Neverland (I) (2003) User Reviews

Not THAT bad!

[danbagel · 6/10 · 20 January 2005]

This movie never promises to be anything that it isn't. The description basically tells you that it's low budget and shot on DV tape. If you were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings - then yes, you will be very disappointed.

If you go into it knowing that it's an independent film that was done on a minimum budget by someone just getting started in the business, then it's really not that bad.

Being someone who is just starting out in the world of movie making, I could appreciate the effort and work put into it.

So if you like weird, cult, independent, low-budget movies (and who doesn't?), then check this movie out. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best), I'd give it about a 6 or 7. My friend thought it was totally weird and didn't like it at all.

Interesting movie for those with patience

[mrlizard-3 · 6/10 · 17 February 2006]

As many others have commented,this movie lacks as much as it has to offer. The cinematography is poor and the editing is worse. Long transitional scenes seem to have been added just get get characters from one place to another while padding the screen time.Many have mentioned that t he acting was poor, but Wil Wheaton is a fairly good actor and he simply doesn't shine, here. So I think I would blame it on the direction. The story is the strongest reason to see this. It holds pretty close to the original Peter Pan, up to a point. It has a certain "What if Peter Pan Took Place in the Real World" point of view but still seems so bizarre, since the lost boys act so immature even though they've grown up physically. These guys are in their 20's and still act like little boys (Can Wendy be our mother?. And most of them look a bit too much like male models, which I found distracting. However, the bizzarreness is what attracted me to this film. That and the fact that I got to see Wil Wheaton acting out a role far from Wesley Crusher or the mentally ill homeless guy on CSI. This one's wort a look-see.. if you appreciate low-budget, badly acted, badly photographed movies with a twist.

Exceptional idea that simply wasn't executed well enough.

[Zadanian · 4/10 · 22 May 2005]

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.

Great Idea!! What happened???

[justicebot1975 · 1/10 · 30 October 2004]

I'll skip the plot summary, since we all know the story, don't we?

A great idea. I was excited as soon as I held the box.

Then the film started. A long, long, agonizingly long title sequence (consisting of someone taking random, wildly unplanned shots of a neon sign spelling the film's title) begs the mental image of the director saying "yeah, but when we cut it together it will look great".

Then we see the actors. Oh...my...GOD!!! Patronize your local high school's drama club, it'll be on that level. Peter tries, as does Wendy, to act, and the effort is admirable. They at least believe what they are doing. That doesn't make them talented unfortunately.

The show screeches to a halt at Neverland, with Captain Hook coming off like Uncle Ernie from Tommy, and a poorly written and executed musical number by Tiger Lily.

You have to lay this one at the director's feet. He BLEW a great idea.

I don't mind digital video, its a great way to introduce new talent who can't find the budgets other filmmakers can. But this? Blech. So many shots have poorly chosen color schemes meant to pass for style, and often it looks like someone smudged grit on the lens before rolling the tape.

Thank God Tinkerbell knows what she's doing as an actress. The bright spot in this wonderfully conceived but horribly executed mess. And Hook channelled Vincent Price to some effect, but somebody decided to mangle his performance in the editing room.

Having an ethnically and sexually diverse cast does NOT equal social commentary. I only say that, because the film does give off a "superior" air, indicating it was meant to mean something. Instead, it merely repeats the themes of the original text.

I do mind paying the rental premium for what comes off as someone's high school video project.

In short, great idea, horrid acting (save for Tink), awfully self conscious style, nice sets, terrible writing, inconsistent tone, some decent music.

The good things cannot overcome the three biggest flaws...horrid acting, mind crashingly bad acting (save one), and ridiculously amateurish direction.

2 out of 10

A painful waste of time...

[rottenrhyma · 1/10 · 23 November 2004]

First off - save yourself the time and don't watch this movie - it's painful. If you are on the fence, and need to know why it's awful, and aren't afraid of a few spoilers, then read on.

That being said, This film attempts to create a modern-day version of the original Peter Pan, with some very bizarre substitutions:

• a theme park called Neverland instead of an imaginary Neverland

• Janitors in exchange for Pirates

• A Janitor obsessed with S&M in exchange for Hook

• drug-obsessed run-away kids living in a secret room in the theme park instead of, well, normal kids living in a fairy land

• cocaine instead of pixie dust ... you get the idea ...

The film attempts to draw strange, inexplicable parallels between the story of Peter Pan, and the lives of a number of multi-cultural children who were adopted by horrible parents, and who eventually meet another group of horribly misguided kids who also hate their parents, but have an escape. This escape is what they refer to as "Neverland", which is actually a theme park, where they do all sorts of drugs and just have fun. I wish there was more to it, but that's pretty much it.

I think the deeper meaning that was *attempted* by this film was to ultimately produce a grandiose "Ah-HA!" for teenagers and people who have major issues with their parents – the message being that 'they're not as bad as you think, and neither is being grown up'. It tried to accomplish this goal by showing how screwed up the lives of these delusional run-away kids really are. Unfortunately, as the ancient proverb goes, the path to failure is filled with good intentions. Such is the case with Neverland - a movie that is about as incoherent as it is shallow, slow-moving, and just plain boring.

If you liked Lost in Translation, you'll love this movie. Then again, if you liked lost in Translation, there's something seriously wrong with you. On the strength of the IMDb and Ebert and Roeper ratings and reviews, I watched both Lost in Translation, and Neverland, and in both cases I found myself 20 minutes in saying "man, I cannot wait until these bizarre plot lines and totally random scenes start making sense" and in both cases, they simply never did, continuing on their merry path to obscurity.

Humorously, I actually thought this movie until just recently, was actually called "Finding Neverland" and didn't realize that it was in fact, a year-old movie called "Neverland". Only just now did I realize that Johnny Depp was supposed to be in "Finding Neverland" and that of course he was not in what I just watched, so I searched for the term "Neverland" and found this. I read the plot outline, and sure enough, here it is.

I think one scene in the movie really sums everything up nicely - it was about a 3-minute series of shaky, blurry, bizarre camera angles watching a car drive around - at which point, I nearly turned it off, but I just couldn't do it - I had to find out if it would ever begin to make sense, and it just..never..did...

grand experiment that falls flat

[mythopoeic · 14 February 2004]

I agree with the other commentary on this movie. This movie is interesting in that it takes an otherwise "children's story" and sets in a hyper-reality, very much adult, setting. This allows the more adult aspects of the story to be explored. Adult issues such as drug abuse, sexual "norm" deviance, and avoidance of responsibility take center stage in this update.

While a grand experiment, this movie ultimately failed for me on several levels:

The cast of characters is far too large to allow for meaningful character development for ANY of the characters. The most prominent victims of this flaw are the lost boys. There are too many of them, and as such their decision to follow Wendy and leave Neverland seems more of a plot device than a real decision on their part, as is Peter's ultimate decision to return to Neverland alone.

The Darling kids' decision to leave their home in the first place home was another problematic issue for me. Sure, they try to explain it during Wendy's "story" to the Lost Boys in Tiger Lily's dressing room, but as is the case with literary writing, showing is always better than telling. And the short sequence with the parents in the beginning is not enough to show me the kids' rationale. Wendy telling it to me just didn't cut it.

And then there's the acting. Oh, the acting. "Bad acting" is being kind. It's a shame that an experiment of this caliber couldn't gain major funding and established actors, because the premise is fabulous. I find it very interesting that through most of the movie, the acting is horrendous from each member of the cast; however, the actors playing Wendy and Peter show their real chops during the last scene they play together. They both moved me incredibly during this final scene, and the fact that they were able to do so clearly demonstrates to me that the problem (at least for these two) was not the acting, it was the writing and direction. Both actors seem promising during this final scene, languishing in otherwise poor material. This movie felt like the writer began with the final scene and worked backward.

Overall, I love the premise. I related to Wendy's concern for the drug-addled man-boy refusing to grow up because, yeah, I've dated him, and she completely conveyed the frustration in trying to break through the haze and reach him intellectually. The DVD is watchable, although grainy in parts and particularly blurred during the pirate dungeon scene. Watchable once.

do not rent do not buy

[imyjr · 1/10 · 10 January 2004]

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.

Brilliant story but not taken far enough

[jasmineladjevardi · 7/10 · 13 May 2005]

Since a young age, I have been in love with the story of Peter Pan. This version of the story is no exception. This movie had the potential to be brilliant, but it does not deliver. I loved the disenfranchised Darling children, but their characters could have been more developed. If the movie had been longer, it may have done this properly. There were so many loose ends that were never explained, such as Tinkerbell's child and who exactly was Wendy's boyfriend and what did he have to do with the story? The acting was horrible in the beginning, but progressively got better, tanks in large part to the actors who played Tinkerbell and Peter Pan. The plot is so wonderful and the ideas and cinematography are enchanting, but if only the director took a little more time on the details, instead of just chain of random events from the book, then this movie could have been on of my favorites. So for shear creativity and story, I gave this movie a 7. Plus the guy who plays Peter is uber dreamy.

Like reheated leftovers of a very bland meal

[jfgibson73 · 4/10 · 26 February 2010]

The strength of this movie is the story, which is now over 100 years old. Neverland uses many lines of dialog and situations from the original Peter Pan story, but tries to put them in a modern context. Peter Pan now hangs out in a theme park, and Captain Hook is a custodian trying to kick him out. Tinkerbell is a drug addict who follows him around, and Wendy and her brothers are adopted teens who can't wait to get away from their spoiled parents.

The acting was poor. The visuals and editing are amateurish. There were some especially silly montages that really weren't well timed at all, such as the one where the camera tries to focus on hook the same way Metallica's "Enter Sandman" video studied the wrinkled old man. The emotion that it evoked for me was a weary, defeated feeling.

If this was an attempt at commentary, it wasn't very effective. The actress who plays Wendy has a lot of scenes where she gets emotional, and the sentiment feels so false that the best word I can use to describe it is sappy. Same with Peter--his character tries to be very earnest, but his acting is so silly that no one can really care what happens to him. Hook was a bit more fun, as he got to play to the rafters, and Tink was likable. No one else really stood out, except when delivering lines as poorly as possible.

Overall, a very amateurish effort with a depressing tone.

Worst Peter Pan version Ever

[youyou08 · 1/10 · 10 January 2005]

This is the worst version and interpretation of peter pan I have ever seen. And believe me I have seen a lot of movies. Don't rent it, don't see it, don't go and watch it, it is simply a big waste of time. I could not see it though the lines were poor the acting is terrible and the score is weak and lame. Why do a movie like this? I wonder hoe the director came up with is idea. No really how could you expect an artist butcher a nice story like Peter Pan. Well I confused it with an other movie back to never land at first with but it was a total disaster and waste. To recapitulate it all it is a big fat waist of money and resources.

I thought I'd seen everything...

[xswimcoachx · 10/10 · 15 November 2004]

It takes a lot to surprise me, but I was shocked by this. This has to be one of the most subversive things I've ever seen... and not like a porn version of "Alice in Wonderland" or something like that. This low-budget movie very subtly and gradually melted away the Peter Pan mythology and rebuilt it in the most disturbing way. It was as if the filmmakers took the story of Peter Pan and forced it to grow up, without changing its core. A masterful concept that was handled extraordinarily well despite some obvious budget limitations. My wife cried at the end of this film and couldn't stop. While I found it challenging on an intellectual level, I didn't have the emotional response that she did. When I asked her why she found it so sad she told me that when she was young she would always dream that Peter would show up and fly her away to Neverland, and as she got older she of course had the "prince charming" fantasy. She told me that watching this movie was like the symbolic nail in the coffin of that dream. So not only did this movie freak me out, it made my marriage more depressing. In any case, it was powerful, entertaining, and thought provoking... and very captivating. So when someone says they hate this movie and they want to throw the DVD against the wall, I can understand where they are coming from.

Neverland delivers a strong, sometimes harshly realistic message, but we can't hate the messenger now, can we? Neverland gets an 8.

Amazing study in social satire with a classic spin.

[chrismoua2000 · 9/10 · 20 January 2004]

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.

Excellent tale of broken youth

[lisarenee3505 · 8/10 · 23 June 2003]

Amazing retelling of J.M.Barre's classic tale of a boy who didn't want to grow up, and a girl who was growing up too quickly. Peter is a bipolar juvenille deliquent, Tink is an alcoholic "fairy dust" addict with Borderline Personality disorder, and Neverland is a sad, run-down amusement park, with Hook as it's "Director of Guest Services", which is a fancy title for Head Janitor.

Director Damion Dietz's vision was to "un-Dinsnefy" Barre's original tale, which is quite bizzare and disturbing, unlike the Disney version. He did an excellent job. You should definately try to catch this film at a festival or art-house, if for no other reason than the excellent performances of Kari Whalgren as Tinkerbell and Gary Kelly as Hook.

Interesting film to say the least...

[lorddragonbait · 1 December 2004]

I will admit that I purchased this movie just for the fact that Wil Wheaton was in it. Having seen it however I do enjoy it and think it is well written. It is definitely not a family version of the film, but a good interpritation. I truly enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone who has a very weird sense of humor and reality. I had the chance also to speak with Wil Wheaton about it not too long ago and even he said he was really happy and proud of it. It is definitely a different interpretation of the film, dealing with drugged up fairies, teenage lost boys, and drag queen Tiger Lilly. I do however warn that it does have strong language.

The lost boys and troubled leaders

[ouivalerie · 10/10 · 19 May 2007]

This movie is so REAL, and so ACCURATE. I met a situation in life that parallels it EXACTLY. If the writers only knew it's as if spirits take over their bodies and make them duplicate, right down to the dude who is Peter who smokes Clove cigarettes and dropped out of everything and worked for the Carnival before he went to jail and I even know Hook and all about his secret life, Hook (came from a divorce, the dad died, he was adopted by a wealthy man) is so pompous because he likes to play rich and lost a lot being wrong, and he works hard at good things and gets nowhere because he's bad in some areas, and doesn't know it, and Peter... he only likes weird chicks, and drugs and there's a few more women than tinkerbelle but this is only a movie! And well it's more than that, it's one hell of a [e-mail]

Good humor

[Leo_Royal · 8 August 2004]

Wendy: Peter, are you gay? Peter: Hell no! I'm pansexual.

At point I was laughing my but off! I new from the start that it was a low budget film, but it sparked my interest about Peter Pan and it bring the story up to date; it makes it almost more believable.

A lot a freaky turns, like Hook a janitor? And he is into doing kinky things with his "Hook" and bad boys.

OK its hard to explain I guess, but you do get what you except and a bit more.

SO if you are a big Peter Pan fan like myself, bunch of my crazy friends, we will enjoy. Neverland is more of a have to see film and don not truly believe the comments of others. It s a film you must see to judge. Oh and one more question . . . Do you believe in fairies?

STRANGELY SEXY, BEAUTIFUL, INSIGHTFUL

[stephanie-98 · 10/10 · 8 November 2004]

I was completely blown away by this movie after having stumbled upon it by accident. This is not the Johnny Depp movie about J.M. Barrie, and it is not a big-budget Hollywood movie, but it is an amazing, strangely sexy/beautiful, incredibly insightful take on PETER PAN. If you are a PETER PAN fan, if you are interested in modern, edgy interpretations of classics like Baz Luhrman's ROMEO AND JULIET, or if you are into extremely cool and stylish indie cinema, this film is a must have for your collection. Beautifully directed. Incredible symbolism, especially in costuming and settings. I was so impressed with the script (stayed very true to the novel), the metaphorical genius employed, and the talented cast members. This film really stands out among other low-budget films. There were a few downfalls to it, as with any movie (i.e. the drug induced color and light sequences momentarily detract attention from the point of the movie). On the whole, I absolutely recommend this movie, especially to those familiar with the original story of Peter Pan. It's dark and original, and manages a whole new take on the well-known classic while staying true to the story JM Barrie wanted to tell.

I'm Hooked!

[dougprinz · 18 January 2004]

An ambitious and smart modernization of the oft-told Peter Pan tale. I'm convinced this is almost what Baz Luhrmann would do if he got his hands on the material. (Of course he would have 1000 times the budget!)

Some standout performances and a great soundtrack make up for the choppy and at times migraine-inducing editing.

Overall, highly watchable and addictive. I'm hoping someone at the WB or HBO sees it and requests a pilot for a series! Looking forward to more magic from the talents involved.

Loved it!

[Psy-Ko · 9/10 · 9 November 2007]

I usually don't like Indy films, I usually don't like updated fairy tales. I'm not a film critic and unlike a lot of people on IMDb I don't pretend to be one. I'm just average American public and I loved this film! I discovered it last night and watched it and was enthralled. It's amazing to think that maybe this was what Peter Pan was about when you were a little kid and you just didn't understand it then.

I watched it again tonight, it was just as good. I've decided I need to have this in my collection! I really want to catch a good buzz and watch it again and see what I get out of it. There's just certain movies that are better with a buzz and I think this may be one of them. If so my rating will go from a 9 to a 10!

good movie with a creative storyline

[aly23 · 10/10 · 22 June 2006]

i now forget why I'm have been searching every store/rental place for this on DVD since spring of 2005 but i glad i finally found it.

the storyline is very creative how it took original peter pan story into a dark tale about growing up. the acting was OK. Rick sparks who played peter pan was the only good actor in this movie. then the girl who played tink was next down. The rest except the girl who played Wendy were not as good. i hope rick start getting more movie roles because he is hot.

i think think the people who will see this are people who are into the stories peter pan and people who will any movie just because it different.

officially i rate this a 9.5 because .5 of it was the bad acting of the lost boys.

i think everybody should watch this movie at least once, i bet whoever watches this wont think of the novel/Disney movie/newest movie of peter pan the same why as they did before because i know i wont

The best version of Peter Pan EVER!

[chrisbrosnikoff · 10/10 · 10 November 2004]

This movie is by far the best version of Peter Pan that has ever been made. The story has been told over and over again but never with this originality or style. It seems that most people love it or hate it and I think that the people who hate it don't understand why the dialogue and the performances are the way they are. This movie was sick. The fact that Tinkerbell is a Gwen Stefani/hoochie fairy dust "dealer" is genius and the Tiger Lily song is unbelievable. I was on the floor amazed by this movie. I rented this movie to watch with my girlfriend and her little brother, but we had to send the little brother into his room to play with his Playstation. My girlfriend and I still quote this movie.

Good Low Budget Independent

[brendaradogna · 10/10 · 10 November 2004]

I am not a fan of a lot of low budget independent films, but I really liked this one. I think it could have been better if the budget was bigger, but I think the filmmakers did a great job regardless. It had a very involving mood and engaging performances. My friend who watched it with me complained that it was slow, but after a while she was really into it just like I was. THe cast is beautiful, the writing is fantastic (especially the way the original story is tied in to the new setting), and the music is great. I thought the movie was very modern and cutting edge and I would like to see more movies that offer a new and original point of view like this one did. (I ended up buying the movie on Amazon, so I rate this one pretty high - 9 out of 10.)

Tinkerbell Has A Potty Mouth And Tiger Lilly A big Full Moon

[johnstonjames · 10/10 · 5 February 2010]

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.