I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

You won't be disappointed!

Good concept, poorly executed.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

The visuals are stunning. Hugh Jackman is just great, clearly relishing his role. His performance alone makes the film worth a watch. The story is capable of dragging you in. You have to forget your Peter Pan pre-conceptions and accept that this is different. Be prepared to go with the flow.

Pan looks great, has a great Soundtrack and good Action. The story is OK and the acting is find. Bad a good time watching it.

Joe Wright's Pan is one of the most recent additions to Hollywood's long history of big-budget, highly publicized box office flops. Think Waterworld, John Carter, or Heaven's Gate. Some infamous bombs, like the ones I mentioned, failed because they are bad movies. Others, like The Lone Ranger or Cutthroat Island are victims of circumstance. That being said, I expected 2015's Pan to slip right into that former category. A superhero-style origin story for Peter Pan? There is no set of circumstances that can make that premise interesting to me. So imagine my surprise when this mega-bomb turned out to be a mostly captivating cinematic experience.Pan is the story of a young orphan (Levi Miller) living in London during World War II who is taken to a magical world called Neverland where he searches for his long-lost mother. Along for the ride is a slave named Hook (Garrett Hedlund), who for some bizarre reason is portrayed as a weird cartoon cowboy thing, and a native princess named Tiger Lilly (Rooney Mara). The rest of the plot concerns Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) and his mining of Neverland for life-giving pixie dust. Yeah, it sounds mighty stupid. The idea of creating explanations for the world of Peter Pan and Neverland reeks of Hollywood cynicism at its worst. "People like gritty reboots, right? Well what if we do that to Peter Pan?". It has 'disaster' written all over it. And yes, Pan's story is misguided and worse yet, not very interesting. The good news is, this movie is not about story. It's about atmosphere, and on that front, Pan is truly exceptional.Pan was a total surprise for me in terms of tone. I was expecting, justifiably so, a standard kiddie adventure movie. What I got was a daring, eccentric, and decidedly well-crafted piece of filmmaking. This is the farthest thing from the hacky studio garbage the story suggests it would be. What I didn't take into account was the director. Joe Wright, known for the heavy dramatic adaptations of Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, does some real filmmaking here. It is not enough to say Pan is not the hack job it could have been. There are moments are sheer brilliance in Pan. Hugh Jackman's entrance into the massive pixie dust mine, where he is greeted with a haunting rendition of Nirvanna's Smells Like Teen Spirit, or a later scene between Peter and Blackbeard in a shroud of orange sheets are, dare I say, visionary. There are many such scenes in Pan. Scenes that seem like they have no place in a "family fun" kind of film. Joe Wright was clearly not interested in doing anything safe. Pan is totally bizarre and surprisingly mature, clearly not made with children in mind. In fact, this is most certainly not a movie for small children. The clowns that snatch the orphans from their beds are guaranteed to scar even older children for life, and Jackman's Blackbeard may be more disturbing than any other movie pirate in history. Jackman's performance is over the top, but he doesn't wink his way through the role. He has monologues on death that would make Dustin Hoffman's Captain Hook fill his bloomers.Pan is a movie that lives off its visuals and music. Again, the story doesn't really matter. The pleasure of watching Pan is in seeing the strikingly imaginative visuals and hearing the mesmerizing John Powell score. Visually, Wright does more than just show pretty pictures. This is as close to a virtuoso piece of image-making that can be done with material like this. Pan is completely original in its look. Apart from the dreary opening sequences, Pan is as bright, colorful, and creative a movie as I have seen in a long time. The Neverland landscapes, the giant skeleton birds, and the multi-ethnic Natives, which caused a stupid and misguided "controversy", are unlike anything I have ever seen. From the costumes to the action scenes, Pan is a work of originality and quality in its every frame. As for Powell's score, it is a huge part of why Pan feels like it does. Without the dreamy music, Pan would merely be an imaginative, good-looking, and well-crafted flick. With it, Pan is quite simply, hypnotic. For two hours I sat there fascinated by what I was seeing and hearing, even as I rolled my eyes at what was happening.Here's the deal with Pan. Those expecting a sweet little family adventure, and that's probably a lot of people considering it's a Peter Pan movie, have every right to be shocked by what Joe Wright and company have done. This is a truly bizarre concoction. I'll credit Joe Wright for the fact that instead of repelling me with its weirdness, Pan captivated me. Watching it, I forgot about how dumb a concept Peter Pan's origin story is, I glossed over the few lame attempts to pander to a younger audience (I expect these came from the studio to hedge their bets with the kid market), and I sat there, transfixed by the film's mood. Pan surprised me in the way I dream of being surprised at the movies. What had every right to be a disastrous piece of studio drivel turned out to be a bold piece of sure-handed filmmaking. Foundationally shakey, at times visionary, but always interesting, Pan is worth a look, if only to judge it for yourself. What you will make of Pan comes down to how taken you are by the movie's atmosphere. It swept me up.83/100

I found this to be a quite enjoyable family movie derived from the Peter Pan story we all love. I am not really sure why it holds a fairly mediocre rating on most rating sites. It is undeserved as far as I am concerned.The movie is a prequel which tells the story of how Peter became Peter Pan. I think the story is fairly well done and allows for both adventure and humor.The characters are pretty good although I found Peter Pan to actually be the weakest of them. Hook and Tiger Lily not to mention Blackbeard stole quite a lot of my attention. Peter Pan is not bad just a little…bland.The movie is darker and more real than other Peter Pan movies. Blackbeard is a rather nasty villain and there are certainly more danger for the good guys in this movie. People do not just get knocked down and come back, they really die.The special effects are not bad. I quite liked the pixie swarms at the end of the movie. Also, unlike what some reviewers state Peter Pan does fly in the movie. I can only assume that those who state that he does not never bothered to see the movie to the end. Do not review a movie if you cannot be bothered to finish it for Christ sake! The movie leaves a bit of a whole between the end of this story and the beginning of the traditional Peter Pan story. What happened to make Peter and Hook become enemies and what is the story between Hook and the crocodile for instance? I certainly would not mind a second movie about that.