Return to Never Land (2002)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Fresh and Exciting

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Peter Pan: Return to Neverland is not as bad as you might have heard or seen it's actually a pretty good movie sequel to the 1953 Peter Pan. It takes some things from the first film and changes some other ones for example instead of the Crocodile from the first one here we have an Octopus for what it is it worth the wait. Peter Pan 2 is a good as the first film and a little bit better sure it has some issues like the humor sometimes and it's slow at times also the effects look kinda fake in 2 scenes mostly with the ship of Hook but it's still a good movie full of charm, laughs and adventure. And i think Jane was better than Wendy if you love the 1953 Original you will love the 2002 Return to Neverland.

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.

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 was much better than the original, in my opinion. It had better songs, more exciting action, better voice acting, and funnier lost boys. It was a great tribute to Peter Pan and his legacy as well as a great movie. I watched it until I could play it over in my head any time I want to. I only had 2 problems with it:1. It starts out by saying "The story always ends the same" and goes on to show an unprecedented ending.2. Captain Hook is a Tom kind of villain-not too scary. I like him as a dark figure, not as someone who has to narrowly avoid death all the time.