Sem. Jerald M.

Jimenez

February 6, 2016

Essay and Essay Writing

Dr. Joseph Mejia

Reviewing the Critiques of the Movie Reviewer: Pan

We have an ancient prophecy that tells of a boy, a boy who would be disappeared from his
world until he was old enough to return and lead an uprising against me. A boy who could fly.
-Blackbeard
Peter Pans backstory is a mess of moviesplaining. That is the title of the article given
by John Anderson to a review on the movie Pan. The movie Pan is all about the pre-story of the
movie we know as Peter Pan. It tells about how and why Peter Pan become as Peter Pen in
Neverland. But this isnt the story youve heard before because sometimes friends begin as
enemies, and enemies begin as friends. Sometime to truly understand how things end, we must
first know how they begin.
John Anderson Criticizes the movie Pan in a short but a factual way for all who have
watched, and that includes me. As I have read his article, John Anderson criticizes the movie by
giving the good elements he had seen in the movie: a positive way of criticizing. In the first
paragraph, or article, he is giving the background, the characters-the artists, and the setting of the
movie. He also stated the gist of the story in a brief or short manner. Second star to the right,
and straight on till morning was how a pre-GPS Peter Pan got to Neverland. He also used the
terms from the movie which describes the character. For example is: The young Peter (Levi
Miller) has shown a propensity for unaccompanied air travel. This statement is very factual and
very evident in the movie.

In the last part of the article, Anderson criticized the elements of the movie: The visual
effect, the overview story, and the sound effects. There is much to be enjoyed in Wrights (Joe
Wright is the over-all director of the movie) update, including its abundant visual energy.
But the question is why the author made his title of his article Peter Pans backstory is a
mess of moviesplaining. Why mess of moviesplaining. He combined the two words: Movie and
explaining. The reason on why he entitled his article as that because the movie has some
elements that are added and maybe not necessary or not explain to the viewers. He stated at last
part of his article, Despite his (Peter Pan) brashness and bravery, hes a poignant figure a boy
who refuses to grow up but still hungers for someone (Wendy) to tell him stories. Why? We
never cared. In my perception, he some sort gave an underlying question on that statement,
Why do some things are unclear? Or what is the reason on not explaining more and giving the
stories of the other unseen characters. But, I think the director did that because maybe he will
give the continuation of that story by another movie, or maybe it gives to the viewer to think and
make a wild guess or stories to continue that part.
In the end, Anderson said, Wright erects an elaborate backstory, but like a lot of highflown mythology manufactured for motion pictures, it doesnt quite get off the ground. The
story gives the enlightenment to the movie Peter Pan, but it arises to the question of who is
Wendy? Will the director of the story answer it or the viewers will answer by making a wild
guess on it? It is a well critique given by John Anderson.

Source: Time Magazine. Vol. 186, No. 15-16 (Double Issue). October 19, 2015