Skip to main content

You’re not even special in your own way.

Pan
(2016)

(SPOILERS) An inexcusably wretched excrescence, and perhaps a lesson to those who think Disney makes it look easy, refashioning fairy tales for undiscerning young audiences ready and waiting to lap them up. Pan, or rather Pan: Origins, would, I think it’s safe to say, emphatically not meet with JM Barrie's approval. It’s a listless, drama-free mess, smeared with a muddy, ugly, “realist” aesthetic that someone hunched at a Hollywood editing desk presumably believe audiences can’t get enough of. Worst of all, Pan lacks any sense of wonder, magic, and most importantly, fun.


Ironically, Hanna, director Joe Wright’s last-but-one film, offered an engaging, invigorating modern fairy tale, one that didn't need to spell everything out, but had it all right there in the design and character tensions. Here, every element seems to be a reaction against something, a strategic attempt to anticipate the predominate trend yet fatally misunderstanding that formula at the expense of invention will eventually see you come a cropper.


Pan finds Warner Bros seduced by the prospect of a Harry Potter-esque, sequel-spinning, chosen-one origins tale, as a transposed Oliver Twist ragamuffin is transported from a blitz besieged orphanage to a particularly grim Neverland (wartime London is sketched out with more sense of artistry; at least there’s a degree generic nostalgia involved). Despite occupying dubious terrain to start with – the last couple of Pans haven't exactly set the world on fire, and in particular, Spielberg’s messing with the myth provoked critical derision – screenwriter Jason Fuchs has gone ahead with his own botched vision of a pre-Wendy era, when “friends began as enemies and enemies as friends”.


Perhaps he saw Black Sails, leading to a lazy speculation over what happened before in another much loved children’s piratical tale. Whatever hooked him, he’s equipped with none of the inspiration or resources to fashion anything halfway decent. Pan and Hook become friends, enslaved by Blackbeard… 


So Blackbeard is essentially in the Hook role, and Hook is essentially Han Solo. With Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara; the casting controversy pales in comparison to the general atrocity of the picture) as the Princess Leia type, and Pan as Luke. It’s all very tiresome, and worst of all tedious (at one point, Hook departs at a crucial moment, only to return in his flying ship to save the day). Digesting all that, we ought to be very afraid for Wonder Woman’s chances of being less than horrible (on which Fuchs gets sole screenwriting credit).


You might have expected Hugh Jackman, a reliable, charismatic actor, to get to grips with Hook Blackbeard, but aside from some notable facial appliances and costuming, he flourishes entirely forgettable ham. Say what you like about Hook, but Dustin Hoffman’s performance was note-perfect. And funny. Blackbeard tries to be funny, or Jackman does, but the screenplay is wit-bereft.


To be fair to Hedlund, he’s reasonable as the roguish hero, and Rooney Mara has down the stern-but-charmed monarch thing (she’s also kick-ass, because no screenwriter worthless of their salt doesn't turn every female lead into a Buffy clone), but he bears no resemblance to the kind of character – or actor – who could one day pull off the villain role (which is surely the intent, had this franchise non-starter not hit the rocks). Ezra Miller isn't quite bad, but he hasn't got what he needs for lead duties; the poor lad’s asked to take too many emotional turns, and his decidedly non-scruff, RP accent leaks through quite frequently.


Fuchs takes the paraphernalia of the characters and makes the most uninventive meal of it; Pan is the stuff of a prophecy, and wears pan pipes round his neck as a banal signpost for why he is called what he is called. Blackbeard, in the most mundane and literal grounding of the fantastic, is mining pixie dust to keep himself young.


Every choice Joe Wright makes as a director is ham-fisted, so he’s nothing if not consistent. There have been ardent critics of his acumen in the past, notably his self-conscious take on Anna Karenina, but I unreservedly liked both Pride and Prejudice and Hanna. This is enough to give anyone pause, however. His World War II renders a tiresome steampunk fantasy of spitfires attack a flying sailing ship. It’s the sort of visual that might once have been evocative, but is now commonplace, the kind of torrid concoction Steven Moffat would slaver across one of his Doctor Who Christmas specials.


There’s also a feeling that Wright has been watching Gilliam, yet completely misunderstand his genius. In particular, the ship in space, complete with constellations, and then the cartoonish neverbirds, evoke the Moon sequence from The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, but absent the humour, eccentricity, or stylistic temperament. the neverbirds are entirely out of place, not least in terms of the effects failing to marry with the visual tone (and generally, for such an expensive film, Pan’s seams show very frequently).


When Peter arrives in Neverland, we’re greeted by a now infamous rendition of Smells Like Teen Spirit, included because it seemed like a good idea to Wright at the time (we’re also treated to the Ramones’ Bliztkrieg Pop). The issue isn’t that its anachronistic, it’s that its entirely lethargic, lacking spark or brio, much like the barren – but expensively so – colour palette. John Powell’s score is entirely awful, attempting to evoke the mood of family romps of yesteryear – ironically, given the adult pop –  but instead importing an “Isn’t this a wondrous lark?” inertia that proves fatal. It really is as if Wright is trying to make a panto: a $150m panto.


There are the usual escapes and captures, and the climax is a succession of shipboard fights and giant glowing crystals, lacking a modicum of excitement. Pan must prove his chosen status, but Miller’s ill-equipped to deliver (particularly in the reunion with the ma he has no memory of, which also appears to provide the closure he surely shouldn’t have in order to decide not to grow up). Along the way, the attempts at knowing, post-modern humour are sadly to be expected, complete with allusions to what is to come. Inevitably, they further serve to divest this telling of any awe at all (“Why wouldn’t there be a secret map to a magic kingdom?”)


Is there anything good here? Kathy Burke makes a suitably gruesome nun, and a sequence where Hook fights Tinkerbell’s chosen warrior at least has a certain knockabout energy, but such morsels are few and far between. Disney need not worry that this version of Peter Pan may undermine their plans for a live-action retelling, but they maybe should be given pause that the faithful-but-expensive 2003 adaptation also failed to connect with audiences.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.