Return To Never Land Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x412 | 1185.96 MiB | hidivx | |
|
640x368 | 623.7 MiB | divx | |
|
320x184 | 202.13 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x184 | 194.82 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
The classic tale of 'Peter Pan' continues in Disney's sequel 'Return to Never Land'. In a world besieged by World War II, Wendy, now grown up, tries to give her own children hope by telling them of her magical experiences with Peter Pan in Never Land. However, Jane, Wendy's 12-year-old daughter, sees it all as make believe and refuses to believe in the tales. That is, until the villainous Captain Hook mistakes her for Wendy and abducts her to Never Land in an attempt to lure and capture Peter Pan. Peter Pan's quest to return Jane safely home is jeopardized until she can begin to believe in the magic of imagination.
| Harriet Owen | Jane & Young Wendy |
| Blayne Weaver | Peter Pan |
| Corey Burton | Captain Hook |
| Jeff Bennett | Smee & Pirates |
| Kath Soucie | Wendy |
| Andrew McDonough | Danny |
| Roger Rees | Edward |
| Spencer Breslin | Cubby |
| Bradley Pierce | Nibs |
| Quinn Beswick | Slightly |
| Aaron Spann | Twins |
| Clive Revill | Additional Voice |
| Robin Budd |
5.60 out of 10 (1522 votes)
Visitor Reviews
What on earth happened to Peter?!
posted on 26 Apr 2009When I was young and saw the first Peter Pan cartoon movie, I was thrilled. Peter Pan's confidence was strong and unwavering. Wendy was young and sweet, the mermaids were beautiful, Captain Hook was the villain who would undoubtedly fall, and the whole thing was just plain wonderful. But now...who the heck did they put in Peter's place? It's not Peter!! It's some kid's body who seems to be inhabited by an arrogant teen who believes any and every girl should fall at his feet in a dead swoon. They must be joking....right? I can hardly believe that this, this....BRAT is my dear childhood crush Peter Pan. The whole thing seemed forced, as if the writers were being held hostage and forced to write the story on threat of pain and suffering. And it's too short. Far too short. I want my seven dollars back.
Really nice animation - too bad the script didn't get such attention.
posted on 10 Apr 2009I rented this even though I'm not a big Pan Fan.. (Didn't care for Pinocchio either-- Blasphemy, I know...) Return to Neverland underlines the same problem the first Peter Pan movie had, which is that Peter Pan, despite being popular enough to have two animated movies devoted to him, has got to be the most SHALLOW animated character in history. He doesn't do anything except play with the lost boys and defeat Captain Hook, and his dialogue doesn't expand beyond things like, "Oh, we're sorry we ruined your book, Jane." "Do you want to be a lost boy?" "You're one of us now!"
"You're not Wendy!" "You're a traitor! You've betrayed the lost boys!".. Even at the very end, when Peter meets up with Wendy and sees her for the first time in probably 30 years and you're expecting him to say something really meaningful, all he says is: "You grew up." and then flies off!!
Jane, too, despite having a TON of potential and a good opener in this movie, gets as shallow as Peter as soon as she is transported to Neverland.
She does nothing except cry about not being able to get home, and then (instantaneously) changes her mind about the whole thing and plays around with the lost boys and defeats Captain Hook. This is such a shame because she has real attitude and substance, great voice and motivation, and then sort of just *stops talking* as the movie wears on. That is the worst thing about "Return to Neverland" .. that the beginning is very engaging, but as soon as Peter shows up, it all goes downhill and basically just rehashes the original Peter Pan. It just has a few "modernizations": like the arbitrary fart joke, the scene where someone's pants go down and there are the white boxers with red hearts (Classic Pan Fans may not be aware of this, but in the interim between Pan movies, an ordinance was passed which strictly decrees that white boxers with red hearts must at some point be revealed in every animated movie...), and then there's the modern music - which is uninspiring to say the least, and *sounds* so modern that people will hear it in ten years and go, "Oh, that was the late nineties and early two-thousands, when folksy, meandering melodies were popular with the adult crowd, and R&B and Hip Hop ruled Mtv to the exclusion of virtually all other forms of music and the extent that one was forced to visit VH1 to hear anything else.." (And Classic Pan Fans need also be informed that there was another ordinance passed which requires that a popular, breathy and wobbly-voiced R&B artist must render at least one song in all modern animated films, preferably the track accompanying the ending credits, but an opener or mid-action song will also suffice.) Then there are the Lost Boys.. and what is their point except to provide the visual of Never Grow Up? They have no personality or individuality whatsoever, even less than Peter, so their presence in this movie is just annoying. And even MORE annoying is Nana 2, the dog! Another pointless addition, and her mannerisms are so exaggerated and hammed-up that she is just irritating instead of cute. And there's the usual slapstick and no-suspense antics of Captain Hook and his crew, and a new undersea beast who, though cute, doesn't do anything except play the crocodile all over again, exactly the same way.
It's really just too bad, because the early premise and setting of this movie are so unique and something the animation audience has never seen before... Ironic too that this originality is saddled with later storyline that is exactly like Peter Pan 1. It is simultaneously the most AND least original animated movie. The only thing about 'Return to Neverland' that is uniformly good is the animation. Except for some glaring, in-your-face CGI scenes involving the pirate ship, the art in this movie is really beautiful. Some breathtaking scenes, superlative manual character drawings (especially for a sequel.) and use of vibrant color make this film a standout even among some of Disney's original work. -The original Peter Pan may have looked more realistic, but never had this lively scope of color. Now if only the story and the characters could have enjoyed this royal treatment, and the script brought to life with some real, intelligent dialogue."I'll get you for this, Peter Pan!!" About sums up as sophisticated as this one gets.
Another attempt for Disney to cash in. Wait for the video if you really want to see it.
posted on 04 Apr 2009Somewhere Walt Disney is spinning in his grave. During his lifetime he forbid any of his classic films to have sequels made for the big screen. Plenty of direct-to-video Disney sequels since his death have cheapened the good name of the originals and this is no exception. While not all that bad of a movie, it's nowhere near as good as the original. In fact, the backdrop of the story is quite depressing. Wendy is all grown up and has passed all of her Peter Pan stories onto her two children to keep their minds off "the war"(WWII). The children's' father has been shipped off to fight and their town is bomb-ridden. Eventually all of the town's children are sent by train to the countryside for their safety. Does this sound like something to take your kids to so far?Eventually Peter Pan, Tinkerbell, and Captain Hook make their appearance, but don't quite seem as charming as they once were. The animation isn't done with the same kind of care and the CGI clashes a little with the classic Disney-style animation. However, credit must be given to the writers for not trying to add anything to modernize the characters or make them "hip" in some way, with the exception of the cheesy theme song.After the quick 64-minute running time, you start to wonder why this sequel made the cut to theaters and not others like "Cinderella II", "Little Mermaid II", "The Lion King II", etc. Was this worth putting in the theater? Not really. Can you wait for video? Yes. This is just another attempt for Disney to cash in and should be called for what it is.Take your kids if they're dying to see it. It is fun, but a little disappointing to big fans of the original. Keep in mind also that you might spend the same amount of time traveling to and from the theater as you would watching it!
Mere Child's Play
posted on 19 Mar 2009The narrated beginning let's one hope that Return to Never Land will be a great film, but that hope is shattered almost immediately, for the beginning of the film is very uninspired. The film drags on in mediocrity for the first half, but luckily in the end one gets a glimpse at the full potential that the Walt Disney Company has in their midst. The part of the film that actually takes place in Never Land easily exceeds the minutes passed before in charm and quality. But even that part is not top shelf. It is entertaining that part. It is, but there are not enough funny jokes, the music is not touching enough and the crocodile replacement is somewhat of a letdown. Despite all of these flaws, the charm of the second half of the film save this one from being a total letdown. Small children might enjoy this, but it surely won't mean much to an adult.6,5 out of 10post scriptum: I hope the animated department of Disney does not get infected with sequel-mania! For straight to video this might be OK, but I would not make a habit of releasing films like these in the cinema. Give a sequel your best shot, like you did with Toy Story 2!
Peter Pan Still Flies
posted on 17 Mar 2009It's been rare for a Disney animated feature to have a sequel hit the big screen. The more recent Disney movies such as "Aladdin," "The Lion King" and "Pocahontas" have had sequels released directly to video. And even earlier Disney classics such as "The Lady and the Tramp" and "Cinderella" have gotten similar treatment. Now, we have "Return To Never Land," the sequel to "Peter Pan" go to movie houses. You'd think that such a movie would be worthy of debuting in theaters instead of on video. "Toy Story 2" was indeed worthy of such honors, but I didn't find "Return To Never Land" quite good enough. This movie has Wendy from the original story all grown up, in the era of World War II, and now it's her no-nonsense, mature-beyond-her-years daughter Jane who meets Peter Pan, a character she only knew and wrote off from her mother's stories. The movie isn't so bad, but the glories of earlier animated movies seem to have made "Return To Never Land" pale in comparison. The addition of the giant squid as the creature that pursues Captain Hook does not really measure up to the crocodile from the original. At least they did not include too many clichés. I almost expected Peter Pan to take on the Luftwaffe, but thankfully, they didn't go there. Thinking about this movie released during America's war on terrorism, I get the message that in times of trouble, one must have something to believe in, even "faith, trust and pixie dust." All in all, I'd say this movie might as well have gotten the direct-to-video treatment.
Not bad
posted on 03 Mar 2009After the reviews I read, I was surprised how entertaining this was. I expected to be bored, but it kept me going the whole 64 minutes. My 7 year-old son enjoyed it too. The "war" parts were good too and got a good discussion going on the way home. My son hadn't really thought too much about civilians during war time.
A great Disney Sequal.
posted on 07 Feb 2009This is a great movie,the art,the background,the music,the cast, and the animation. I liked the voices and and gags. My favorites charaters are the lost boys:Slightly and Cubby. Peter Pan flys again. Return to neverland is a great sequal to the 1953 movie, the way Hook goes back to neverland is great and the opening credits are cool.Faith,trust and Pixie dust.
The Hardest NC-17 rated movie Disney has ever made
posted on 21 Dec 2008SPOILERS!!! In "Killing the Unicorn," Peter Bogdanovich writes about the time he saw (then-girlfriend and now late) Playboy Playmate Dorothy Stratten's Playmate of the Year pictorial. He remarked to Dorothy that, in that photo spread, she was smiling. Before that, she never smiled for the camera. How did she do that smile? She said that she used "the hate." So, the PMOY shoot was all body, no soul."Return to Neverland" is the same thing."Neverland" tells the story of Jane, the daughter of Wendy, the original heroine of "Peter Pan." The Earth sequences of "Neverland" are anchored in World War II. Jane, ever the practical one, has been charged by her father, called up for service, to save the family. Jane does this, even charging through Blitz-blasted London during nocturnal bombing attacks. Wendy continues to care for Jane's little brother and tell him stories of her adventures in Neverland. Jane, of course, thinks this nonsensical.Suddenly, Captain Hook's ship shows up over their house and the captain abducts Jane, thinking she is Wendy. From then on, the movie is "Peter Pan" all over again, though it is studiously (no pun intended) PC, never bringing in the Indians.The artwork is well done, the CG art and 2-D work is seamlessly integrated. Some of the scenes are dazzling, like the opening sequence and Wendy's first flight sequence. Full kudos to the artists and I am grateful to Disney for keeping them employed, when so many other animators were being laid off.So sad: think of all the wonderful possibilities for new vistas and stories if World War II had resonated into Neverland.A very wise person once told me, about Disney, "When you do a sequel, you have to tell the same story, only different." Disney is just milking another franchise with "Return to Neverland." The audience I saw it with gave more applause to the Pluto short that preceded it than they did "Neverland."Keep your children far away from this film. Jade them not with a Dorothy Stratten smile. Adults, if you can stomach it, go ahead and watch it. Just remember, this is NC-17 rated fare, giving you all bodies and no soul.
Better than I thought it would be (but I thought it would be crap)
posted on 14 Oct 2008I consider myself a fan of Peter Pan, and I'd have to say that the worst part of the movie is BBMak's rendition of the Lovin' Spoonful's "Do You Believe in Magic." Not only was it too obvious a song (despite being written some twenty years after World War 2, when the movie is set), but the changes were unoriginal and dumb, rendering the song as ineffectual as the McDonald's commercial version (i.e. it removes all the sexual references)! In the event that you haven't read the actual book, there is an amount of sexuality (or at least sexual tension) in the story of Peter Pan, if in no other scene than when Wendy and Peter exchange "kisses." I've never understood why Disney never utilized that bit, even as they sexualized the mermaids and Tiger Lily.(Mild Spoilers) Oh, while I'm still on my be-true-to-your-book high horse, I would like to know whether I'm the only one who remembers that Tinker Bell is supposed to be saved by clapping (surely I'm not, because Spielburg utilized it in the similar "Hook.")? Jane, the daughter of Wendy, tells Tink to her face that she doesn't believe in fairies (this is, of course, akin to shooting her in the stomach, by the way--I actually found it hard to forgive her for that, since it's supposed to be part of the Peter Pan folklore, so much so that in the book, when Tink needs to be saved from Hook's poison, the whole world (except a few nasty children) claps for her (it explains the "I don't believe in fairies" bullet elsewhere)). Later, she cries at Tink's bedside, and this revives her. This make me think that the writers either weren't really fans of Peter Pan, or they thought Jane's crying was an effective way of eliciting sympathy and pity for her. It was, in the beginning. But I haven't seen an animated character cry so much since The Land Before Time, so by the time I reached this point, I was pretty tired of it.Oh, the dialogue was pretty bad at times, and so was the acting for Pan. The animation for Captain Hook looked like it was traced out of the original, especially the slapstick stuff, so it all seemed way too familiar and unfunny (to be honest, it wasn't that funny to me in the original, either). On top of that, nothing in Jane's adventures really made things better for her at home (this was remedied by the customary and mandatory return of the father, though it doesn't mention whether the kids get sent off to the countryside after all or not), except that she wasn't so stressed out. In the end, it was as if her parents had sent her to a day spa so she could relax and blow off some steam. Go west, young man, and all that stuff. Even while in Neverland, Jane doesn't have an emotional arc--she has an emotional step ladder, on which she hops suddenly and unexpectedly to the next rung, reaches the plateau, then jumps off before we even have a chance to prepare for the denouement.All of that was what I had expected, having watched a couple of Disney's other sequels, so I can't say I was disappointed. But, because of the god awful teaser trailer, I had also expected really shoddy digital and CGI animation (digital animation, as opposed to CGI, is a 2-D medium, basically just coloring the drawings with computers to save money, a common practice in Japan right now and was also utilized for Waking Life). The CGI was terrible, some of the most obvious shots since Blue Submarine 6. I don't know whether the characters were digital or not, however. They seemed awfully bright and colorful, which makes me think digital. In either case, the animation in general was actually pretty wonderful for what was originally going to be an OAV. It looks more like The Iron Giant than a regular Disney movie, and I don't consider that an insult. There were scenes and bits (such as the opening sequence in the clouds or Jane running through the streets of London or Jane falling towards the ocean like Ripley in Alien 3) that made me happy to be watching the movie, in spite of the story and the short running time.
A decent sequel to one of Disney's all time classic films
posted on 16 Sep 2008Since the original Peter Pan is my all time favourite Disney animated feature, I was very excited to return to Neverland. And I definatley was not disappointed. Although the film is not as magical as the original, it is suprisingly decent sequel. Alot better than the direct to video sequels we have been getting from Disney in the last couple of years.This movie continues with Wendy Darling, who is now married and has children of her own. When her husband gets sent off to war, he asks his daughter Jane to keep an eye on her mother and little brother. Willingly she helps out. However, in the process, she grows up too quickly. That is until she gets whisked away to the land of Neverland, which she believed to be all rubbish and nonsense.I am very satisfied with this film, and I am sure that it will appeal to fans of the original, and with children who are making their first trip to Neverland.However, I do need to gripe about the length of the film. At just under seventy minutes, it is not really worth going to see at the theatre with the staggering price of admission these days. Wait until it gets to the cheap theatres, or just buy it when it comes on video.
Should of been a direct to video sequel!OK animation and songs
posted on 14 Sep 2008In this sequel to Disney's Peter Pan we see Wendy all grown up with children of her own. Wendy's daughter Jane is having family problems as London is sending all the children away during World War 2. Wendy is kidnaped by Captain Hook and his pirate crew. Hook kidnaps her thinking he will finally get Peter Pan. Peter Pan discovers that Hook accidently brought Wendy's daughter instead. Peter tell Jane the only way is to fly. This sounds like something from the "The Wizard of Oz" type story. Jane gets herself into a deal with Hook which she eventually regrets.Hook manages to capture Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. It's up to Jane and Tinker Bell to save them. There is also a sub-plot with Tinker Bell dying . Jane saves everyone and goes home. The ending of the movie is a happy one as Disney always seems to do. One question though . Was the trip to Neverland all a dream?The animation was like watching one of the many direct to video sequels Disney has done over the years. The songs were OK. If you really want to see this wait until it gets to the cheap movie theaters.
Better than the original
posted on 11 Aug 2008What 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.
A fun return to childhood with the characters we love
posted on 20 Jul 2008Though this sequel, of course, comes no where near the first (could anything?), it provides a lot of fun for Peter Pan fans young and old. It wouldn't be enjoyable to one who hasn't seen Peter Pan in awhile or not more than once--but for those who love Peter, they'll recognize the parallels between the films instantly and fall in love with it as quickly as they did the first. Although the Peter's animation is a bit off, Hook, the pirates, and the lost boys look, act, and sound amazingly like the originals. Only see this film after watching the original, and only if you're not going to compare it to it. :-)
Magical
posted on 12 Jul 2008All you need is faith, trust and pixie dust! This is a surprisingly pleasant sequel. The C.G. Tinkerbelle is not as ...delicate as I remember from the first, but she is still made well and is just as spunky! I think they did a very good job on this movie...so good of a job that I would not classify it with normal sequels. I think it will be on the shelf with the other classics. They still have the Tink that turns red when she's mad, and the lost boys haven't changed a bit. Peter is just as I remember him, and in all this they did a great job. And overall, I love this movie. The credits did surprise me. They reminded me of the last page in the Little Golden Books I read as a child. Very similar artistry...very similar lay out.Also, I'd like to add that the music was actually not torture for me to listen to...which counts for a lot for my opinion of cartoons.I would not miss taking my children to this movie. It's even a sweet date movie.I think you will like it.
Rent this for your kids... if you like seeing them cry
posted on 06 Jul 2008Okay, maybe your children won't weep upon seeing this, but if you have any respect for Peter Pan at all you won't waste your money on this one. It's terribleness is beyond words. The characters were trite, the plot nonexistent, and with every line the heroine Jane uttered, my urge to slap her and anyone involved in this mess increased ten fold. I urge any parents reading this to spend your valuable time reading the book to your kids, rather than exposing them to this rubbish. Disney has reached a new low.
Unlike Jane, how can *I* believe in Peter Pan anymore?!
posted on 31 May 2008***NOTE: my review contains spoilers, but none so spoiled as this movie itself.***Some will say that Disney has already sold out. My gripe is not with marketing strategies, nor with flooding us with sequels to ALL of the classics within a couple year's timespan.My gripe is with the new characterization of Peter Pan. It's kind of like the comic book that saw Luke Skywalker join the dark side, but without as good an excuse.This movie has Peter Pan & the Lost Boys pulling a little girl's hair, destroying her journal to shreds, and getting ANGRY at her and calling her a traitor (when she was innocent)! Where is the magic of Neverland???Peter Pan lies to her also...in a plot to save Tinkerbell, he tells her he feels sorry for her and wants to make it up to her...but he is just using her and has already explained why and how, to the Lost Boys!I guess this film was made for little girls during a time of war. I guess by showing her have a change of heart, SHE is the real hero, and Peter Pan is irrelevant.But I came to see Peter Pan! If you really really have to have good guys do bad things and not know any better...well why did it have to be a character that older Disney fans had ALREADY learned to believe in?I still can't believe it.
Not a true sequel
posted on 25 Aug 2007Take this review with a grain of salt, because I am a massive fan of Peter Pan and all things properly based on the James Barrie classic. This sequel, however, made me cringe. I've enjoyed liberal interpretations before - Hook and Finding Neverland, for example - but this movie completely trashed whatever character Peter Pan is supposed to have. Peter Pan is not a hero - he is a mischievous and often forgetful boy. He is entirely selfish and entirely charming, and these are his two flaws. However, in "Return to Neverland," this character of "Peter Pan" is a mere ghost of the complex Barrie creation. Whatever beautiful messages Peter Pan has about nostalgia and childhood, "Return to Neverland" turns them upside down at worst, and simply ignores them at best.The animation wasn't bad, though.
A crime against Barrie's novel, just like the first Peter Pan movie
posted on 07 Aug 2007First of all, I must point out that Disney's first Peter Pan movie is a huge letdown to the deep, complex, and meaningful novel by the great Sir James M. Barrie. It simply does not do it justice. Therefor, to base the sequel solely upon that disappointing movie (no matter how cherished it may be by those who enjoyed it as children) is a recipe for disaster. Disney would have been far better off re-reading the novel and using it in conjunction with the events of their first movie.The only thing Disney did right was naming Wendy's daughter Jane. The last chapter of Barrie's work is about Wendy and her daughter, Jane, and her adventures with Peter Pan. But this excerpt from the novel shows that Disney did not remain true to the character that Barrie created for Jane: "Years rolled on again, and Wendy had a daughter. This ought not to be written in ink but in a golden splash. She was called Jane, and always had an odd inquiring look, as if from the moment she arrived on the mainland she wanted to ask questions. When she was old enough to ask them they were mostly about Peter Pan. She loved to hear of Peter, and Wendy told her all she could remember in the very nursery from which the famous flight had taken place" (258).The Jane in Return to Neverland is quite obviously NOT interested in Peter Pan, and did not go willingly to Neverland to be with Peter. This is a crime against the book, and Disney should be ashamed of itself.The novel aside, however, the movie does have a positive message behind it - cherish your childhood. Jane was forced to grow up quickly because of her father's active involvement in WWII. She hated all things childish, and was really more of a bitter adult in a child's body. Then, by the end of the film, she reconnects with her inner child and is reunited with her father and allowed to really enjoy her childhood.Overall, I think that children will enjoy this movie much more than their parents. Especially if their parents are fond of the novel!
If Wendy knew what Pan had done, could *she* still believe?!
posted on 06 Aug 2009***NOTE: my review contains spoilers, but none so spoiled as my expectations.***Some will say that Disney has sold out in recent years. But MY gripe is not with marketing strategies, nor with flooding us with sequels to all these classics within a couple year's timespan. I can learn to accept that.My gripe is with this character development of Peter Pan. It's kind of like the comic book that saw Luke Skywalker join the dark side, but without as good an excuse.Another user commented that Peter Pan always bordered on violence. I just don't remember him being mean, though.This movie has Peter Pan & the Lost Boys pulling a little girl's hair, destroying her journal to shreds, and getting ANGRY at her and calling her a traitor (at a time when she was innocent)! (Where is the magic of Neverland???)Peter Pan lies to her also...in a plot to save Tinkerbell, he tells her he's sorry and wants to make it up to her...but he is just using her and has already explained why and how, to the Lost Boys!I guess this film was made for little girls during a time of war. I guess by showing her have a change of heart, SHE is the real hero, and Peter Pan is irrelevant.But I came to see Peter Pan! Do we really really have to have good guys do bad things and not know any better...and did the sequel really have to be a big fat trailer for the original classic?Instead of endlessly discussing faith and believing, GIVE US THE OLD MAGIC...THE PURE FANTASY back. I still don't know WHAT to believe about this effort.