So it was this film that prompted me to want to start this blog in the first place. I had reservations going into the cinema as I had heard nothing but bad reports regarding this movie. The viewing totally vindicated my fears and left me feeling angry that I had paid my money to see this dribble...
Who:
Directed by Joe Wright
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Garratt Hedlund, Rooney Mara & Levi Miller
What:
Fantasy adventure
Why:
It's a prequel or more appropriately should be considered a reboot of the Peter Pan story
When:
Released 2015
Where:
It's set during World War II in London and then of course Neverland
The Case For:
So what does this film have going for it?
Well it looks good, the sets are well designed and the costumes fit well with the settings. You do get the impression that they did take into account Robin Williams' "Hook" when it came to the costumes as I felt they had some similarities, most notably with the Lost Boys and their on screen look.
The cast seem to be having fun with it too, which in itself is a blessing and a curse. Lets just say that by having fun, a hell of a lot of scenery had teeth marks in it from all the chewing! Adeel Akhtar was for me the stand out as Mr. Smee, but that is only faint praise.
That I am afraid is about all the good I can say in its favour.
The Case Against:
Where do i start with this one, i had so many issues with it.
As mentioned the scenery chewing was very OTT. Kathy Burke took her best Mr Bumble impression from Oliver Twist and added in an extra triple dose of stereotype Cockney for good measure.
Hugh Jackman is in full pantomime mode. I'm sure they named this character Blackbeard just so he could have a moustache to twirl. And who calls a character Blackbeard when all he has for facial hair is said moustache and a goatee?
I'm assuming the production meeting went something like this "So we have to have pirates in here so lets look up some famous pirate names". Nobody thought to then further investigate just why the real life Blackbeard (Edward Teach) was so named as they would have realised that it was his vast beard and intimidating image that put the fear of god into the crew members of the ships he was plundering.
Instead what we get here is a pampered dandy who looks like he hasn't spent a day at sea in his life, let alone gone a pirating.
Captain James Hook, oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
So we are supposed to believe that it is just a massive case of pure coincidence that a man named Hook would later in life lose one of his hands and replace it with his namesake to bring actual meaning to his moniker.
Why on earth was it decided that Hook should be some kind of Indiana Jones wannabe?
I seriously thought the wrong actor must have wondered onto the set and thought, "Stuff it, I'm just going to go with it and see if anyone notices". I would love to see the Indiana Jones film which has the real Captain Hook running away from rolling boulders and coming up against Thuggee cultists and Nazi's.
It was such a huge veer away from the two previous screen portrayals of Hook that I struggled to get my head around this interpretation.
And that brings me to the crux of the problem with this film.
Everyone involved chose to ignore what had gone before it and do their own version. Now that's fine if the previous efforts had been rubbish and ignored by the viewing public. But the animated Peter Pan is considered a Disney classic. Hook might have its problems and I for one am not a fan of the film, but it does have its supporters.
Hook did follow on from Disney's Peter Pan and chose to continue the narrative and have the characters stick to what had gone before it.
Dustin Hoffman's look is as close to the animated look as they could have got and with this film they chose to totally ignore that iconic costume, profile with that protruding nose and most importantly - HOOK! Its just a bizarre decision to not give the character the actual hook that gives him his name straight from the start.
The Disney Peter Pan is set some time around 1900, roughly when the original material was written by J.M. Barrie; the first appearance of the character coming in 1902's The Little White Bird novel. So Peter Pan roughly adheres to the time frame as set out by the author.
Hook is set in more modern times. It cleverly gets around Peter not ageing as much by having Wendy Darling appearing as the grandmother of Peter's wife Moira. This storyline is believable and once Wendy explains that Peter decided to stay in London but lost his memory of Neverland in the process of adapting to his new life, it gains more credibility.
Pan is supposed to be a prequel to all that has gone before it, starting as an origin story. Therefore I would have expected it to be set sometime in the late 1800's. But no, instead they choose to set the film during World War II. Why do we ask, so they can have a flying pirate ship maybe for a memorable set piece?
There is no chronological sense in this move whatsoever and it was the thing that most irritated me about the whole premise of the film. To not show any respect for what has gone before it, be it the previous films or more criminally the original source material in the books that inspired those movies is just wrong.
It might as well have just pinched elements of Peter Pan by having a boy who can fly and be its own completely original story. There was nothing else to indicate that this was a Peter Pan story, other than the character names, so why not do it as an original story.
My feeling is that its because Hollywood wants to use recognisable products that have gone before to try and tap into the existing fan base. They don't want to risk not gaining an audience with an original idea because there is that lack of familiarity.
Lets finish with one final criticism.
The other notable part of the film that had me cringing in my seat was the terrible misstep of having a musical number just as Peter enters Neverland. Who on earth allowed them to bastardise Smells Like Teen Spirit in such an awful rendition, which was totally out of place in comparison with the rest of the film. Hugh Jackman probably had it in his contract that because this film was so much of a pantomime that he be allowed to show off his vocal talents. But boy what a complete travesty that move was!
Verdict:
This film deserves to spend a week on the rack before being taken out, hung drawn and quartered.
No Mercy!
Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(2015_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3332064/
No comments:
Post a Comment