|
Directed by: Marc Forster Starring: Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie, Radha Mitchell, Dustin Hoffman IMDB summary: The movie details the experiences of 'Peter Pan' author J.M. Barrie, which lead him to write the children's classic. He got to know four children who have no father. Drawing from his time with the kids, he writes a story about children who don't want to grow up. I was somewhat disappointed by "Finding Neverland," after hearing buzz that both the film and Depp's performance were sure Oscar contenders. I wasn't too impressed with either. The script is a bit clumsy and contains too many cliche lines about love and the joy of writing and remembering the deceased in our hearts and all that. Most of the film's many lapses into fantasy come off as rather hokey instead of magical; it actually reminds me a bit of "Hook" in the way the fantasy feels so artificial and forced. While the cinematography is not completely without imagination, many of the more down-to-earth scenes are shot tediously and obviously; it was very hard for me to feel engaged with the characters when the camera seemed to be merely cataloguing their dialogue and expressions without discretion. Which is perhaps why I felt equally uninvigorated by Depp's performance, the intended centerpiece of the film. He does a great job, of course, including what sounded to me like a believable Scottish accent (I hope that's what it was supposed to be), and it's possible his performance might have glowed in a movie with the sense to know how to appreciate his work. But, as in the terrible "Secret Window," he can't break free of the lazy dialogue and dull plot devices of the movie, and it's a shame. Watching him be stifled feels like watching a world-class pianist play at a child's birthday party. It's not a terrible movie by any means; it's just not amazing. But the performances (including that of Kate Winslet, almost as sorely under-utilized as Depp) and the novelty of learning some of the background behind one of the world's best-known stories lift the film to be moderately above-average. RATING: 3 PROS: A fairly interesting story, well-acted, somewhat heartwarming CONS: Overly sentimental, cliche and shallow ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0308644/
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2004 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Caught this movie last night on a sneak preview. While it was pleasant seeing Depp (as Barrie) walk into life as a family man, gleaning elements from daily life to turn into his play "Peter Pan", this movie fell flat for me. Dustin Hoffman is sorely underused, and Johnny Depp seems to approach his role with little enthusiasm or investment. With the waste of such a terrific cast, Finding Neverland is like going to lunch at the Waldorf and ordering chicken fingers. The child actors do a serviceable job - while their dialogue is clear and adult almost to the point of unbelievability, it helps to remember that Neverland takes place on the cusp of the Edwardian era, when children were expected to act like miniature adults (only much quieter, and mostly out of sight). Plot points and character relationships are served up pre-chewed, so that the audience need not waste any valuable time thinking about them. Twee morals about the power of optimism and imagination are driven home with the subtlety of a jackhammer. If parents don't take issue with the themes of death and implied adultery, I'd recommend Finding Neverland for the 8 to 13 year old set. For adults, though, it's a mildly entertaining piece of fluff; nothing more. I'd recommend catching it when it hits weekend afternoon cable. 2 out of 5 (Edit: also, as a costume fag, this movie drove me nuts. Some of the dresses were so poorly constructed that whip-stitching across center and side seams - often used for hasty fittings - is visible in some shots. This didn't really affect the rating, though.) SmileyPonderosa fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 4, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2004 15:49
|
|
|
I fluctuated a lot between several aspects of the movie, and I'll detail them all with as much support as I can without giving huge spoilers. But overall, the movie moved me quite a bit. As a human being, and not a critic, this film touched my heart a lot. And as I walked out of the theatre, I'm not joking when I say this, but literally nearly everyone was crying, or had cried during the film. It's not a sad film, per se, but a moving one. I thought the main thing that moved the film along so wonderfully was the script. The script was chock full of content and depth, that it made a ninety minute movie seem a lot longer, yet it wasn't the drag on kind of long, so much as there's a lot to swallow everywhere. The lines, however, were very contrived in some scenes, and probably could have been written better, but overall the content of the script and story were fantastic, absolutely incredible. In counterbalance to the script, we have the performances of two highly credited hollywood stars, attempting to just breeze through their roles, and ending up with drawing rather flat, and lifeless characters. Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet have MUCH more talent than what they showcased here. Especially Johnny Depp. Half the time, I was not even sure what James Barrie's personality was supposed to be like, due to Depp's performance. I was disappointed, knowing that both actors could have done a spectacular job, and instead fell flat. As for the child actors, I felt they were pretty poor, but then in consideration I have no way of judging child acting, and they were difficult roles to play for normal healthy children. Cinematography was good. Not incredible, not ground breaking, but very solid. Memorable shots would include the dance near the beginning, and the Neverland shots, neither of which have many qualities that would justify their being memorable. They could have taken more artistic license with the film, instead they seemed to create a very much more documentary feel of the events, simply recording them as they happened, which I suppose contrasts nicely with the thematic overtures of imagination. All in all, I highly recommend this film despite my seeming disparage of it. The story is ripe for critical analysis, and just begging to be ripped apart on every level. And then at the front level of the film, it's such an amazing moving movie regarding the human heart. It just works on several levels. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2004 09:36
|
|
|
I enjoyed it a lot. It was indeed heavy at points. It also had some pure exposition where everyone bares their souls when humans in actuality never speak like that. I thought the child actors were pretty amazing. I mean sitting next to me were some tweenies on their phones and chatting away and I doubt they could even master shutting the gently caress up during a movie let alone playing a completely foreign person from another century. 4
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2004 08:37
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty slow in the beginning and it didnt start to pick up really until the last half hour, but the acting was good (especially the children) and the story was overall ok. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2004 01:48
|
|
|
I've loved Peter Pan all my life, and I love Johnny Depp, so mine is probably quite biased. I thought it was a little slow in the beginning also, but it picked up in the middle. Overall it was touching, sweet, and just drat cute. Not gonna lie, once they showed the play for the first time (those who've seen it know what the situation was) I bawled the rest of the movie. Keep in mind my bias, and I cry in everything (screw you), but it was touching. The sad ending wasn't unexpected, but made me cry too. The acting from Johnny and Kate Winslet is great, and the kids do a drat good job for being kids. If you just want to see a sweet little movie about imagination, this is it, go and have fun. If you think all this stuff about imagination and believing is stupid and childish, don't see it. Pros: Sweet, Johnny Depp, interesting fantasy Peter Pan stuff Cons: Slow in the beginning, a little childish Edit: Oh yeah, voted 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2004 01:02
|
|
|
I had been hearing that Finding Neverland was this great movie, and that Johnny Depp was great in it, and it was going to get him the Oscar for Best Actor. Now, that's not fair to go into a movie with all of that hype, but it's how I went into this one. I like Johnny Depp and still think he deserves an Oscar for Ed Wood. He's very good in this movie because there's nothing ironic about his performance. He's not winking at the camera at how much fun he's having like in Pirates of the Caribbean, nor is he perfectly depressed like in What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, nor completely innocent in Edward Scissorhands. This is Depp playing it straight, and it's interesting to see because it's him doing something kind of new, even though he's always sincere. The movie, however, isn't that outstanding. I was glad to see an end of the year Oscar contender that isn't over 2 hours long. This movie is short, concise and well paced. But, there is always the feeling that this movie is going for the heart. It clearly wants you to feel certain things and does it's best to try and get you to feel them. There's nothing wrong with that, but after a while it ditches all subtlety. It's a good movie, albeit one that "wants" to be a great one. Johnny Depp is the reason to go, and I think he's going to get a nomination. The movie otherwise, it's nothing special. 3 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 23:21
|
|
|
I went in to this movie knowing nothing about it and expecting it to be a boring "girlfriend" movie and was pleasantly surprised. The story was pretty good, it was well paced, kept my interest and had good performances from all the actors. Even the sentimental or tear-jerker scenes were done nicely and weren't overly dramatic. A small and quiet but very well done film. 4/5
Montez fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 22, 2004 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2004 05:45
|
|
|
I just got back from this, and it was great. Every movie was sold out at the theatre so I was forced to see this, and I was very impressed. When will Hollywood give Depp an award? Kate Winslet gave a great performance as well. I give Finding Neverland a 4.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2004 03:04
|
|
|
The original review sums my feelings up perfectly. This could have been an amazing film if it was done differently, and it's not the fault of any of the actors. Something just doesn't flow about it. It does have one saving grace, though, and it's the soundtrack. I think the track that plays during the commercials(instrumental version of Ben Jelen's "Come On") motivated me to see the movie more than anything. I ordered it off of Amazon as soon as I got home, so at least I gained something. 2.5, because music can only carry a movie so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 23:03
|
|
|
Finding Neverland most interesting aspect was the visual brilliance. The almost Beetlejuice incarnation of the shark was a site to behold. The lit room Barry entered to...sleep was a shock from the mundane early 1900s stage. The dancing bear, whereby the imagine started in a park to a cage to infinity was strikingly gorgeous. Certainly the stage production in the home was the most shocking, but the previous allusions to the imagination painted the grandest picture for myself. As this is a sort of extreme perspective note, much of the editing in regards to acting seemed stiff. The camera was primarily at fault, giving too much of a living room view. The actors themselves (including the children) were very believeable but their framing left much lacking. The mannerisms of the gifted crew should have been played to better. Highly enjoyable technically and dramatically. Look for the nuiances and enjoy this film a few steps below "outstanding". 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 06:39
|
|
|
This movie made me check the credits over and over again to see if Tim Burton was listed as director, or consultant or something. However the movie was directed by Marc Forster (Monster's Ball), and as mentioned follows the story of J.M. Barrie's (Depp) events leading up and shortly after his writing and production of the play 'Peter Pan'. Personally Peter Pan was one of my all time favorite children's stories, and my kids adore Peter Pan, so watching the actual account of this tale was very enjoyable to me, and the family. What I did not expect was great acting from such limited roles, from Depp, Winslett, and all the child actors. You can go on and on about Depp movies and how well the guy can act, but in my opinion, this isn't one of his superb performances, I personally liked Ed Wood/Pirates of the Carribean/Sleepy Hollow more, not to say it was bad however, I just think that more praise should be given to the kids in this movie. Usually kids in movies, well, just suck, or take it down a notch, I have to give a hats off to Freddie Highmore (looked him up on IMBD) who played Peter Dayvies in the movie, his angst felt real and I was left with a sincere admiration for his skill. Another, point of this movie I really did not expect was outlandish visuals. There are several scenes in which you delve into Barrie's imagination or his "Neverland" world, and I thought all those scenes would suddenly jar you out of the mundane and trodding British era this movie takes place in so well, you almost didn't care if the special effects were blatently cheesy in some areas. I consider this movie "brilliant" in the same way I find "Finding Nemo" brilliant, because it does nothing exceptional or incredibly original, but hits all movie marks well. Also, the movie remains a "family" movie despite hitting some serious themes throughout the movie. If you are looking for a lazy Sunday movie to watch with family, this is it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2005 16:20
|
|
|
Peter Pan is a classic tale, and a very popular one. After all, he can fly! I cannot imagine a child watching this and being completely into the movie, or even having the attention span to sit still and watch it...but I think for ages 10 and up it would do. The movie does lag in some areas, but its a charming story. Its very heartwarming, and its emotional without pushing you over the edge in terms of making you feel really sad. Its very inspiring, and those themes were portrayed nicely. Depp is really able to take on the role, and become that eccentric type of dude....however, what this role required of him, did not really take much range. I don't think this was a film focused on acting though....although the kids did a great job with their acting. Its more focused on thematic elements, and the children, and the whole wonder of "neverland". The movie is quite predictable, yet still keeps you eager to see how they will tackle the next scene. I found some weird cuts in the movie, but thats just nit picking. I enjoyed the camera work because it wasn't in a constant groove...it adapted to the story. Only part that kind of freaked me out, was a sort of Michael Jackson-ish quality to certain scenes in the film, but alas, thats just pop-media loving with my head. Pros: Fun story, heartwarming, Good child acting, entertaining for all ages. Cons: Drags at times, despite being under 2 hrs, and didn't seem like a "tough" role for Depp. Rating: 4 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2005 07:56
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie in almost every aspect, I really hope it does well in the oscars, and I look forward to seeing Highmore (Peter) in Willy WOnka. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2005 06:53
|
|
|
Very sentimental and shallow. More of a chick flick pretending to be an important drama. Everything that is good about this movie is good due to the actual Peter Pan story. Watch the British 2003 version of Peter Pan for a much better movie on the same subject. Besides, this is not a very accurate movie in fact it's pretty far from the truth. In real life, Kate Winslet's husband was still alive when Barrie started spending a lot of time with the children. Kate Winslets charachter died 7 years after Peter Pan was published. Also the fact that he was impotent and that 2 of the children committed suicide later in life means that the pedophile theory shouldn't be dismissed too easily. This wouldn't be a problem if the movie had other redeeming aspects, but once again, everything interesting and good about the movie comes out of "Peter Pan". Good acting brings it up to a 2.5 / 5 Pinkied_Brain fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jan 27, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2005 09:35
|
|
|
Flat acting, trite message, not especially interesting. I wouldn't call it dull, as I was engaged enough to keep watching, but there's really nothing special about this story. A far better movie about the imagination, also starring Kate Winslet, is Heavenly Creatures. Rating: 3
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2005 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
The movie drags along at pace of a slow snail, so don't watch it expecting action. What really struck me was the great music. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2005 00:05
|
|
