Most critics reject Pan, and firmly: nineteen of the twenty-four reviews are negative, and the complaints repeat from one to the next. The prequel, they say, drains the whimsy from the Peter Pan story and puts nothing in its place but noise. Where praise exists it clusters around Hugh Jackman, whose Blackbeard is singled out again and again as the one thing on screen with any energy, and around Levi Miller, whom several find assured even when the film around him is not. The production design and a few staged set pieces earn grudging credit.
The reservations are broad: an overstuffed origin story, cluttered and garish CGI, bland characters, long action sequences and heavy hints at sequels. A couple of British reviews also object to Rooney Mara’s casting as Tiger Lily. The spread is wide only because of two outliers: The New Yorker calls it Joe Wright’s best film, and the Radio Times finds it an irreverent delight. Nobody else gets near them.
N
The New Yorker
8 October 2015 · Anthony Lane
90*
Lane calls Pan a cheering surprise and Joe Wright’s best film so far, praising its lively, tightly packed adventures. He singles out Hugh Jackman’s performance as the film’s true highlight.
Jones calls the prequel an irreverent delight, giving it a positive verdict. He singles out Hugh Jackman’s charismatic Blackbeard and the film’s playful mix of movie influences.
The page is identified as a review of Pan (2015), but its text is unavailable. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be verified.
The page identifies this as a review, but the paywall prevents access to the critic’s verdict. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the available text.
Loughrey finds the prequel heartless and antithetical to the spirit of Peter Pan. She praises its imaginative vibrancy but criticizes Rooney Mara’s casting as Tiger Lily and the film’s cultural appropriation.
The critic finds Pan a middling, uninvolving adventure that strips away the source material’s magic without replacing it. The visual design and costumes stand out, but weak drama, irritating performances, and poor CGI undermine the film.
Schager dismisses the film as an extravagant misfire, arguing that it drains the magic from Peter Pan’s story. He particularly criticizes its cacophonous spectacle and derivative, visually garish world.
Lemire finds the film an overstuffed, exhausting failure rather than an enchanting origin story. She faults its noisy spectacle and cluttered style for overwhelming the characters.
The critic finds the film emotionally artificial and its story weighed down by contrivances. He singles out Garrett Hedlund’s performance and some inventive staging as rare bright spots.
Freer finds Pan visually inventive but emotionally underpowered. He praises its cinematic craft and imaginative set pieces, while lamenting that its story never captures the heart.
O'Sullivan finds the film’s backstory and lavish set-pieces largely unsuccessful, with good ideas overwhelmed by bad ones. She singles out Hugh Jackman’s Bluebeard for praise, while criticizing the treatment of Tiger Lily.
Hoffman finds the prequel dull, dreadful and overburdened with backstory, with uninspired action and bland characters. He singles out one brightly lit action sequence’s striking production design as a rare visual highlight.
Ebiri finds the film a garish, generic failure whose franchise-minded premise never develops into an engaging story. He notes that its busy visuals keep things momentarily curious, but faults the underwritten characters and performances for leaving the spectacle hollow.
The critic finds the origin story unnecessary, overlong, and lacking both suspense and fun. He singles out Hugh Jackman’s lively, contradictory performance as Blackbeard as the film’s main saving grace.
Barker judges the prequel a joyless, bungled failure that strips the Peter Pan story of its whimsy. He praises Levi Miller’s assured performance and the striking painterly visuals, but says neither can overcome the film’s dourness.
Reynolds finds Pan a frustrating but intermittently exhilarating adventure, ultimately less than the sum of its parts. He praises Joe Wright’s visual flair and the inspired opening, especially the Lost Boys’ Nirvana sing-along.
Crump judges the film a conventional, soulless pastiche that drains the wonder from its source material. He singles out Hugh Jackman’s outsized performance as a rare source of energy amid the weak writing and ugly CGI.
Schuchman judges the film a gaudy, disappointing prequel that strains to set up sequels. He gives some credit to Levi Miller’s performance, but faults the glossy visuals and heavy-handed audience winks.
The critic finds the film an uneven, overstuffed origin story that sacrifices resonance for constant spectacle. They single out the child miners’ performance of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Blitzkrieg Bop” as one of its few inspired moments.
The critic finds the film disappointing, despite its imaginative approach, and says it grows tedious. They praise some remarkable visuals but fault the protagonist’s lack of charisma and the lengthy action sequences.
The critic finds Pan an expensive, remarkably boring flop. The kaleidoscopic visuals earn praise, but the clunky script and pirate singalong draw complaints.
The review strongly condemns the film as confusing and visually overblown. It singles out the weak control of the CGI-heavy spectacle and Levi Miller’s underpowered performance.
The critic finds the prequel unpleasant, uninteresting and burdened by derivative ideas. He praises Levi Miller’s engaging performance but faults the film’s garish visuals and overdone adult performances.
Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate
