User reviews

"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.

I bought this in a buy 1 get 1 free deal and just got round to watchimg it today, and to be honest - its not that bad.

Wendy has now grown up and World War 2 breaks out so to protct her children from the horror Wendy tells stories of Peter Pan.

Her oldest Jane stops believing in them until Captain Hook mistakes her for Wendy and kidnaps her.

For a sequel it isn't that bad and it better then Jungle Book 2. Its worth 1 watch at least

After so many years it was not a surprise that the original charm and concept would not be captured the same way in its sequel. The animation was incredibly expressive and smooth, close to being top-notch in traditional animation at the time given it was animated by Walt Disney TV Animation.

The plot kept some beats that resonate with what Peter Pan and Neverland are all about: growing up. Themes like maturing, friendship, faith and imagination are explored again in this film only with new characters and a new backdrop (London Blitz period in WWII). But it's undeniable the frequent talking down to the more younger audiences instead of allowing them to learn the lessons by themselves.

Surprisingly, the plot had direction and a final goal with other subplots emerging from it that made sense most of the time. Nevertheless, these were not as engaging enough to keep the audience wondering if the protagonists were in danger at all.

IN CONCLUSION, the movie doesn't do many things wrong but rather stick to what it does well, it has varied and quirky characters, an endearing sequel effect with Wendy all grown up, fun and heartwarming messages for the younger audiences and original ideas like having a new enemy for Captain Hook or the background of the story with the father. But that's just it, the movie is just another adventure with similar beats from the first Peter Pan, it doesn't try to tell a new story just "reinvent the wheel". Also fans of the original work Disney's movie is based on might get angered by how little it reminisces the original spirit of the stories. Although by now it should be obvious that Disney's creations are but loosely-based adaptations of such tales so it shouldn't be judged harshly.

Sequel to classic history with an enjoyable Peter Pan , adventures , imagination ,astounding as well as gorgeous sets and brilliant images , though it was originally planned as a direct-to-video release in which the protagonist of the story results to be Wendy's daughter and is set in London during World War II . The picture mingles action , feats , humor , tongue-in-cheek , fantasy and a lot of entertainment . The film centers about Peter Pan (voice by Blayne Weaver) , a nice adolescent who doesn't want grow up , Wendy , her daughter Jane and brothers . As Jane is kidnapped by Captain Hook from parents' home and they are going to Neverland . As main starring is abducted by Captain Hook and Peter Pan must come to the rescue in order to challenge his old enemy . Peter Pan , Tink and Lost Boys (they were boys who fell out of their prams while the nurses weren't looking , whereas Peter Pan is a permanent resident of Never Neverland, the lost boys are only temporary lodgers , if they seem to grow up, Peter Pan sends them home) will take on captain Hook , Smee and pirates henchmen . As Peter Pan's quest to go back Jane safely home is jeopardized until she can start to believe in the magic of imagination .

The film contains emotion , humor , fantasy , songs and a lot of fun . The plot is similar to Walt Disney's classic replacing Wendy with her daughter Jane who along with Peter undertake several adventures in Neverland ; as Pan with the help of her and the Lost Boys must save his friends by battling with Captain Hook and Smee once again . From the beginning to the end the amusement and entertainment is interminable . An entertaining movie , a little tiring when the characters are singing , but is still shines . The highlights film are the marvelous images when Peter Pan and Jane are flying throughout Neverland , it turns out to be colorful and delightful . Due to controversy over their appearance in original movie , as Disney attracted negative comments for their stereotypical depiction of Indians, as indeed did J.M. Barrie with his original play , it's probably for that very reason that the Indians do not appear in this 2002 sequel , though Peter and Jane briefly visit their places , however ; as they fly over Tipis , Indian tribes and skull monument . The giant octopus was created as a new nemesis for Captain Hook because it was felt that the Disney animators had exhausted all the comic possibilities of "Hook vs. the Crocodile" in the original Peter Pan (1953). The octopus's tentacles make a "Pock! Pock!" sound that is similar to the "Tick Tock!" sound heard from the crocodile in the previous film . Although original author J.M. Barrie is credited, this sequel and its original were the only major films versions of "Peter Pan" and both of them use little of his original dialogue . Because most of the original voice cast of the movie had died, including Hans Conried (Hook) and Bobby Driscoll (Peter Pan), an entirely new cast of actors had to be used to film this sequel such as Corey Burton as Hook , Jeff Bennett as Smee , Kath Soucie as Wendy , Roger Rees as Edward , Spencer Breslin as Cubby , Bradley Pierce as Nibs and Clive Revill . Many Peter Pan purists were very upset by the characterization of Tinker Bell as a petulant and voluptuous young woman as old film ¨Peter Pan¨ as its sequel the ¨Return to Never Land¨ . The fable will appeal to adventure and classic tale fan . Rating : 6,5/10 above average . It's a terrific familiar amusement that will appeal to vintage tale fans .

Other films and stage productions dealing with this classic personage are the followings : The original Broadway production of "Peter Pan", or "The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up" by J.M. Barrie opened at the Empire Theater on November 6, 1905 , it ran for 223 performances, closed on May 20, 1906, and starred nineteenth-century stage actress Maude Adams, who never made any films ; silent film ¨Peter Pan¨ (1924) starred by Virginia Brown Faire as Tinker Bell , it uses much of Barrie's original dialogue ; Peter Pan (1953) with voice by Bobby Driscoll, Kathryn Beaumont, Hans Conried ; ¨Hook¨(2001) with Steven Spielberg with Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook , Robin Williams , Freddie Highmore , Julia Roberts , Bob Hoskins as Smee , Maggie Smith and Caroline Goodall ; ¨Finding Neverland¨ (2004) by Marc Foster with Johnny Depp as James M Barry , Kate Winslet , Kelly McDonald as Peter Pan , Julie Christie , Radha Mitchell , and recent version ¨Peter Pan¨ by JP Hogan with Jeremy Sumpter , Raquel Wood and Jason Isaac .

Young Jane has lost her faith in imagination and Peter Pan with the outbreak of the Second World War II. With her father off at war and her mother distracted by childish stories, Jane feels she is the most mature, and is looking after her family as she promised she would. But after a falling out with Wendy, Jane finds herself on board Captain Hook's ship, heading towards the second star to the right. It's not until Jane let's go of trying to be a grown up does she truly find happiness and magic. The music throughout is very well written and while modernized does still replicate the feel of the original. Ultimately, I feel this was a great carry-on from the original with all the splendor of Neverland and the perils of the island shared between Peter and Hook!

Take 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.

I found this movie quite enchanting. It captured the spirit of the original quite well, and a reference to the original story that wasn't in the first Disney that was thrown in had me clapping until my hands were sore... But it wasn't applause. (I'll say no more, I don't wish to spoil the movie for anyone else.) And Jane was a great contrast to Wendy. I would totally recommend this movie to anyone who loved the first.

Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust!!!

The other day I decided to go for the Disney sequels, Peter Pan one of my top favorite Disney films and as nervous as I was to see the sequel "Return to Never Land", but I decided to go ahead and give it a look. You know what? It wasn't that bad, it was actually pretty enjoyable as far as Disney sequels go. I loved seeing the return of Captain James Hook, he and his sidekick, Smee, just cracked me up so badly in the first Peter Pan, they were back in Return to Never Land and are still crazy than ever. Despite the fact that the crocodile wasn't back, I would've loved to see that return, the octopus wasn't a bad addition. The jokes are still fun and the story is still magical. We got to see what life was like for Wendy when she finally had to grow up and had a family of her own.

Wendy is all grown up and has a family of her own, a loving husband, daughter, Jane, and son, Danny. Her husband goes to war and tells little Jane that she is in charge, so Jane takes that very seriously and acts as head of the household. Despite that she is still very young, she doesn't believe in Never Land and her mother's tales, but when Captain Hook thinks he grabs Wendy, he grabs Jane and takes her to Never Land to capture Peter Pan. Peter saves Jane and offers her to join the Lost Boys and hopes to restore her faith in his adventures and fairies, but all she wants to do is go home.

Return to Never Land is a fun Disney sequel that I have to admit that I was actually more impressed with. There are still a lot of great laughs and the story is still as adventurous as the first time when I watched the first Peter Pan. It was a little disturbing to hear the big difference of the voices, but I'm getting past it. After all, it's been over 40 years since the original Peter Pan, so I think it would've been hard to get the same actors. But I recommend Return to Never Land, it's a cute Disney sequel.

6/10

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

This movie is not up to normal Disney standards in either the musical or animation department. As a whole, however, it isn't that bad. There are a few very charming moments involving both Jane, Peter and the lost boys. Also, it was nice to see Jane follow in the tradition of other Disney heroines and have a strong character.

Also, The brief last scene involving Peter and a grown-up Wendy was touching in a way that it's live action counterpart Hook never was.

Overall, if you have kids, it's a fun mindlessly entertaining afternoon at the movie theater. Not nearly as good as the original, but still fun.

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.

One thing I've noticed about most Disney sequels is that the storyline tends to be the opposite of the original. It's not different here. In the original "Peter Pan", Wendy has no intention of growing up too soon and instead goes to Never Land for a while, where she'll never grow up. But in "Return to Never Land", Wendy has grown up, gotten married and had kids of her own. Her son, Danny, who's still very young, is always intrigued by his mother's stories of Peter, but her older daughter Jane, who feels as though now her father's gone to war, she must protect her family, it means no more silly stories. And then the movie develops from there, when Jane is thought to be Wendy and is kidnapped by Captain Hook. Then, of course, Peter Pan meets her and then the story continues from there. Jane thinks she's really mature, and it's up to Peter and the Lost Boys to bring out her childish side again.

I think "Return to Never Land" is one of the better Disney sequels, as heaps of others have turned out to rip-offs of the original. If they thought this was going to be like the others, they would've released it straight to video. So, if you have to see a Disney sequel, then this is a pretty good one.

In a world besieged by the 2nd World War lives Wendy, now an adult, who tries to give her children hope for a better world by telling them the magical experiences she went through in Neverland, alongside Peter Pan. Among Wendy's children is 12-year-old Jane, who does not believe in such adventures. Until Captain Hook reappears, who kidnaps Jane and takes her to Neverland, intending to use her in his newest plan to capture Peter Pan. Tries to give his children hope for a better world by telling them about the magical experiences he went through in Neverland, alongside Peter Pan. Among Wendy's children is 12-year-old Jane, who does not believe in such adventures. Until Captain Hook reappears, who kidnaps Jane and takes her to Neverland, intending to use her in his newest plan to capture Peter Pan.

Cute, especially the introduction, when it represents Wendy's family (already adult and with two children) during the Blitz in London (a German bombing campaign against the United Kingdom in 1940 and 1941, during the Second World War)... Well cute, forever Peter Pan will remind me of Peter Pan Flying Dark Ride Disney toy... s2... Beautiful, enchanted, delicious...

"Every time a child says he doesn't believe in fairies, a little fairy drops dead somewhere"...

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.

Others have bemoaned the lack of creativity or the re-hash of the original story. What did they expect, Peter Pan goes to law school? My 8 year old was bouncing with excitement by the end of the movie. I found the CG animation of the Pirate Ship over London to be in

the best of the Disney tradition. They leave you guessing up until the very end as to whether Peter Pan is real or if both Wendy and her daughter dreamed him. Look for one goof: The truck (2 1/2 ton Army truck) bears a United States white star when it picks up and drops off Dad, who is obviously a British soldier/airman. Though theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely that there was an

American Amry truck in London as the U.S. did not actively enter the war unitl January 1942 and the Blitz had been going on long before that. Forget the critics - go see it and take the kids.

Peter Pan 2 Finding Neverland was another surprisingly entertaining Disney sequel. Honestly I went in with low expectations and the fact I consider the original film to be one of Disneys worst animated features I really wasn't expecting to enjoy this at all.

This film at least attempted to make Peter Pan himself a more likeable character and the same with Tinkerbell, well for the most part anyway. Jane was pretty unlikeable throughout the film but did grow and change with her story arc during the film.

Hook and his band of misfit pirates were very entertaining and there were a lot of exciting sequences to keep me entertained and hold my attention. I also enjoyed the animation in this film, particularly the sequence when Jane first travels to Neverland. It was very trippy and reminiscent of early Disney animated films.

This is a sequel to the 1953 Disney animated feature, "Peter Pan", and it was made nearly half a century after its predecessor. "Return to Never Land" was the second theatrical sequel to an animated Disney film, the first being "The Rescuers Down Under", released over a decade earlier, and a whole bunch of direct-to-video sequels were made in between. This "Peter Pan" sequel was followed by another theatrical Disney sequel in 2003, which was "The Jungle Book 2". I saw that one last month and was not impressed. "Return to Never Land" and "The Jungle Book 2" are both sequels to Disney movies that were made decades earlier. I didn't have high expectations for this one after seeing its successor, but it's definitely the stronger of the two.

Wendy Darling has grown up and now has a husband named Edward, a daughter named Jane, and a younger son named Danny. It's World War II, and Edward is sent away to fight. Wendy tells her children about her experiences with Peter Pan in Never Land, and Danny loves these stories, but Jane has become skeptical. On the night before the kids are to be taken away from their London home to the English countryside, away from the air raids, the evil Captain Hook, still hungry for revenge, flies to the house with his crew on his pirate ship and abducts Jane, thinking she's Wendy! They take her back to Never Land, and she is about to be fed to a giant octopus when Peter Pan comes along and rescues her! Jane is now in the land her mother has told her about, and wants to get back home, but before she can do that, she will have to believe in magic and learn to fly! She should also beware of Captain Hook and his tricks!

This sequel is not that bad around the beginning, showing what has become of Wendy since the events of the first film, now a loving mother, and there's some good voice acting here. However, I think some parts of the film perhaps could have been a BIT more focused, such as the part where Captain Hook comes and captures Jane, which I thought was maybe a little too sudden. One thing that makes 1953's "Peter Pan" entertaining is the humour, which is often provided by Captain Hook and Mr. Smee. In this sequel, these two characters did make me smile or laugh lightly sometimes, but certainly aren't as consistent here. The Lost Boys are also supposed to provide comic relief here, but they fail, at least for adults, and their voices are noticeably different this time, not in a good way. The songs in the movie generally aren't that great, including the ones basically explaining Jane's feelings, which is unnecessary, and the song sung by the Lost Boys, entitled "So to Be One of Us". Fortunately, the animation is great, and there are some fairly exciting parts of the adventure, even if it's not as interesting as the original and could have been more detailed, so this film is not entirely bad.

I watched "The Jungle Book 2" less than three months after I last watched the 1967 version of "The Jungle Book", which the 2003 film is a sequel to. In 2007, I watched 1953's "Peter Pan" for the first time since childhood, and thought it was still very good. I haven't seen it since then, and watched "Return to Never Land" (a.k.a. "Peter Pan in Return to Never Land") over two years after that, so it may be a bit harder to compare them. Neither "Return to Never Land" nor "The Jungle Book 2" is really that popular. Both of them have disappointed many fans of their much earlier predecessors, and I'm sure many Disney fans strongly dislike both theatrical sequels, but personally, while I think neither of them lives up to the originals, this one was probably a bit better than I expected. I'm not even 100% sure if I can come up with enough reasons to justify giving it a 6/10 instead of a 7. This particular Disney sequel is probably more for kids than adults, but I know from experience that the company has made worse ones than this.

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.

Admittedly, this is one of the best sequels that Disney has done. But it does not stay in continuity with the original in only a few aspects. I.E. this one is a little bit more "cartoonish" then the original, I also don't remember anything about "Faith, Trust and Pixie dust" to fly, just happy thoughts and pixie dust. Disney did a pretty good job on keeping the voices of the characters similar to the originals, I had to double check the voice of actors of Captain Hook to make see if they did use the same actor. The movie could definitely have been made better, but then anything worth while would need fixing. My only disappointment is the cartoonish bit, but it is still one of the best sequels.

My friend and I went and saw this movie and felt like we were little again. It made us laugh and it was great to see some of our favorite characters come alive again. I hate to read about critics when they dissect the movie, all you need to know is that it's a wonderful sequel, that personally, I plan to see again. No matter what age you are you'll leave after with a smile on your face. Jane is the perfect portrayal of kids these days and what they're missing. So do yourself a huge favor and just go see it.

I went to see this film with my two grandchildren, expecting to suffer through the movie, but the colors alone were worth the price of admission. A feast for the eyes. My grandkids, on the other hand, said that they had liked both the original Peter Pan and Hook, with Dustin Hoffman, better.

A brief synopsis of this film's plot sounds, at first, to be an ideal and suitable sequel to the original and yet ....

This film isn't simply bad, it is heart breakingly terrible. The voice casting alone, above the myriad other flaws, completely ruins the film and prevents any suspension of disbelief. The main child characters sound too adult to ignore, and London in the Blitz is apparently a town in the United states judging by the accents and slang. The mindless Americanisms (schmaltzly "I love you's" called out by British troops leaving for battle in a hallmark way, thoughtless rehashing of details from the original and rushed personal development by the lead) further drag it into the mire.

The plot is predictable and pedestrian, in that you can almost see the numbers over which it was painted. Heartstring remain untugged, blood remains unstirred and yawns unstiffled.

This film contains none of J. M Barries style, appeal or themes, but instead slaps characters with the same name into a bland repeat of the actions and events he wrote, their sequel tactics writ small and emotionless. Even the youngsters at which it is aimed will sneer and loose interest long before the awful teeny band sings its squeaky cacophony over the welcome end credits!