Review: Syfy's 'Neverland' takes the magic out of Peter Pan
Too much explaning, not enough entertaining in prequel miniseries
Q'orianka Kilcher, Charlie Rowe and a CGI Tinkerbell in "Neverland."
Credit: Syfy
There's an old saying in showbiz that a magician never reveals his secrets. The magician obviously doesn't want to put himself out of work, but he also recognizes that, to an extent, the audience doesn't want to know how the trick works, because it's more fun on some level to accept that something magical just happened.
"Neverland," the latest Syfy re-imagining of a beloved public domain title (following 2007's "Tin Man" and 2009's "Alice," all directed by Nick Willing), isn't big on belief. In providing an origin story for Peter Pan, Captain Hook and Neverland itself, it wants you to know exactly how the magic works, how every trick is done, and why J.M. Barrie was foolish to not give everything a proper name, date and location.
It is, unsurprisingly, not the least bit fun.
Airing Sunday and Monday at 9 p.m., "Neverland" is less a miniseries than a dramatized collection of footnotes. We learn how pirates and Native Americans came to be in Neverland – learn, for that matter, exactly where and what Neverland is, in far greater detail than the old "second star to the right and straight on 'til morning." We find out what exactly the fairy dust is that lets Peter fly – not that a miniseries as leaden and serious of purpose as this would use such a phrase as "fairy dust." (Suffice it to say that the bit about thinking happy thoughts is right out.)
And mostly, we get a whole lot of dull backstory about who and what Peter (Charlie Rowe) and Captain Hook (Rhys Ifans) were before they each came to Neverland – and about the shared bond they have that's not really present in either J.M. Barrie's writing or the famous Disney animated film.
Borrowing liberally from Dickens, Willing's script posits that Peter and the Lost Boys were once part of a gang of orphan thieves in London, working under the careful supervision of former society swell and expert fencer Jimmy Hook. A magical orb accidentally brings the crew to Neverland, where some fall under the sway of a pirate ship captained by the bold Elizabeth Bonny (Anna Friel), while others wind up befriending the Indian tribe whose members include Aaya (Q'orianka Kilcher from "The New World"), better known in earlier stories as Tiger Lily. Along the way, we meet an Englishman (Charles Dance) who explains even more of the science of Neverland, as well as Tinkerbell, who here is a silver CGI fairy with the occasional voice of Keira Knightley. (If you didn't know that it was her, you would never notice it was anyone of note, especially given how sparse her dialogue is.)
There's a lot of angst, especially the more we find out about Hook's past and reasons for making Peter his protégé, but all of it feels as leaden and earthbound as all the technobabble about how Peter can fly. Even Bob Hoskins, once again playing Hook's right-hand man Smee, seems to be having less fun than he did with the role back in Steven Spielberg's "Hook," which previously seemed to be the gold standard for misunderstanding what made people enjoy the Pan story in the first place. (Anna Friel at least seems to take some pleasure from getting to dress like a pirate for a few hours, but you know Bonny's not long for the story, given where Hook has to end up.)
Some stories don't need explanation. So many times watching "Neverland," I was reminded of the Superman comics I read as a kid that were written by authors who felt like times had changed and they had a responsibility to provide elaborate, vaguely science-sounding theories for how, say, Superman could carry a large boat through the air without the laws of physics breaking the ship apart in his hands. The attempts to explain it actually made the stories seem sillier than the ones that took his powers at face value. The ship doesn't break apart because he's Superman, you know? End of discussion; now go tell a good story about the guy.
In both cases, what's intended as a way to take these familiar, beloved characters seriously actually does the opposite. It says that the things that made us care about these characters is irrelevant. It says that they can't possibly be worthy of our time unless we give a vaguely adult-sounding explanation to every fantastic thing they do.
And, as "Neverland" unfortunately shows throughout, when you spend all your time and energy explaining how the trick works, there's precious little left to entertain the audience.
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
News From Our Partners
-
'Riddick' Trailer: Vin Diesel Is What Goes Bump in the Night
'The Simpsons' Taps Kristen Wiig For Guest Arc As FBI Agent
CBS Fall 2013 Schedule: 'Mike & Molly' to 2014, More Comedy Thursday, and 'Hawaii' to Friday
-
The Telefile - TNT & TBS Upfront 2013: Reaping What Other Networks Sowed
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
The Telefile - New Girl: Wedding Do's and Don'ts
-
Hulu.com: 7 Things That Wouldn't Exist Without The Office
Larry Womack: In Defense of (the Original) James T. Kirk
'Storage Wars': Ivy Finds Giant Clam Shell
-
In Pictures: The Stars of Star Trek Into Darkness
Digital Multiplex: The Last Stand, Side Effects, and More
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Ambitious, Time-Jumping Epic Cloud Atlas
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of Arrow, CSI, and Supernatural
Grimm "The Waking Dead" Review: Dead On Arrival
CBS's 2013-2014 Season: New Nights for Person of Interest and Hawaii Five-0, More Comedy on Thursdays
-
Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher in $10M Tug of War
'Captain America: The Winter Soldier': Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie Spotted in D.C. (VIDEO)
Katie Holmes Attracts the Wrong Kind of Attention on 'Mania Days' Set
-
Tolerability Index: This week we're barely putting up with The Killing
TV Roundtable: When My Boys tested its prickly chemistry by inviting some new faces to the poker table
The Walkthrough: The New Girl showrunners on topping season two’s big kiss (Part 5 of 5)
-
'Star Trek' Baddie Benedict Cumberbatch Reveals Role's Biggest Challenge
Cannes Film Festival 2013: Our Must-See Movies
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Secret Behind The Sounds
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
Some experimenting, but mostly the same old, successful CBSWednesday, May 15, 2013
-
A badger gets loose at Cece's wedding, and Nick and Jess ponder their futureTuesday, May 14, 2013
-
Has the show solved Winston yet? What stories would she redo?Tuesday, May 14, 2013
-
Dan and Alan break down the first batch of fall schedulesTuesday, May 14, 2013
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signuphappygolucky12
December 1, 2011 at 10:21AM EST Reply to CommentWhen will sci-fi and fantasy writers realize that the very last thing you should do is explain mysterious aspects of your canon? Everytime they do we get crap like "immortals are really aliens from the planet Zeist" or worse, midichlorians.
ven Considering sci fi is Science fiction, and science is all about explanations there has to be a bit of reality, or an attempt , or else you just have fantasy. While fantasy is one of my favorite genres, sometimes explanations make things more believable. Clearly I wont be going to Middle Earth anytime soon but hell if I had the right midichlorian count I could he a jedi! Kick ass!
December 3, 2011 at 1:46AM ESTDeborah
December 1, 2011 at 12:09PM EST Reply to CommentFor a well written update of Peter Pan I'd recommend Barry and Pearson's Peter and the Starcatchers series, which is charming and full of adventure. They do explain things, but in a fun way. e.g. "Let's say the magic comes from X. This is how X got here. These are its powers and limitations. Now that we've established these rules, we'll actually pay attention to them." They create an independent universe full of likable characters, and within the story is contained the seeds of what will be Peter Pan, Barrie version, seen through a different lens.
It's exceptionally balanced between modern adventure tale and loyalty to the source. I believe the genesis was Scott's daughter interrupting his reading of the old book with a lot of whys.
ken scott
December 1, 2011 at 12:12PM EST Reply to CommentAlan why didnt you like hook. To me that was one of the better movies as a child because in a way, when most movies said that you couldnt
'have fun" once you grew up, as a child, this was saying peter can go back and enjoy life. Plus it was lifelike, not the mary martin version and had enough comedy to keep it going. Plus the food fight scene is one of the best of all time (as a kid)
Sloshkosh Yeah my wife and I were both just under the age of 10 when Hook came out, and we enjoyed it then and now. And I couldn't agree more about the food fight scene - as a kid it looked like outrageous fun, and it seems that the enjoyment from Peter Pan is exactly that.
December 1, 2011 at 12:34PM ESTWeebeysPlasticFish Agreed on the food fight. I loved that scene!
December 3, 2011 at 6:47PM ESTI definitely preferred Hook to Disney's Peter Pan when I was little. If anything, it felt more magical to me.
Rufio
December 1, 2011 at 7:26PM EST Reply to CommentI'm going to assume Alan is 100% right about this miniseries, but...
DUDE! ALAN! How can you diss Hook!?
Maybe you had to be a kid when it came out, I think Hook is kind of beloved for people in a certain age range. One of the first movies I actually recall seeing in the theater.
Hook kicks ass.
Jessamyn I think you're right, it's an age thing. I'm close to Alan's age and I feel the same way he does!
December 1, 2011 at 7:52PM ESTAlisha Hook was my favorite movie as a child, I preferred it over Peter Pan!! I was also a child when it came out, btw.
December 11, 2011 at 11:52PM ESTIrt07
December 2, 2011 at 12:13AM EST Reply to CommentI don't really agree with Alan's review. I personally am excited for this minseries, and it's explanation on how the "magic" of Neverland happens. Ever since I could remember I've loved Peter Pan. The adventure, excitement, and it's base value of never grow up. I also don't understand how you can dislike Hook, even as a little child I loved that movie. Granted when I first saw it I was depressed for a few days, due to the fact Peter Pan grew up.
My suggestion to you is quit thinking so anilitical, and enjoy a movie for what it is; a movie. Also realize that there are fans out there that want to see how that world works, and have it explained. To me that's where the true "magic" is...
Johnnish
December 2, 2011 at 8:35PM EST Reply to CommentHook must be a generational thing...it was probably an objectively "bad" movie at the time, a creative misfire by Spielberg...but you'd never know it from us kids who grew up with it and loved it. We even have a weird little spot in our hearts for Rufio.
Rufio
December 2, 2011 at 8:52PM EST Reply to Comment"Hook" isn't an age thing. I was 20 when "Hook" came out and I still think it's awesome. "Hook" is loved by anyone who still knows how to dream when they see it.
ven
December 3, 2011 at 1:35AM EST Reply to CommentI cant believe disney was even mentioned. Disney is probably one the worst criminals for twisting stories into uppity magical tales for children, even if it is nothing like the original. I like hearing tales of how the story began, I like.explanations beyond, it's just magic. I think it provides complexity to.make things interesting. So maybe things are a bit more specific and scientifical, we all know that in the end Neverland is still a magical place where lost boys never grow up and giant crocodiles chase pirates.
ven Reply to comment...besides, tinkerbell never spoke in the disney version either.
December 3, 2011 at 1:37AM ESTMarty
December 4, 2011 at 9:47AM EST Reply to CommentHook is awesome, easily one of the best movies from my childhood, and unlike a few others it holds up!!
I just watched it on Netflix Instant.
Sometimes nostalgia isn't enough to keep a childhood movie awesome, with Hook....well, Hook is just actually awesome.
Sepinwall, you're right like 95% of the time, ,but this is part of the 5% where you are absurdly wrong. (Don't be offended, 95% is a pretty damned good ranking overall.)
Tommy
December 4, 2011 at 10:48AM EST Reply to CommentFunny you bring up Superman...I kind of thought of this as the SMALLVILLE-ization of Peter Pan. The title is also the location, his future nemesis is his friend, and it sounds like they over-explain everything.
Grant Excellent analogy. Same formula applied to a different pre-existing story.
December 31, 2011 at 11:09AM ESTIan
December 4, 2011 at 1:43PM EST Reply to CommentI enjoyed Hook as a kid, but watching it now, it doesn't hold up well. Hoffman is great though.
I prefer the 2003 live-action Peter Pan myself. It wipes the floor with Hook (and probably this). Highly-underrated.
Edward9999
December 5, 2011 at 2:53AM EST Reply to CommentThis is a well made movie, but could have been an original sci-fi movie with a different title, different character names and it could have stood on its own. For example, title it "Space Pirates of Pandora". Give the characters different names like Joey and Bobby, etc. The movie is good and interesting, no need to tie it into the Barrie classic. That's just insulting to the audience.
I think they use the title and characters of the Peter Pan classic, to trick an audience interest, so it is really a marketing ploy. They did this with "Alice" and "Tin Man". The approach is to use a famous name to entice an audience into watching. It's not really a "re-imagining" -- it's a whole new story that can easily stand on its own.
Doesn't Sy-Fy believe in its own work enough to let it stand on its own? Why not? Maybe they think the audience won't care enough to watch something original?
As for "Hook", Dustin Hoffman MADE that movie work. His character was both funny and menacing. Robin Williams was good, but Hoffman walked away with it. I enjoyed the movie very much. My favorite line is the one about Baseball being such a violent sport!
Patrick
December 5, 2011 at 3:37AM EST Reply to CommentHook is ridiculously schmaltzy, and firmly in the utterly unwatchable phase of Robin Williams' career. Julia Roberts is godawful in it as well.
The Peter Pan movie from 2003 is by far the best filmed version of the story.
Mark
December 5, 2011 at 11:42PM EST Reply to CommentSome of us are analytical thinkers (i.e. engineers or scientists) and enjoy a movie where things are explained. I guess we can't all be film critics.
hannah
December 6, 2011 at 2:25AM EST Reply to Commentwhy does everyone always have to freak out? its a new twist, it's what they had an idea of how peter pan came to be. i used to ask myself all the time "how did peter pan come into neverland?" its not about revealing secrets and tricks, its about starting a whole new idea to a great foundation. I loved it, i thought this miniseries was brilliant and interesting.
nick I always thought the exact same thing. when you look at it in such a narrow perspective of coarse your gonna give it faults. I as well have always wondered what peter pans story was. I fully enjoyed it
December 6, 2011 at 5:49PM ESTVictoria Giambalvo
December 11, 2011 at 2:38PM EST Reply to CommentI'm not bothering to read all e comments below, I can guess what stand they take and I am sure that there are nice arguments to supports them. I just want to say this. I am a crazy fan of peter pan. I lived on the Disney film as a child, have sat through "Hook" and the 2003 adaptation several times, read J.M Barrie's original book along with all the books in the Peter and the Starcatchers series and Peter Pan in Scarlet. I love peter pan. So naturally when I saw the commercial for "Neverland" I got very excited. I just finished watching today, and I was greatly entertained. There are a few points where I feel the show fell, but the better parts out weighed them. I know that many people dislike the science being made a factor in this great story, but for me, a kid who has wished for Peter pan to show up at her window each night, it makes it more real. I want to believe that peter pan is flying around out there. I also find it interesting to see how it all began, to see Peter and Hook as normal people and watch them evolve into the characters we have come to love. I don't believe they took the magic out of Peter Pan, I just think that most people these days can't make the connection between magic and science, and the beauty of understanding.
What I didn't like about "Neverland" however, was that it left things open. How exactly is Peter supposed to get back to London to bring Wendy, John and Michael to Neverland if the orb is buried within the cave? Also, I didn't like how Hook was left, I would like to know how he and Starky got out of the cave, if they jumped wouldn't he have been eaten by the croc who got a nice taste of him? And how do they know the croc ate his hand? It was miles below where Peter and Hook stood. If I missed something that explained any of theism, please let me know.
I love Peter pan, and I loved "Neverland". Sometimes you just have to step back and enjoy something you love. Analyzing is the work of adults, enjoyment is that of Peter Pan.
Alisha I was very confused by how Peter would get back to Earth also, but I guess in the older versions he just flew, so I'm thinking Peter gets a new power to go back from the dust. Like possibly the power of the dust was what was in the orb in the first place. As for Hook, I just assumed he jumped and made it... I think they have a long time before the Wendy adventure and this to learn a lot of new things about Neverland. Peter had been living in Neverland for a long time before he learns to get back to Earth again. I think it all goes together.. somewhat. I didn't like Neverland very much, but I can still make it tie in with the original.
December 12, 2011 at 12:01AM ESTVictoria Giambalvo
December 11, 2011 at 2:39PM EST Reply to CommentWVfrrbrggrbbrgbgrrgrbrbrtgrite a comment...Q