Featured Audience Ratings

• Michael E

  
  not worthy of being a disney sequel

• Jim C

  
  Didn't need to be made, no point to it.

• Jason S

  
  I thought it was ok. I would rather watch Hook than sit through this though. It is better than most of the straight to DVD sequels that disney always puts out though.

• James A

  
  Find me a good Disney Cartoon sequal that isnt Aladdin.

• Bradley W

  
  Didn't need to be made, no point to it.

• Michael M

  
  In this film we see complete fluke of nature. It's a modern sequel to a Disney classic that is not only watchable, but actually quite good. The story is new, and not based on any of the existing Peter Pan mythology other than the existing characters, which makes the quality of… More
  In this film we see complete fluke of nature. It's a modern sequel to a Disney classic that is not only watchable, but actually quite good. The story is new, and not based on any of the existing Peter Pan mythology other than the existing characters, which makes the quality of it quite surprising. It opens many years after the original film. Wendy has grown up, gotten married, and had two children. It's World War II during The Blitz, and Wendy's husband has been called off to war. In his teary farewell, he tells his daughter, Jane, to take care of her mother and 4-year old brother Danny. She takes this a bit to far, planning out all aspects of her life, throwing away all "childish things," and worst of all, buying her brother a practical birthday present: socks. It's odd, in the original Peter Pan we saw Wendy as a young girl behaving well beyond her years, and it annoyed me. In this sequel however, I found it believable and a good element to the plot. The reason for this probably lies in Jane being a more well developed character, and that she is given a reason for her unusual maturity. Children forced to grow up during tragic times is a strong theme for any film to touch on. I actually found the early scenes to be some of the films best, even better than much of the events in Neverland. Oh, Neverland, that's right. Should probably tell you how that place fares out in a film titled "Return to Neverland" shouldn't I? Well, after a night of bombing and Jane's declaration of the Peter Pan stories as being "poppycock," Captain Hook comes in and kidnaps Jane, mistaking her for Wendy. Apparently he's not familiar with this little process we non-Neverland inhabitants like to call "aging." Not to mention Jane looks substantially different than Wendy in her younger years, but that's not important. Point is, they kidnap her, take her in their flying pirate ship and soar through Britain (there's something I never thought I'd say) until they finally launch off towards Neverland. They get there, Hook tries to use Jane as bait to capture Peter Pan, and through a series of events she ends up with Peter and the Lost Boys. The overall theme of the movie is the importance of retaining your childhood, seen largely in the Lost Boys and Peter showing Jane how to act like a kid. It's the obvious and expected theme for a movie like this, but it works well. In some ways this was the theme to the original film, but it's a bit clearer here, which I find to be a move for the better. It's not that the theme was subtle in the original, more that it was almost invisible. We also get a touch of holding onto your childhood as you come into adulthood thrown in near the end, which was a nice touch which struck a cord with me as an adult viewer. But alas, I have not even gotten to the question everyone asks about a sequel: how was it compared to the first? Well the answer is actually really, really good. The original Peter Pan holds a nostalgic value for me, but comparing the two films outside of nostalgia there's a lot about this one that I like more than the first. The pacing feels quicker (even though it's about the same runtime as the first), the themes are more well expressed, and in a lot of ways it's just a much more beautiful movie. We really see the wonder and beauty of Neverland through some very well made flying sequences. Not to mention Hook is just as much fun as he was in the first movie. He's maniacal and evil, but he's also exceedingly hilarious! The film isn't without its problems, which can be summed up as "unnecessary changes." There are several songs by Jonatha Brooke in the film, and their pop nature just doesn't seem to work that well. It's not that they're bad songs, I enjoyed them well enough when I listened to them separately, it's just that they feel wrong in a animated Disney film. Still, they're not nearly as bad as the film's one god-awful musical segment. Seriously, it didn't even sound like a song, just shouting. There's also a change with Hook's nemesis the crocodile. What's the change? Well, he's not there. Instead there's an octopus. That's right, an octopus. It's a completely unnecessary change, since the last film ended with the crocodile still alive. Maybe the filmmakers thought an octopus would be more interesting stylistically, which in some ways is true, but it still feels blasphemous in a Peter Pan film. Everyone over the age of 3 knows Hook is terrified of a crocodile; an octopus is just silly. I recently read that Disney has put the lid on all animated sequels, only allowing them to be made if they have a good story to tell, not just to make some quick cash. Return to Neverland is a film that I think, if given a little more polish, would certainly meet their new standards. If you like the story of Peter Pan, give it a look, it's a worthy successor with a lot of respect for its source.

• Jackson W

  
  One of the many contemporary examples of the fact that making sequels to Walt's classics in the 21st century is not a good idea.

• Sunil J

  
  Actually pretty good for a Disney sequel. Some of the voicework is a little odd but whatever.

Read all 8 featured audience ratings