Return to Never Land Reviews

Page 1 of 3
April 16, 2019
Everything about the film is dated, from plotting to animation.
November 17, 2012
Has an unappealing main character drifting through a dramatically inert script.
December 28, 2010
Pleasant but forgettable sequel to Disney classic.
November 20, 2007
There is no doubt the movie is lovely to look at; it just hasn't much substance to it or much new to say.
December 30, 2006
December 6, 2005
December 6, 2005
May 13, 2005
March 9, 2004
The first fifteen minutes are so unremittingly dreary that it plays like Disney for depressive kids. Pass the kiddies' Prozac, I say . . .
February 21, 2004
February 8, 2003
This film looks like it was produced in 1954, shelved for 48 years, and repackaged for a 2002 audience.
December 8, 2002
November 10, 2002
Mostly good work, but still weighed down by many second-rate elements.
October 15, 2002
Has all the hallmarks of a movie designed strictly for children's home video, a market so insatiable it absorbs all manner of lame entertainment, as long as 3-year-olds find it diverting.
August 23, 2002
I can only assume that Disney buried Peter Pan in Stephen King's pet sematary, because resurrected in the misbegotten Return to Never Land is one sour Fairy King.
June 13, 2002
April 16, 2002
...a lame attempt to manipulate the love that children and their parents have for a classic fairy tale character in the name of a quick buck.
March 25, 2002
A film lacking the wit, enchantment, and spark of the original -- despite being a shameless copy of it.
March 12, 2002
The scant running time -- just 64 minutes -- makes one wonder if "Peter Pan II: The Death of Tink" might have originally been planned for the home video market.
March 12, 2002
Page 1 of 3