Return to Never Land Reviews

  • Nov 25, 2020

    I really like this movie.

    I really like this movie.

  • Nov 21, 2020

    Um "cópia e cola" descarado do original. Mais se comparar as péssimas continuações da Disney está consegue o status de obra-prima... A animação é bem bonita, a protagonista é um pouco chata no começo mais ao longo do filme ela conquista o telespectador e sem contar aquele lindo final de quebrar o coração

    Um "cópia e cola" descarado do original. Mais se comparar as péssimas continuações da Disney está consegue o status de obra-prima... A animação é bem bonita, a protagonista é um pouco chata no começo mais ao longo do filme ela conquista o telespectador e sem contar aquele lindo final de quebrar o coração

  • Nov 10, 2020

    I'm an adult and I just cried at the end of watching this movie. This movie is so amazing in my eyes. It's extremely underrated and underappreciated. This movie has always been really special to me ever since I was a little girl. I watched this on Disney+ right after watching the original. I honestly think that this one is a lot better than the original Peter Pan. I hadn't seen this in so long, and the reason I watched it is because it popped up on the screen after watching the first Peter Pan. I am so happy it did because so many memories came rushing back. I had completely forgotten about it until that cover screen read Peter Pan: Return to Neverland and immediately I was so excited and needed to watch it. After watching the original Peter Pan I was actually disappointed. I guess it just wasn't as good as I had remembered it being, but watching Peter Pan: Return to Neverland really made up for it. I remembered every single line and every single that happened in this movie. The music is amazing, it really makes the movie. This movie has much more meaning, emotion, lessons than the original has. This movie made such an impact on me as a kid and still does to this day. I highly recommend watching this and going into it with an open mind instead of a critical mindset because it really is a gem and should be adequately appreciated. (:

    I'm an adult and I just cried at the end of watching this movie. This movie is so amazing in my eyes. It's extremely underrated and underappreciated. This movie has always been really special to me ever since I was a little girl. I watched this on Disney+ right after watching the original. I honestly think that this one is a lot better than the original Peter Pan. I hadn't seen this in so long, and the reason I watched it is because it popped up on the screen after watching the first Peter Pan. I am so happy it did because so many memories came rushing back. I had completely forgotten about it until that cover screen read Peter Pan: Return to Neverland and immediately I was so excited and needed to watch it. After watching the original Peter Pan I was actually disappointed. I guess it just wasn't as good as I had remembered it being, but watching Peter Pan: Return to Neverland really made up for it. I remembered every single line and every single that happened in this movie. The music is amazing, it really makes the movie. This movie has much more meaning, emotion, lessons than the original has. This movie made such an impact on me as a kid and still does to this day. I highly recommend watching this and going into it with an open mind instead of a critical mindset because it really is a gem and should be adequately appreciated. (:

  • Aug 31, 2020

    De alguna forma que no comprendo, es todavía mejor que la primera. 100/10

    De alguna forma que no comprendo, es todavía mejor que la primera. 100/10

  • Jul 24, 2020

    Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend unless you're just a huge Peter Pan fan and a completionist. This is in that run of unnecessary sequels Disney did to make some cheap bucks; it's (clearly) also right after they started in with digital animation. While they managed to capture Peter and the lost boys fairly well, Hook and Shmee are more like loose cartoony references to their former selves. Jane and Wendy seem to have the most detail put into their animation. The (classic) crocodile was replaced with an octopus (but still includes a suction cup version of tik-toking) by a visual director that barely understood what an octopus was. Now, being that I'm generally opposed to the octopus in general, I happen to know a few things about octopus so giving it snail-like eyes, a beak AND teeth, as well as an over-sized tongue broke me a little. The behaviors were typically way off, to include swimming with it's arms above water (they typically help with the locomotion) and some weird physics when climbing the boat. Also, we've pretty much pinpointed the inspiration for Neverland Island, which does actually include salt water crocodiles, but as it is in the Caribbean, this Giant Pacific Octopus is completely out of place. The animation style was also shifting from scene to scene, object to object. Sometimes it is very jarring, a digital cell character atop a cg rendered log, or other times it's a cg rendered background against the digital cell animation of the ship (or vice versa) that really took me out of it as it just looked so unnatural. I'll site "Titan A.E." (Fox) and "Treasure Planet" (Disney) as too different examples where it was blended much more smoothly. I actually like the premise better: Hook kidnap's Wendy's daughter, but the movie does so many weird things. Even though the original movie was officially set in the 1950s, Wendy grows at least 4-6 years to 18 to have a 12 year old daughter and a (generously) 3 year old boy, but the entire world travels backwards to WW2. Even if we retro the original setting, make Wendy....30?, that means the original occurred in 1929 at the latest, as this sequel could occur during 1945 at the latest, and I just did more math than I'm comfortable with to enjoy a movie. And this bad movie has the audacity to drop like real dilemmas in the middle: obligation to family vs trustworthiness, acceptance of others, and this crazy mechanical suggestion about how The Fey of the island work. Does belief of faeries / pixies matter, is it disbelief that actually harms them? Look, this isn't the worst thing to watch, but I honestly kind of regret my time spent on it.

    Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend unless you're just a huge Peter Pan fan and a completionist. This is in that run of unnecessary sequels Disney did to make some cheap bucks; it's (clearly) also right after they started in with digital animation. While they managed to capture Peter and the lost boys fairly well, Hook and Shmee are more like loose cartoony references to their former selves. Jane and Wendy seem to have the most detail put into their animation. The (classic) crocodile was replaced with an octopus (but still includes a suction cup version of tik-toking) by a visual director that barely understood what an octopus was. Now, being that I'm generally opposed to the octopus in general, I happen to know a few things about octopus so giving it snail-like eyes, a beak AND teeth, as well as an over-sized tongue broke me a little. The behaviors were typically way off, to include swimming with it's arms above water (they typically help with the locomotion) and some weird physics when climbing the boat. Also, we've pretty much pinpointed the inspiration for Neverland Island, which does actually include salt water crocodiles, but as it is in the Caribbean, this Giant Pacific Octopus is completely out of place. The animation style was also shifting from scene to scene, object to object. Sometimes it is very jarring, a digital cell character atop a cg rendered log, or other times it's a cg rendered background against the digital cell animation of the ship (or vice versa) that really took me out of it as it just looked so unnatural. I'll site "Titan A.E." (Fox) and "Treasure Planet" (Disney) as too different examples where it was blended much more smoothly. I actually like the premise better: Hook kidnap's Wendy's daughter, but the movie does so many weird things. Even though the original movie was officially set in the 1950s, Wendy grows at least 4-6 years to 18 to have a 12 year old daughter and a (generously) 3 year old boy, but the entire world travels backwards to WW2. Even if we retro the original setting, make Wendy....30?, that means the original occurred in 1929 at the latest, as this sequel could occur during 1945 at the latest, and I just did more math than I'm comfortable with to enjoy a movie. And this bad movie has the audacity to drop like real dilemmas in the middle: obligation to family vs trustworthiness, acceptance of others, and this crazy mechanical suggestion about how The Fey of the island work. Does belief of faeries / pixies matter, is it disbelief that actually harms them? Look, this isn't the worst thing to watch, but I honestly kind of regret my time spent on it.

  • Jul 23, 2020

    This was an ok sequel

    This was an ok sequel

  • Jul 09, 2020

    6.5/10. Animation and music weren't as good as the first, but the slapstick was better.

    6.5/10. Animation and music weren't as good as the first, but the slapstick was better.

  • Jun 28, 2020

    My 6 and 3 year old love it!

    My 6 and 3 year old love it!

  • Jun 25, 2020

    I sure loved my favorite Disney sequel as a teenage boy

    I sure loved my favorite Disney sequel as a teenage boy

  • May 18, 2020

    Though enjoyable Return to Neverland is very pointless It has no reason to exist You can have a good time if you just want to see more adventures from Peter Pan I just thought it didn't prove its point to exist other than to make money My grade: C+

    Though enjoyable Return to Neverland is very pointless It has no reason to exist You can have a good time if you just want to see more adventures from Peter Pan I just thought it didn't prove its point to exist other than to make money My grade: C+