Not good enough for four stars, but not bad enough to receive less than two and a half.

When I heard there was a sequel to Peter Pan, I thought "Oh no, another bad sequel. *sigh*" Then I watched it. And I kinda liked it. And my liking for it grew the more I saw it.

The basic structure of the story is basic: Jane, the daughter of Wendy from the original film, is growing up too soon due to war attacks during World War II. She puts away her childish love for all things imaginary, such as fairies, Peter Pan, and the many adventures that would happen in Neverland. But by a twist of fate, Jane finds herself on a magical journey to Neverland, trapped inside a children's world, where the only way to return home is to fly home.

Yeah. That's the basic plot, no spoilers of course. The voices weren't that bad (except for the Lost Boys, which were the only annoying characters in the film; their voices were awful! Eck.), the animation was beautiful (in a very airbrushed, Disney-esque style), and the songs . . . . well, there were only two songs in the film (it would have been better with only one: the better of the two) and of course it was the Lost Boys' song. Jane's song, "I'll Try" really was the movie's crowning moment. It was a soft piece that really helped set the mood of Jane's personality in its crucial moments.

I will have to agree with Athena on the ending. Yes, that was great for us classic fans of the original.

So, in all: The plot is kind of predictable, but I enjoyed the romp. I'm sure you will too! Three stars from me.

This one presented me with a quandry. Either I sold the original short by only giving it three and half stars, or this one only deserves two and a half. It's not that it's bad - it's a pretty good Disney sequel actually, though they've done at least a couple that are better - it's just that there's got to be one star's difference in quality between the original and this sequel.

I liked the premise of the film. Wendy's daughter, forced to grow up too fast in a war-torn London (with the father naturally shoved out of the picture in the first three minutes), and being so utterly skeptical about childhood things makes her the antithesis of Wendy from the first movie. At least to begin with.

The character design is handled pleasingly, in such a way that it somehow maintains its 1950's look in subtle ways, while being obviously modern at the same time.

There aren't many songs, which is fortunate, because they're pretty bad.

Compared with most 'next generation' sequels, this one features a lot more of the original characters - in fact, if you accept that Wendy's daughter effectively stands in for Wendy, this film features virtually the whole cast of the original. Consequently there was some pressure to keep things authentic, which wasn't there in, say the sequel to 'Lady and the Tramp'. Generally speaking I'd say Disney did a good job, but not a stellar one.

This was the really telling thing for me. Early on in the movie I noted how much better looking the original was. That shouldn't happen with forty years of technology and experience to draw on. I don't think it's that they seriously stuffed up with 'Return to Neverland'. It simply highlights how beautifully realised the original was. The original was a classically animated film from one of Disney's best periods. This new one is a product. A decent one, but it lacks the original's magic and heart. Neverland somehow doesn't seem as... real, ironically, and the emotional clout isn't as strong. It's more of an adventure story.

However here is where I run into trouble, and perhaps I shouldn't even have written this particular review. My copy decided to die just after the 50 minute mark, which means I missed at the last quarter of the movie, and from what I've read, that's where the emotional paydirt is. When I eventually find a copy that works all the way through, I'll give it another viewing and see whether the closing parts of the movie bump it up to a three. I think I saw enough though to say that, for the most part, it's decent but not outstanding. I think a 2.5 or a 3.0 is fair. It may not be great, but honestly, Disney have made worse films than this which were shown in cinemas.

Okay, I admit it. I'm impressed... and it takes a good deal to impress me when I'm presented with one of Disney's dreaded sequels. Peter Pan was one of my favourites as a kid and the fear of this movie trodding on my childhood nostalgia kept me from watching it for quite some time.

Still, the animation and look of the film is good and, more importantly, the premise is solid and interesting enough to carry the entire movie. Jane, (Wendy's daughter), is growing up amidst war and that's taken much of her childhood from her. In times such as ours it's not hard to imagine what it would be like for Jane and you really feel for her as she struggles to cast off childish things--like her mother's belief in Peter Pan. It's a compelling opening for the movie and it sucked me in much more than I expected.

The plot weakens slightly from the 70s style kaleidoscope journey to Neverland onward. The antics between Captain Hook and his new foe, a giant octopus, are so deliberately reminiscent of his battle with the crocodile that I started to get some of that bad 'DTV-sequel' taste in my mouth. It felt like the writers were struggling to find stuff for Captain Hook to do while the more interesting Jane and Peter plot was going on.

Speak of which, even here Jane's desire to "grow up" becomes her ondoing. She can't fly. She can't have fun. And worst of all, she doesn't believe in fairies! Oops, bad news for Tinkerbell. Peter's reaction to Jane also gives him more dimension than I remember seeing in the first movie--he's baffled by her, furious with her and then genuinely wants to help her out.

It is the ending however that really plucks the heartstrings of us 'old school' Peter Pan fans. I'm tossing in an extra half star just for that.