It's worth watching this sequel just to enjoy the old-style Disney nostalgia of the final scene when Peter says a last, sweet farewell to the grown-up Wendy. Since 1966 the Disney machine has demonstrated repeatedly that when Walt("No sequels!")Disney himself quit quality-monitoring the productions, a large part of the heart of the movies was lost. Return to Neverland, though it has some notable virtues, once again illustrates this essential loss. Some of the sequel's characters are less endearing, especially Jane, who, darkened by wartime responsibilities, is used in the contemporary you-go-girl fashion to demonstrate that girls can be as selfish, crude, and violent as boys. (She demonstrates this in part by spitting mucus on her hand for a ritual handshake!) The music as written and performed is boring and even for its time seems strangely old fashioned: cheesy, forgettable nineties pop. "Do You Believe in Magic.." is thrown in as an afterthought for nostalgia's sake. The obligatory sight-gag scenes with the Lost Boys are tedious filler(they were also a problem in the original). However, there are several things to admire in this film: It was daring to set the real-world-time as W W II London, and the art in this section works well. The Canadian and Australian Disney studios in general do a good job with art styles throughout and the blend of CGI and cel is smooth. Several critics were bothered by the loss of the crocodile, but thanks to comic animation styling, the octopus filled the part of the Hook's nemesis successfully. Some critics complained about the voice casting, but for the most part it works quite well for the main characters. Most of the classic characters, Tink, Hook, Smee are back and nicely delineated. Jane, poor girl, is less intriguing -- just used to deliver a contemporary message, while it is really Wendy and Peter who carry the old enchantment.

Back in 2002, I went to see this movie with my mom and sister. As a kid, I loved watching this movie. But now that I'm 21 years old, I hate this movie. It is never true to the original James M. Barry play, Peter Pan, nor the 1953 Disney movie of the same name.The plot focuses on Jane, Wendy's daughter, who is kidnapped by Captain Hook and his band of pirates at the height of World War II.... Wait a minute! World War II?! It looks like this movie is saying "Forget the story taking place in the 1910's, let's have this movie take place in World War II. Don't be concerned with Nazis and the bombing of London, let's focus on Jane and her adventures in Neverland!" And look how Wendy's trying to make her kids think that Captain Hook and his gang are bombing London. What's wrong with you, Wendy?! You were dignified in the original movie, why are you trying to make the kids forget... (smacks himself) okay, I'm going to wrap up this review before I have a meltdown.Pros: Corey Burton. Heck, if Hans Conreid can do a good job voicing Captain Hook, then Corey Burton can do a good job as well. Cons: Generic music, character inconsistencies, awkward animation, and a plot hole with World War II.

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 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.