the look of surprise on his death face, as he had been bested by the fairies left a strong impression!
Maybe uncalled for -- but I could not help comparing him with Jack Sparrow. Blackbeard seemed almost aristocratic ( could be because of Hugh's chiseled features and intellectual-looking brow) while Captain Jack seemed almost buffoonish. Sorry, Johnny D.
His Blackbeard now adds to the lore of Peter Pan -- a man who wanted to live forever because he was power-mad ( and that was a strong point in Hugh Jackman's performance)!
But Hugh's best acting moment came when he was first introduced as Blackbeard - complete with the Nirvana-inspired "It's contagious - entertain us!" smiley-cool13 ... He was imperious, despotic, but charismatic enough to win over the mesmerized audience, save Peter! Loved listening to his voice overshadowing parts of the singing! The guy knows how to make an entrance! Were this onstage -- I would have given him an ovation!
Someone suggested in one of the promotional interviews that a backstory could be an interesting new tale, to which Hugh readily agreed
Levi Miller was beautiful, sensitive, and completely credible and charismatic as Peter of the orphanage, Peter with Blackbeard, Peter discovering a fighting buddy in Hook, and a Peter who was a little more enchanted with beautiful Tiger Lily! Levi was believable as a boy thrust onto center stage not because of vanity ( he discovered his gift and his ancestry) but because he thought it was his duty and because of his devotion to his Mum! Levi shows very great promise as an actor! I wonder if he is also keen to work onstage -- I would love to see him on Broadway! Maybe even in a musical with Hugh!
What was not touched in his backstory was why he never wanted to grow up - -was that self-evident when he became a native of Neverland?
Rooney's portrayal was also not one-sided. As a warrior princeess she exhibited strength and leadership...but as a woman, she seemed awkward and unsophisticated. She was caring in her relationship with Peter and shy with young James Hook. Feisty and shy -- Rooney was also regal in her portrayal. She has beautiful genes!
So does Garrett Hedlund! His portrayal of Hook disappointed some people because they could not trace how he became the much hated Captain Hook. But his portrayal already showed the self-centeredness that will likely cause his eventual rift with Peter. Garrett was heroic and selfish in his portrayal ...and occasionally flirty -- again another layered performance.
I did like the actor who portrayed Smee! He was the funny bone in this movie! Mother Barnabas was sometimes scarier than Blackbeard!
The production design and execution was visually stunning ...so was the costume design ...and the stunning choreography...all could be in contention for awards.
But to me, what really struck me with its beauty and appropriateness was the gorgous film scoring! Kudos to John Powell for his music!
In the end, it was the feeling of having spent an enjoyable and entertaining 2 hours in Fantasy/Neverland which Joe Wright, Hugh Jackman et al, and the creatives delivered ...which makes me
do believe that PAN should be loved!
Jo
