The cast, me being a Peter Pan fan and the fact I enjoyed Tin Man and Alice were what drew me into seeing Neverland. I was also dubious though as SyFy apart from a couple of surprises to me are notorious for making cheaply made, cliché ridden and terribly acted movies.

This in mind, while it is not quite as good as Tin Man and Alice, it is like them entertaining and interesting and alongside them and The Lost Future among the best SyFy have done.

Before I start, I didn't see Neverland as an adaptation of the timeless Peter Pan story and I don't think it was intended to be, more a prequel to it.

Is Neverland perfect? No it isn't I don't think. Neverland did bring some interesting ideas mostly scientific, which had potential to bring a fresh and intriguing slant to things. However, with a series this length, I would've loved more development to some of those ideas, the folded universe idea seemed great on paper but the finished product seemed underdeveloped and unnecessary.

Another thing is that I wasn't taken with the performance of Aaya. She is beautiful, but she seemed too old, and seemed at times more awkward and bland than brave and dignified. The most disappointing asset was the last twenty minutes.

Now the first half was good, with a nice Oliver Twist-like opening and set up the story quite nicely. The second half was even better, it was more tightly paced and had a little more story. That is on the other hand until the last twenty minutes, which felt very rushed, particularly with Peter's shadow which also felt tacky and forced.

Conversely, I very much liked the costume and set design, the sets were colourful and imaginative and the costumes were true to the Edwardian era and what I imagine pirates and Indians to look like. The special effects from the more scientific elements, the fairies and the crocodiles never do look that cheap and the opening seemed to have a very meticulous atmosphere.

The music is quite good too, maybe not quite good enough for a kind of "best musical score for a television programme/mini-series" award, but it does sparkle and has a sense of adventure. The story was interesting, paced well and with clever references. The sword fights are serviceable, not looking too clumsy, the dialogue is not too clunky and has some wit and of the relationships I found Hook's and Peter's on/off relationship and that of Hook and Elizabeth Bonny the most well done.

Neverland does have a great cast, with Aaya being the only glaring exception. Charles Dance is a great presence if deserving of more to do, and while not brilliant Kiera Knightley's Tinkerbell was actually better than I anticipated.

I was taken with Charlie Rowe as Peter, I had seen him once before and didn't like him much, but his Peter is spirited and loyal with some likability, though I noticed that Peter is not as cocky or as forgetful as I am familiar with him as. The best though were Rhys Ifans' charismatic Hook, Anna Friel's foxxy, beautiful Elizabeth and Bob Hoskins's amusing Smee. I liked the depiction of the lost boys too, Slightly especially reminds me of a cuddly teddy bear and acting-wise the most promising was Curly.

Overall, something was missing, but compared to the piece of whatever it could've been it was a worthy prequel to a story that had stood the test of time for over a century and will continue to do so. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is a fairly decent prequel to "Peter Pan." The two part film spends a good amount of time in London before they go off to Neverland. The movie has adventure and comedy. It is an excellent tween film and for the young at heart. The CG background looks like something from an RPG. The plot reminded me of Avatar, but then what doesn't now a days.

I do have some complaints. What was with the Slim Shady hair-do on Tinker Bell and why don't her lips move when she talks? Q'orianka Kilcher as Aaya left much to be desired. According to the film, they are in a different galaxy at the center of the universe, but they can still see Orion, 3 stars in our galaxy. This is simply impossible. If you are going to write sc-fi fantasy, why include unimportant details that are so wrong?

The movie sets up for a sequel as Hook doesn't yet have his hook. Passable film for family night. Some violence and killing. Big Spider and croc. Naked back on Anna Friel with some innuendos. PG stuff.

I wondered just how much similarity SyFy's version of a Peter Pan prequel would have with the Dave Barry/Ridley Pearson "Peter and the Starcatchers" series, and come to find out there actually is some. A powder that has the ability to make one fly ("Starstuff"),an obsessed crocodile ("Mr. Grin"),and the names of Peter's mates -- not the first group, who returned to England at the end of the first book, but the next group: Slightly, Tootles, Curly, Nibs, and The Twins.

There's also a bit of a hat tip to Michael Scott and his "The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel" series in "Dr. Flood", who introduced himself as the Alchemyst to Queen Elizabeth the First. Of course, her majesty's Alchemyst was Dr. John Dee, who actually had nothing to do with the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone; that was Nicholas Flamel...which brings us to yet another great series of books, this time by J.K. Rowling!

By the way, I'm almost 68 years old and I still enjoy books and movies of this sort!