To get one thing straight, there is no pleasure taken panning this film. Being someone who has liked some of Joe Wright's previous work (especially 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Atonement' and 'Hanna'),who likes Hugh Jackman and adores the source material that 'Pan takes inspiration from.

Although it is not a film without redeeming merits, 'Pan' was hugely disappointing. It starts promisingly but then stumbles downhill once we get to Neverland and apart from the odd bright spot doesn't properly get back up again. As an origin story inspired by J.M. Barrie's magnificent story with its complex themes and rich characters, to say that it disrespects the source material is being kind to the word disrespect. But it is very underwhelming on its own merits too, while 'Anna Karenina' didn't do much for me 'Pan' is the one time where Joe Wright has come close to hitting rock bottom.

'Pan' starts off really promisingly, with a real sense of threat and false security. A lot of effort went into the production values, and there are frequent points where it does show, especially in the visually dazzling scene where the children are stolen, the whole film is exquisitely photographed, the set design is very colourful and eye-poppingly vivid with a wondrous-looking Neverland and lavish costumes apart from the ridiculously gaudy ones for the Indians. The incidental score has the right amount of whimsy and rousing energy. There is one good performance, that of Hugh Jackman who is clearly enjoying himself with glee as campy, energetic but sinister Blackbeard.

Not all the visuals work. There are so many special effects that it does start feeling too much and making the spectacle take over the story. Apart from the ships, the scene where the children are stolen and to a lesser extent the translucent mermaids, the effects are less than special, very amateurish-looking digital doubles, skeleton birds that look worse than a low budget video game from 15-20 years ago and very over-sized crocodiles that make them seem more goofy than threatening. Equally, there is a lot of spectacle, but they are very mixed when it comes to execution. Sometimes the spectacle dazzles, but at other times they're little more than nauseating kitsch. It does seem that all Wright's efforts went into the visuals and spectacle but he completely forgets telling a story and making the characters interesting, for Wright this is pretty inept.

Apart from Jackman, the rest of the cast struggle. Well actually Nonso Anoozie is pretty good, just that his screen time isn't enough to shine. Amanda Seyfried is suitably compassionate, but again very little to do. Levi Miller does do his best as Peter, he's suitably perky, has charisma and is cute as a button, but his character doesn't ever really go anywhere and he doesn't give as much charm and emotion as he should have done, Peter's trademark mischievous side is more cocky and desperate. Garrett Hedlund overacts dreadfully as a wannabe Indianna Jones/Han Solo and Brendan Fraser-esque-hero sort of Hook, constantly speaking in a way that seems to impersonate James Stewart and John Huston and very poorly, that he becomes very annoying with no foreshadowing whatsoever of the dark and complex character Hook as we know him would become. In a controversial piece of casting, Rooney Mara looks completely bored and miserable. Cara Delevigne is a pretty pallid presence though is disadvantaged by throwaway writing, and Adeel Akhtar gives a performance so stereotypical it might cause offence. None of the characters are interesting or colourful enough, although Jackman gives it everything even he can't disguise that Blackbeard's motivations and such are paper thin.

On top of the spectacle, 'Pan' also includes musical numbers. These musical numbers manage to be even more memorable than the incidental score, and that is not a good thing. Although spiritedly performed, they are not only jarringly anachronistic in style, but they are also out of place, too randomly thrown in and almost like Wright was trying to be a wannabe Baz Luhrmann, which doesn't suit Wright at all (was taken right out of the film once the characters started singing Nirvana). The script is also prone to anachronisms and often sounds completely stupid and too heavy in the cheese and schmaltz factor. There isn't really much of a story, and what there is of it is executed poorly with very little new to say, most of it not even trying to make sense to the point of being incomprehensible. There are some good ideas here but they are badly rushed through, the whole children as slaves idea was the one strand that was properly elaborated upon and had some emotional impact of some kind. Consequently, the whole point of the story is completely lost in translation, and not only was the whole Peter and Hook as friends poorly developed, plus they didn't seem believable as friends (Peter seemed as annoyed with Hook as much as those watching the film were),but there is next to no foreshadowing of them as enemies either which would have made Hook much more interesting. Most of the story is basically an excuse to include as many set pieces and musical numbers as possible, regardless of whether they were important and of good-quality or not.

Overall, a big disappointment. A few good things here and there, but this "untold" story should have stayed untold. 3/10 Bethany Cox

PAN is yet another young person's fantasy adventure flick, made on a massive Hollywood blockbuster but completely missing the magic that belongs in children's films such as these. It's another hulking and overlong CGI adventure, crazily attempting to tell of Peter Pan's back story in which Hook is a random US adventurer and ally and the big bad is a plummy Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard. Sadly, this misfiring oddity is just as shallow and irritating as Spielberg's HOOK, with misguided acting on the part of the child stars and plenty of ham ladled in from the adults. The CGI ships and scenery looks entirely fake and there's no kind of narrative consistency, the story merely bobbling along aimlessly instead.

It's WWII London. Peter (Levi Miller) was left by his mother on the doorstep of the Home for Boys and he's still waiting for her to return. Kids have been disappearing. One night, pirates come to take Peter and his friends away. Pirate leader Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) has enslaved the boys to mine Pixum, fairy dust, and looking to wipe out all fairies. Peter is made to walk the plank and discovers that he is able to fly. He escapes from Blackbeard with the help of James Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Smiegel. They are captured by Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara). Recognizing the pan necklace from his mother, she reveals that Peter's mother is Blackbeard's possession Mary. She had fallen in love with the fairy prince and he is the child of their love.

I really like the start of this movie. Peter Pan is brash, mischievous and heroic. I even like transferring the story to WWII which allows for a fun dogfight in the skies of London. Then the movie goes to Neverland and the problems start to pile up. I also like the wild colorful action extravaganza. It does get repetitive during the climatic action scene but the exuberance fits Neverland.

For some reason, the story forces Peter to turn into a self-doubting taciturn. The flying story really hurts Peter's character development. He turns into non-Peter Pan and not even the same character from the first act. Blackbeard is a black-feathered peacock. He's not scary enough. Garrett Hedlund is not flamboyant enough to be Hook. Rooney Mara is perfectly fine as an action heroine but her pale white skin is really distracting. They may as well paint her face as some kind of warpaint like the Maori war paint. Her pale skin is too old Hollywood. I can see a wild Peter Pan movie being made here but the little problems overwhelm it.