Pan looks great, has a great Soundtrack and good Action. The story is OK and the acting is find. Bad a good time watching it.

As the other review says, this movie is truly awkward and misguiding. There is no originality in the story that was expected before its release when everyone was amazed by the trailer. The story isn't very different from the original Peter Pan story, and it is even less original and entertaining. The story is simply one- dimensional, with its only message being "don't be a bad person". There is also no development of character for any of the characters, most importantly for Peter pan. The original movie, although it had imperfect visual effects, faithfully delivered its original message, showing the child Peter growing into a leader. I feel like they have tried to upscale the entire setting of the movie, but they didn't do it very carefully. There are flaws not only in the story but also in the visual effects that are just way too artificial and childish in some parts. The great cast which also raised the expectation of the audience was really useless and all the great actors were covered in awkward imitation of clichéd characters.

I found this to be a quite enjoyable family movie derived from the Peter Pan story we all love. I am not really sure why it holds a fairly mediocre rating on most rating sites. It is undeserved as far as I am concerned.The movie is a prequel which tells the story of how Peter became Peter Pan. I think the story is fairly well done and allows for both adventure and humor.The characters are pretty good although I found Peter Pan to actually be the weakest of them. Hook and Tiger Lily not to mention Blackbeard stole quite a lot of my attention. Peter Pan is not bad just a little…bland.The movie is darker and more real than other Peter Pan movies. Blackbeard is a rather nasty villain and there are certainly more danger for the good guys in this movie. People do not just get knocked down and come back, they really die.The special effects are not bad. I quite liked the pixie swarms at the end of the movie. Also, unlike what some reviewers state Peter Pan does fly in the movie. I can only assume that those who state that he does not never bothered to see the movie to the end. Do not review a movie if you cannot be bothered to finish it for Christ sake! The movie leaves a bit of a whole between the end of this story and the beginning of the traditional Peter Pan story. What happened to make Peter and Hook become enemies and what is the story between Hook and the crocodile for instance? I certainly would not mind a second movie about that.

Making a Peter Pan movie is tricky business. You need to inject the project with a heaping dose of fun (what the original is based on), but at the same time treat the material with a certain type of gravitas. In short, you need to be deadly serious but have fun at the same time. That is a concept that only the best directors (see: Steven Spielberg with "Hook") can see to fruition. Unfortunately, "Pan" lacks the focus to decide exactly what it wants to be, which in turn leads to a very large audience disconnect problem.For a basic plot summary, "Pan" begins in WWII England, where young Peter (Levi Miller) is living in a boys home after being dropped on their doorstep as an infant by his mother (Amanda Seyfried). One night, a band of mysterious, flying pirates starts snatching boys from the reformatory, and Peter is included, being taken away on a pirate ship to Neverland. There, he meets Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman), the most ruthless pirate in existence. Peter is not afraid, however, an even demonstrates an uncanny ability to fly, suggesting he may be the fulfillment of an age-old prophecy. Helping him reach that goal is Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), leader of the natives. Along the way, Peter also meets up with a fellow rebel...James Hook (Garrett Hedlund).Like I said, the biggest and most obviously-identifiable problem with "Pan" is that it just lacks a strong focus or sense of purpose. It was advertised quite heavily and mysteriously enough to attract interest, yet it is clearly a children's film from the get-go. It never takes on the gravitas needed to appeal to an older audience. Also, the film firmly sets itself in "prequel territory", but then chooses to not develop any of those elements and instead stick to pure adventure. Again, not a terrible approach, but it was as if the film-makers needed to decide exactly what they were doing instead of trying to throw a whole bunch of things in the pot and hope for an edible stew to emerge.The most unforgivable sin of "Pan", however, is that it takes the "wink and nod" approach to a Pan prequel. Though I know that the Pan canon is all about fun and childhood, it also needs to be "done with a straight face", so to speak. As soon as you start treating the story with any less the reverence it deserves, it starts to break down, and that clearly happens here. Instead of trying to actually tell a prequel story, "Pan" is only set as such so it can through in a reference to what will happen in the future here and there.About the only positive I can say about "Pan" is that it isn't an outright train wreck. I'm sure some children will enjoy it, as they will be sucked into the adventure of the piece. For any more mature audiences, though, it is pretty hollow. 1.5 stars would be my exact rating.