Peter Pan

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

Tradition be damned! I HATED the Mary Martin, Sandy Duncan, Cathy Rigby productions of Peter Pan! There, I've said it. I realize I'm in the minority on this point, but I have NEVER been able to accept the idea of some actress dressing up in silly green tights, singing equally silly songs, while pretending to be a prepubescent boy pretending to fly on silly piano wires. I fully admit that it's a pet peeve of mine and not meant to denigrate those who have delighted in this tradition. As a long time lover of the J.M. Barrie stories and play, all I can say is that P.J. Hogan's "Peter Pan" is the Pan movie I have waited my entire life for. It is simply a glorious retelling of the J.M. Barrie tale. After Spielberg's dreadful 1991 abortion, "Hook" I was convinced that the story had been buried forever as far as big budget film-making was concerned. I thought all there would be was the 1953 Disney animated film, which unfortunately is more Disney than Barrie or worse, that I was condemned to a lifetime of endless reruns of Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard. Boy, was I wrong. Taking its visual cue from the wondrous illustrations of Maxfield Parrish, Edmund Dulac, N.C. Wyeth and Arthur Rackham, this new film recreates the storybook Never Land on a level that has never been achieved before, nor will ever be again.

But the film is not simply a special-effects fest a la "Star Wars". The effects, dazzling as they are, are just the icing on the cake. Hogan understands it is the characters, and our need to care for them, that must carry the film. And this film has a wonderful cast. Jeremy Sumpter is a great Peter Pan. Gifted with a luminous smile and physicality, he captures all the radiant cockiness, the self-delighted impishness of undefeated, indefatigable youth. One almost feels sorry for Hook for having such an adversary. Rachel Hurd-Wood in a very impressive film debut does a marvelous job as Wendy, the young daughter of the Darlings now at the beginning of young womanhood. Hurd-Wood is both child and woman, and she and Sumpter have very warm and charming screen chemistry in their scenes together, capturing the potentially dangerous under-current of adolescent sensuality without ever hitting you over the head with it, or becoming too cloy. Olivia Williams as Mrs. Darling isn't given much to do, beyond being the mother everyone wishes they had, but she does that very well, and she serves the story beautifully. And she is absolutely gorgeous. In the double role of Mr. Darling/Captain Hook, Jason Isaacs finally comes into his own as the cinema's most perfidious villain since Basil Rathbone crossed swords with Errol Flynn. Isaacs is simply magnificent in a role he was born to play. With a sneer and a swash of his buckle he obliterates forever the image of Hook as a buffoon, the mere butt of Peter's jokes. This is a dangerous, deadly Hook, a figure of Satanic dignity, who one can believe might actually best Peter some dark, unlucky night. Lynn Redgrave plays the role of Aunt Millicent, a character created for the film and not in any of the Peter Pan literature. While the new part doesn't really add anything to the story, it doesn't really take anything away either. And Redgrave is always a joy to watch. Finally the performance of the great Richard Briers should be noted. As Smee he steals every scene he is in. It is a delightful comic turn.

The one performance I questioned was Ludivine Sagnier as Tinker Bell. While I loved the concept of Tink as a bitch-sprite, capable of murderous intent, I felt at times her performance was a little broad. This may have been the outgrowth of having to play a purely physical role without the benefit of any spoken lines. On the other hand I thought she was vastly superior to Julia Roberts who played the same role in "Hook". Nor was she a Marilyn Monroe wannabe from Disney. Sagnier to her credit never plays the part for easy sentimentality.

Hogan and company have brought the Barrie work to the screen and have rightly restored to it a child's sense of awe and wonder, of both beauty and terror co-existing side by side and for this reason alone it is the definitive film version of 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.

Up front I will say it: this is the best Peter Pan adaptation yet, and in what follows I will tell you why. Despite the film's quality, it failed at the box office, and for good reason. Insight into that shall be revealed as well. Such sage wisdom ye shall not find in other reviews. Read on.

The main thing that sets this adaptation apart from previous attempts is sexual tension. Yes, sexual tension. If you've read other reviews, no doubt it has been mentioned. Many people seem to take offense at said tension. Such people seem to forget what it was like to be in the age bracket of 12 - 14. The makers of this film don't dance around the fact that Wendy has just met the boy of her dreams, and he is ready to whisk her off to fantasy land. Much is made of the fact that they meet in the bedroom and play father and mother to the lost boys. The relationship of these two pre-teens is as complex as any two adults in any other movies. And the young actors handle the relationship with grace and authenticity.

The production itself is beautiful, albeit stylized. The filmmakers do not mask that neverland is a fantasy world, and it stays that from beginning to end. Every frame in this movie is beautiful. There are some moments that are literally breathtaking.

Ultimately what makes this film excellent is that it tells a story. And this story is centered on Wendy, and the boy of her dreams: Peter Pan. Except he cannot be the man of her dreams, and that is truly tragic. Captain Hook is the opposite: a man who cannot be young. A man who is "old, alone, and done-for" according to Pan. We end up exploring Wendy's psyche throughout the film, and it is almost perfectly achieved.

But why did this film fail at the box office? Competetion. Who can possibly defeat Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, two bigger and much more commercial adaptations of fantasy books? This film deserves to be a classic and is one of the best fantasy movies to date. All should see it, young and old. It is rich, beautiful, and exciting.

9/10