Movie Information

The Story: An attempt at creating an origins story for Peter Pan. The Lowdown: A deeply disappointing film from an incredibly talented filmmaker. It sometimes works. More often, it doesn't. It's mostly watchable, but it's a lot of fuss over not much. Think of it as Peter Pan: The YA Years.
Genre: Fantasy Adventure
Director: Joe Wright (Anna Karenina)
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Levi Miller, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Adeel Akhtar, Amanda Seyfried
Rated: PG



If you were to tell me that there was a movie that told the story of Peter Pan as an orphan sold into slavery by evil nuns and parceled off to Neverland by pirates in a flying galleon, I’d be intrigued. If you then told me that he’d be forced — with a lot of other lost boys of varying ages who sing “Smells Like Teen Spirit” for no apparent reason — to work in a mine in search of some kind of crack cocaine fairy dust that Blackbeard the Pirate huffs through a steampunk-ish face mask in order to retain immortality, I’d say, “Sign me up.” And, yes, all those things — along with natives who vanish in a puff of brightly colored smoke when killed, Smee played like a Cockney Jew and a prophecy that makes Peter into some kind of Kwisatz Haderach — are in Joe Wright’s Pan. Unfortunately, this sounds a hell of a lot more interesting than it plays — something that causes me no joy to relate.




Despite having been underwhelmed by the trailer, I really had held out some hope for Pan. I knew the critical populace had been down on it, but that mattered little (if at all) to me. This was, after all, a Joe Wright picture, and I have liked everything (well, not so much 2009’s The Soloist) he’s made — except for Anna Karenina (2012), which I absolutely loved and still do. The problem is this new film simply does not work. Oh, I don’t think it’s as bad as has been claimed, but neither is it good. What it lacks more than anything is a sense of whimsy. Good Lord, Anna Karenina was more whimsical, and it was a tragedy. This is a fantasy and is almost completely whimsy-less. All too often, when it should soar, it lays there like a landed fish gasping for breath. Oh, there are moments when it works, but they remain moments in search of a film that almost isn’t there.




Wright has said that he made Pan for his children. The last time I heard a filmmaker say that was when Roman Polanski made his 2005 Oliver Twist. The results there were a solid enough version of the story with no real personality. Pan has personality, but isn’t solid in any sense of the concept. It’s certainly busy — at being busy to no real end. For all its downright bizarre trimmings, the story is rather dull. Peter (newcomer Levi Miller) is an orphan with mommy issues and a destiny, and that’s about it as far as his character is concerned. The word “generic” comes to mind. The idea of him being friends with Hook (a dreadful Garrett Hedlund doing a bargain-basement Indiana Jones) doesn’t go anywhere — unless you count ham-fisted foreshadowings of Hook minus a hand as going somewhere. Having Peter’s pan-pipe (get it?) necklace turn out to be a literal key is almost clever, but that doesn’t keep the thing from looking like one of those corrugated keys used on toilet paper dispensers in public restrooms.




What is most dismaying, though, is that Pan — with all its bright colors and strange imagery — isn’t all that stylish. That’s something I never thought I’d say about a Joe Wright film. Here, however, so much of the movie is given over to CGI effects that it loses any individual signature. The effects are driving the big scenes while Wright seems to be an onlooker. But even that doesn’t explain why Rooney Mara in a Carmen Miranda headdress just looks silly, rather than exotic or even enjoyably campy. In fact, the only camp element is Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard, and that’s a creation that works in fits and starts in its combination of over-the-top flamboyance and outright creepiness.




In the end, what we’re left with is a collection of odd ideas that never seem moored to much of anything. You get some Nirvana here, some Ramones there, a little bit of steampunk tossed in and … what? Because of the anachronistic pop songs, it’s been inevitably likened to Baz Luhrmann. But where Luhrmann could weave such into a fantastic tapestry, Wright serves up slabs that don’t seem like part of a vision. They’re just there. What I think we have mostly is a movie afraid to live up to its own inherent insanity — and that’s a great pity. I imagine it’s fine for kids (though I’ve seen it suggested that it’s too disturbing), but, all in all, you’d be better off breaking out P.J. Hogan’s 2003 Peter Pan, which manages to be whimsical, stylish and a little dangerous. Rated PG for fantasy action violence, language and some thematic material.


About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

12 thoughts on “Pan

  1. Edwin Arnaudin

    so much of the movie is given over to CGI effects that it loses any individual signature.

    And outdated-looking CGI at that.

      • Edwin Arnaudin

        The issue there for me is both Wright’s reliance on CGI and it not looking all that great. Plus, it was time for him to do another long, insanely difficult tracking shot and he did not deliver.

        • Ken Hanke

          It’s a little unfair to blame the quality of the CGI on Wright, since he probably had no say in the matter.

          • Edwin Arnaudin

            You’ve got to think he saw some preliminary work, though.

          • Ken Hanke

            Doesn’t mean he could do anything about it — not at that budget. Thing is I don’t think it would have even mattered if he’d gotten a handle on the tone of the movie — it hardly needed to look real — but he didn’t.

          • Edwin Arnaudin

            I didn’t need it to look real – but I would have preferred it not look cheap.

  2. T.rex

    Wow. This is the kindest review I have seen on the internet. 90% of them are calling this worst of the year. There seems to be real hate for this one.

    • Edwin Arnaudin

      Awkward and unfortunate as it is, it’s really nowhere close to being worst of the year material. I’d much rather watch it again than revisit Spy, Trainwreck or Fast and Furious 7.

      • Ken Hanke

        1.) The review isn’t kind. It is, however, carefully considered.

        2.) Never believe anything you read on the internet — unless you know the source. And even then…

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.