Peter Pan

By Bradley A. Draper

One must see this movie with an innocent, to glean the full joy of this precious childhood fantasy in film. I had that privilege with my seventeen year old Niece, Allison. Ah, to be seventeen again. Such a magical age. But I digress, back to the movie.

Every frame in this dream like story is an oil brushed painting. This film is so visually beautiful it will take your breath away. From dodging cannon balls in pink cotton candy clouds, to sailing ships in the sky, and a live golden sprite called Tinkerbell, such imagery will carry the young at heart to Never Land, forever and a day. And the score sweeps to match the brush of such sights the eye beholds.

The script was actually pretty simple, but is it? The director, P.J. Hogan, chose to follow J. M. Barrie's book, a sweet little English Victorian children's fairy tale with adult overtones, that tells the story of Pan, the boy who never grows up. This memory is in the thought of every responsible adult, in a whimsical wisp of a dream that is nostalgia.

So the story is set, the imagery is magic, the music is perfect, but always, that is the easy part. The writer, director, and most importantly, the cast must pull off the story to make it really sing. This is after all just a movie, and it is dictated that a movie should be generally profitable. I care not one wit for this, as I seek a diversion from reality, and "Peter Pan" the movie took me to childhood's comfort. This cast really works.

There is Peter Pan of course. The Pan, the tempter at the bedroom window. Jeremy Sumpter is Peter Pan. He is a daunting young man, very athletic, and he has that melting smile of the mischievous boy that seems to affect the female heart. Yet, he is still a cocky cut-throat little soldier, ready to take on Hook and his band of pirates.

Jeremy finally breaks the mold, successfully, of middle aged gamine women who had played Pan in the past, and it is refreshing for sure to see Peter the way he should really be. As a young and brash boy, with dirty feet and hands, blond tousled hair, in one hand a sword, and in the other an acorn - a kiss, for Wendy. Jeremy as Peter has some rather heartbreaking moments that affected my male heart, and like all men, I suddenly felt a longing to be a lost boy.

Wendy's father sans Captain Hook, is traditionally one in the same, and this movie rendition is no different. The disciplinarian, and forbidden male dominator, Jason Isaacs perfectly portrays Wendy's Father and Captain Hook, in a delicious dichotomy of stodgy Victorian Dad and the vile evil villain of a pirate. Hook is not to be ignored for he is a key character in this tale. Hook is bad, but we can admire him. And for one moment, Wendy wants to be a pirate and join Hook and his motley crew, as "Red Handed Jill" - ah - a great pirate name, as Hook would remark with gusto.

Olivia Williams is cast as Wendy's Mother. Olivia is one of the most beautiful women alive today. This is necessary, as she must impart a genetic note upon her daughter. Wendy is as beautiful too - just not quite grown up yet. Olivia as Mother of her kidnapped children, is heartbreaking, as night after night, she sleeps in their room, and insists the window be kept open for their return. And when they do, such joy, and Olivia's maternal instincts convince a stodgy husband to adopt the lost boys.

Then there is the fairy sprite "Tinkerbell". She is a key player. Tink is the temptress, the reason Peter Pan stays young. Yet she holds faith in her magical wings and cements the story's chapters together. Tinkerbell is portrayed by the current French coquette that wishes to be Bridgett Bardot, Ludvine Sagnier, who has been seen in French films, in various states of undress. Oh, how perfect, because Tink is a nymph, a sprite, a fairy, and has no concept of "clothing." She is perfect for this role of jealous female as a golden spiteful insect. And you will believe you can fly, if sprinkled with her pixie dust.

To round out the cast, Smee is notable as Hook's comic relief, and Dame Redgrave as Wendy's Aunt adds a necessary Victorian touch, the little girl who plays Tiger Lilly is precious, the mermaids are menacing, and Wendy's brothers with the lost boys throw in the delicious little boy gang. Hook's pirate crew is truly funny and revolting at the same time. Tictoc the croc is really big, and a very real looking digital monster. And who could forget Nana, the Newfoundland nurse dog, who's own brand of protective mischief plays a part in the film.

But it is Wendy, precious and wise Wendy, that really, is what this tale is all about. A young girl on the cusp of womanhood. That is the most tender and fragile of times. She is in love for the first time in her life, with Peter - recalcitrant at parents and teachers authority. A budding beauty that seeks the freedom that Peter Pan gives. A most complex creature this nubile young lady. She is the focus of the story of Peter Pan.

What female actress could fit the bill? Well the makers of the movie looked for someone perfect, interviewed some 300 girls, and in doing so, found the perfect Windy. Rachael Hurd-Wood is an unknown, just pre-teen English lass with lush and long light brown hair, big blue eyes, a body so demure in flannel nightgown, she has dimples and a slightly toothy grin framed by full promising red lips, and such wonderfully perfect cheekbones which mark a little girl as a future beautiful woman. Prior to Peter Pan, she only acted in school plays. She captured my heart and soul as she did Peter's.

And now, because of this part, Rachael is Windy always and forever. She takes on the roll as mother to the lost boys in a touching caretaker way. Yet she is tomboyish and brave enough to sword fight both Pan and Hook. And Wendy is the conscience of civilization. When Peter tempts her "come with me . . . we will never, never, have to worry about grownup things again." Wendy looks at him sadly and remarks "never is an awfully long time." But then Peter smiles and then Wendy smiles, and suddenly we are flying above the rooftops of London in our pajamas to Never Land. Wow! That's love. That's magic. That is the lure of Never Land.

If as a parent, you are reticent to take your child to this wonderful film, it would be as if you would have prevented said offspring from seeing "The Wizard of Oz." You must share this story with them, as it has all the whimsy of childhood magic that an adult can participate in, with, and as if, a child.

This is a wonderful film. One that adult and child can enjoy together. A true classic and I highly recommend it. Oh, and while you are at it, buy Barrie's book as well, and read it to yourself and to your children, as Peter's shadow watches over you.

This is by far the most accurate and striking adaptation of the J.M. Barrie favourite that has yet been made. Indeed it is difficult to see how it could have been better.

Whilst I'm writing here in praise of the film, I feel I must take issue with the comments of Mr John Ulmer who criticised the film for a number of reasons. I seek to defend the story of Peter Pan and in particular this version. Firstly, it was said that this version has sexual over/undertones.

Erm... well yes... any accurate portrayal of the story would have, as these subtleties are present en masse in the book, indeed more so in the book than in the film it could be argued. It is precisely this evident descent towards Wendy's loss of innocence that both disturbs and excites adult readers of the books and this is quite intentional. Children who are not of an age to appreciate this level are untouched by it but rather take delight in the glorious idea of never having to grow up but instead being allowed to play forever. Indeed the relationship between Pan and Hook is the struggle of youth to overcome the onset of age (singular human vanity and innocent childish rebellion combined). I do not believe that this film's handling of this aspect of the book was merely present in "sick adult humour", I believe that it was beautifully hinted at in a way which would stimulate adult appreciation and childish fascination in the character of Pan.

I should like to make mention of the parallel which Mr Ulmer draws between this version of Peter Pan and Jumanji (namely the use of the same actors to play the adversary and the father of the lead character) is not just a trick put in to hark back to that film. Indeed the tradition of the same actor playing the role of Mr Darling AND Hook dates back to the story's original appearance as a stage play at the turn of the century and has been carried on on most occasions since then, though I concede that the Disney version (a far less worthy and sterilised version) failed to keep this tradition up.

As for the point at which the two boys are hung upside down in their nightshirts, I thought it was funny, as did the rest of the audience in the theatre and we certainly weren't there with a red pen counting the number of bottom shots as Mr Ulmer appears to have done. This film is full of charming humour, adult overtones for the adults, childish fantasy and wonderment for those of the appropriate age. The acting is superb in all areas and I must make particular mention of both Ludivine Sagnier as a wickedly funny Tink and of course Rachel Hurd-Wood whose screen debut showed her as a previously undiscovered talent who will surely go far. All the others were excellent also.

All in all this film rekindled my love of the book which I have now re-read a number of times and makes up for all those years Pan has spent in the Disney wilderness.

Remember Betty Bronson and Ernest Torrence as both Peter Pan and Captain Hook respectively? Doubt it. That is because to even my amazement, the last time the true story of Peter Pan was done in a live action format was in 1924 starring the two above mentioned actors that while appearing in over 80 films collectively, we probably wouldn't recognize them if they walked down the street with name tags on their shirts.

Enter December 2003, and P.J. Hogan's retelling of the classic tale that hit theatres amongst all the Oscar hopefuls and faded from memory before recouping even half of its reported $100 million dollar budget. Thank God for DVD.

To have to spend time telling the true story of Peter Pan would mean that the reader of the critique was robbed of an incredible children's story about a fantasy land where kids never grew up and a pirate by the name of Hook set out on a personal crusade to avenge the hand he lost in an earlier confrontation with his nemesis, Pan.

This updated version stars a bunch of newbies or character actors that might seem familiar if unplaced at the time of your viewing. In the role of Peter Pan is Jeremy Sumpter a young child destined for stardom that first took our notice as the young Adam in Bill Paxton's Frailty. He, alongside his fairy friend known to us as ‘Tink', he travels from Neverland to England where he hovers outside a families window to hear the stories of adventure as told by the eldest daughter, Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood).

It is not long before the two become acquainted, and Wendy with her two brothers agree to leave their oppressive parentally controlled world and follow Peter and Tink back to a land where children run free and never get old. But pursued to the ruthless Hook and his pirates entourage, there are lessons to be learned, enemies to be defeated and as is ultimate in any fairy tale, a happy ending to endure.

One of the first things you will notice while watching Peter Pan is the incredible production values. Shot in Australia and New Zealand, Universal Studios spared no expense in bringing the childhood story to life. How Peter Pan chases his shadow, how the fairies all fly into their tree loft and the incredibly vibrant colors are all testament to P.J. Hogan's unique vision of telling story as it was J.M. Barrie almost 80 years earlier. Most fascinating is how the art of film flying has evolved from the blue screen laughers almost 80 years earlier. Most fascinating is how the art of film flying has evolved from the blue screen laughers as seen in the Superman franchise to its perfected state in Peter Pan. When Pan and Hook eventually fight amongst the clouds and ships masts in the climax, the shadows are just perfect, the effects are not hokey and the style allows for the actors to feel free from the restraints of the conventional wires we were accustomed to seeing in cheaper adaptations.

Sure, there was a few things that bothered me a little (the repeating 5 note musical score for one), but I was amazed how transformed I became while watching a movie that I was embarrassed that I coupled with Kill Bill Vol. 1 with my rental at the video store. A story that I had seen so many times before in so many formats (plays, animation etc.) was made fresh again by the highly entertaining energy that the cast all put into their roles.

I will admit that Peter Pan is not for everyone. The cynical will call it average and those that are still drinking heavily to try and forget Steven Spielberg's 1991 failed effort Hook, might not be over the nightmares to enjoy this jaunt.

However, with or without a family by your side, this is one of the forgotten films of 2003 that deserves a rental and an open mind.

www.gregrants.com

This is probably the best adaptation of Peter Pan and it deserves place in movie classics. The reason it had low success in theaters and it passed almost unnoticed lies not in its quality, but in fact it was released in the middle of Harry Potter mania and at the same time with the best fantasy movie of all time - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Practically nothing had real chance competing with those two.

This is classic version of Peter Pan, but really excellent one. Production is top, although not on LOTR level. Kids are incredibly cute and they played their roles really well and scenery is beautiful. Few times I thought that CGI is bit unconvincing, but I think it's done on purpose to make distinction between real world and world of fantasy. What particularly distinguishes this adaptation is the relationship between Peter and Wendy, which is elevated to a higher level than the one we are used to. Here they are not just children, but preteens who develop early stage of romantic love and even some sort of sexual tension. That deepens their relationship and adds new dimension to the story, that is not just two-dimensional fairy-tale any more, like it was in animated Disney version. Warm recommendation.

8/10

Nothing against the memorable versions featuring Betty Bronson, Bobby Driscoll, and Mary Martin - portraying James M. Barrie's boy wonder - but, this adaptation of "Peter Pan" comes closer to the spirit of the original work. For one thing, "Peter" is played by a real boy, which enables Jeremy Sumpter (as Peter) and Rachel Hurd-Wood (as Wendy) to more accurately portray Peter and Wendy as the pre-romantic couple. The novel's appealing mixture of "romance" and "adventure" is more in balance. The young characters, as children, mix "yin" and "yang". Both characters - Peter and Wendy - are important, and both possess the childlike masculine and feminine attributes.

Mr. Hogan's cast and crew present an outstanding production. Jason Isaacs' "Captain Hook" supports the engaging younger performers beautifully. And, Lynn Redgrave is a welcome addition to the lore. Although this is a relatively faithful-to-the-original adaptation, it only touches upon Mr. Barrie's powerful ending ("When Wendy Grew Up"). So, a more perfect Peter has yet to be filmed...

"Peter Pan" is about that magical part of being a child, before sexuality (or, puberty) takes over, and becomes the prime directive. It's a time when Pirates and Fairies may still be real - and the difficulty in letting that part of your life go may be recalled by adults viewing director P.J. Hogan's exciting interpretation. If you don't remember the magic, watch your children enjoy "Peter Pan" - then, you might remember…

It's second to the right, and then straight on 'till morning…

******** Peter Pan (2003) P.J. Hogan ~ Jeremy Sumpter, Rachel Hurd-Wood, Jason Isaacs