"Pan" sitting at 28% on the tomatometer

I'm surprised it's that high

Looks like shite
Too much CGI
Has little to do with the original story
No one asked for a Peter Pan reboot

Not surprised.

It´s no Jurassic World.....

I haven't really been overly impressed by the previews but it might look better in 3D. The kid's acting seems a bit wooden. The "Now come on then" has got to be the worst tag lines ever. Of course, the kid really only needs to be competent if Jackman is good in his role.

I also think its weird that Tiger Lilly is being played by Rooney Mara. It's almost like they were so scared of portraying Native Americans in an offensive way they decided to just whitewash the character instead. Of course, that seems like an even bigger middle finger to Indians.

Pan is an origin in and of himself. I'd say I'm a bit interested in a Hook origin story, but not a Pan. Hook is the much more interesting character, and Peter I don't think ever changes unless he grows up. There's got to be a good backstory behind Hook though.

Dustin Hoffman's performance is still the best: LINK

quote:

---

I haven't really been overly impressed by the previews but it might look better in 3D. The kid's acting seems a bit wooden. The "Now come on then" has got to be the worst tag lines ever. Of course, the kid really only needs to be competent if Jackman is good in his role.

---

Plus the whole "Chosen One" arc has been done to the death recently. Peter Pan is simply a trickster, and isn't the one whose destined to save mankind. They've emphasized that in the previews, and I kind of find it as ridiculous as it was in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. It just doesn't call for that type of story.

Julia Roberts is my Tinker Bell

quote:

---

Warner Bros' Pan is this week's new wide release. The film is a new telling of the Peter Pan origin story from director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement), starring Hugh Jackman as the villainous Blackbeard and newcomer Levi Miller in the title role. A week ago it was reported the film's opening weekend was tracking as low as $21-22 million, worrisome numbers for a film said to be budgeted at $150 million, and I'm having a hard time going even that high with my predictions.

In an attempt to find similar titles for comparison there are plenty to choose from, one such being Disney's Oz the Great and Powerful, which opened to the tune of $79.1 million in 2013. On the opposite end of the box office spectrum there's Universal's attempt at a live-action Pan movie back in 2003, which opened with $11.1 million. Adjusted for inflation, that opening number climbs to $15.4 million, a bit less than I'm predicting for this latest incarnation.

Opening in 3,515 theaters, we're looking at a $18.4 million opening for Pan ($5,250 per theater). This is a bit higher than Tarsem Singh's Mirror Mirror opened with back in 2012, a strong comparison given the principals involved. Jackman, in this case, is akin to Julia Roberts in Mirror Mirror; Miller is the up-and-comer, a la Lily Collins; and both Wright and Singh have spent a lot of their time in smaller, more fringe areas of modern cinema. Not having seen Pan I can't speak directly to its quality, but I've heard from people I trust that it's not half-bad, and even includes a scene where a group of quarry workers sing "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Finding out what that's all about may be worth the price of admission alone. That, and Hugh Jackman's facial hair of course.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Too much CGI

---

The cool new thing to say about movies. Yes let's bring back puppets and people in rubber suits.

Are we just going to get a Peter Pan movie every 10 years? Christ...and Hook is still pretty damn good even though it's sappy, has Julia Roberts and Captain Hook was a J O O.