the audience applauded

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

What can I say. BRILLIANT!!!! and I love the Peter Pan stories by James Barrie. I feel very protective about the Peter Pan legacy and don't like to see it ruined. that's why I hated Steven Spielberg's horrid film version 'Hook'. Spielberg missed the whole point. ALL CHILDREN GROW UP EXCEPT FOR ONE. 'Hook' didn't take liberties with the story, it missed the whole point and ruined it. plus Robin Williams silly ass was too big and fat to be flying around in that green Peter Pansy costume.My favorite version is the one with Cathy Rigby. she is much better than Mary Martin,and the Rigby production is so beautiful and faithful.Cathy Rigby owns the role. the 1953 Disney version is adorable and the Universal/Columbia studios version is quite good too.That brings us to the Damon Dietz version. iconoclastic, with lots of liberties taken but still a amazing interpretation. much of James Barrie's original dialogue from the play and book are here intact which only makes this whole thing seem more surreal. this is a good adaptation. it knows the story and understands it well.The characterizations here are very funny. Peter,Wendy,John,Michael and the Lost Boys are all appropriately sweet and endearing. Tinkerbell is a bitchy potty-mouthed meth dealer. Tiger Lilly is a beautiful transvestite,(and I do mean beautiful, for a moment I wasn't even sure that was a guy) and Hook is a scary creepy predator that no self respecting parent would want around their kids. and the croc is a filthy low-life perve who needs to get a real job.The music is first class. especially the musical number that Tiger Lilly sings in the Native American Musical Revue.This wonderful film should be commended for achieving such brilliance on such a low budget. like the incredible Cathy Rigby, this film flies you to the second star to the right and straight on into space. I wonder what the Great Ormond Sreet Hospital for Sick Children in London thought of this film? oh well, anyone that doesn't like it can kiss Tiger Lilly's BIG FULL MOON.

Variety was absolutely correct when it referred to the movie as "... A Dark Reimagining of Peter Pan." In the end however, a range of factors led the movie to be nothing more than an attempt at breaking the mainstream cycle of "acceptable" films.The idea of taking the well-known story of Peter Pan and applying it to modern times, in an attempt to display current social problems is respectable and clever. What the audience received however was a movie in which the acting was lacking. Scott Mechlowicz surprising given some of his other works, appears dazed, and as if he is reading his lines off of a queue card. Melany Bell, although decent at times, tends to set the wrong emotions. Rick Sparks is just annoying as hell, and fails to really play slightly neurotic case of the "boy who wouldn't grow up." He comes off as more of the defiant adolescent, who rebels not because of his fear of society, or his fear of his inability, but rather due to his arrogance. Gary Kelley gave an excellent performance as Hook, although I would say that his performance didn't exactly fit in with the story-line, except for the fact that is disturbing, if not outright creepy. The majority of the other minor characters serve as nothing more than mouthpieces for the screenplay.Transitions in Neverland are painfully slow. In that dull, menacing, and irritating montages continue for minutes at a time, prompting me to fast forward. It almost appears as if they were added to boost the time of the film, due to the fact that they add absolutely nothing other than substandard music, vexing sounds, and shamefully dull images.The cinematography is by all means nothing special, nothing too innovative. There is one scene in which Hook is lecturing his employees that displays some amount of editing and camera talent. There were at times however, where the audio did not match the images on the screen.Overall, this film is a decent introductory film for director and screenwriter Damion Dietz. It tried to take a good idea and make a good film, but in my opinion failed. It relied too much upon stereotypical understandings of society's youth, an odd, if not unnecessary overriding homosexuality component, and what appears to be attempt to manipulate every aspect of Peter Pan as much as possible. It did, honestly, try to emulate the book more than say, the Disney version, but the extremes to which it is taken results in something of chaos.Also, it is interesting to note that a large majority of the highly positive reviews were the first, and only reviews of some IMDb members.

A black Wendy? A juvenile delinquent Michael? A community college drop-out John? Obviously this isn't your grandparent's Peter Pan. These and many other stylish changes can be found in Damion Dietz's update of the J.M. Barrie classic, while sticking closely to the plot points of the original. In fact, Neverland does follow the main points of the story fairly closely, which is scary considering the result. It's actually pretty amazing how easily Dietz was able to change certain plot points to make them fit a more contemporary backdrop. When he is introduced, Peter is looking for the keys to his car, nicknamed, appropriately enough, "My Shadow." Neverland is a run-down amusement park peopled by drug-addled "faeries" and runaway "lost boys." Tiger Lily is a performing drag queen from one of the park's cheezy revues. The pirates are costumed "cast members" of the park and Captain Hook a disgruntled janitor. Even the crocodile makes an appearance, in the form of a costumed nebbish whose one-night stand with Hook has him stalking the man for another "taste." All fit perfectly into the scheme of the Dietz update.So much so, that when certain anachronistic fantasy elements are presented, it is pretty strange. Cute, but kind of creepy, too, given the hyper-real Kids-meets-Urbania motivations of this film. Especially when Tinkerbell makes with the "fairy dust" so that the "kids" can fly away to Neverland in a kaleidoscope of imagery and MTV jumpcuts with a grinding, hard-edged musical backbeat.One aspect which could have used some fancifying, however, is the main character of Peter Pan. As presented by Dietz, he is an arrogant, snot-nosed punk; a poster child for disaffected youth and a thoroughly unlikeable hero who thinks he has the answer to all of life's problems. Oh, he's pretty enough, but whereas the Peter Pan of the original novel, was a high-flying sprite who was ageless and literally lived in a fantasy world, Dietz Pan is a brooding, whiney, trash-talking runaway, who simply refuses to grow up. Countered by a grounded and grown-up Wendy, who emerges as the true hero of the story, Peter comes across as the kid that everyone thinks is cool until the chips are down and he proves himself unworthy of the praise. By contrast, the homoerotic motivations of Gary Kelley's Hook add dimension to what has always been a literary cypher. He fairly bristles with contempt for the lost boys living in the maintenance tunnels of the park, because they represent that which he has lost. His pomposity is also given a dark edge by his dead-end job as a janitor and his hate for the one "boy" he has always wanted, but could never have.Setting the story in a theme park is an inspiration, as it allows for all the various fanciful "characters" which lend the novel its charm--pirates, mermaids, indians, etc.--to move about freely, without dragging the film too far from the reality it is grounded by. In the end, however, this updated version is pretty desolate and joyless, so don't expect to be humming "you can fly" when you're done watching it. If, however, what you're looking for is a creative and fascinating departure from form, a la the various contemporary updates of Shakespeare's work, then Neverland is an amazing study in social satire with a classic spin.

Sorry to see a talented player like Wil Wheaton involved in this sorry project. Usually I'm a tolerant and generous film watcher. This is strictly amateur-night stuff. It's embarrassingly bad (believe me, not at all in the "it's so bad it's funny" class). It is painfully bad in all departments: direction, cinematography, writing, acting, you name it.... with no redeeming qualities anywhere. It doesn't even merit a curiosity viewing. You'd be better off playing solitaire. Stay away.