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

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

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.

When I was very young, the first version of Peter Pan I saw was the annual televised production of the Broadway Musical starring Mary Martin. It was delightful in its own limited way because after all, when Mary as Peter took to the skies you could definitely see the wires. Not to mention that Peter's shadow looked suspiciously like female hosiery sewn together in the shape of a boy. Some years later, when it was first released on video, I finally was able to enjoy the animated Disney version of J.M. Barrie's classic story. The songs, the animation, the characters were all first rate. Later, I caught a special showing of the Broadway Peter Pan again, this time with Cathy Rigby filling the shoes of Mary Martin. She was full of spunk and energy, and certainly had the physical frame for the role but you could still see the wires. Then Stephen Spielberg tried his hand at it, bringing us Robin Williams as a grown up Peter Pan, Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook and even Julia Roberts as Tinkerbelle. Spielberg called his film Hook, and it's the first time that character was ever given star billing. I like Julia Roberts, but the beam of light used for Tinkerbelle in the Broadway production gave a better performance. Of course, being a Spielberg film you couldn't see the wires, but surprisingly Spielberg somehow forgot to make his film either interesting or magical. I'd rather have had the magic and seen the wires. The question is, just how many versions of the story does one need? Please don't despair, as it turns out, the latest may just be the greatest of them all.

In late 2003, Director P.J. Hogan brought to the screen his vision of the boy who would never grow up and having just viewed it on DVD, I can proclaim with all honesty that it shall forever be the definitive version of Peter Pan. Well, at least for me it will be. Through the spectacular use of CGI, Hogan brings us a wondrous and beautiful Neverland never before realized on film. From the opening scenes in London and the flight to Neverland, to the snow encased ship of Captain Hook and his Pirates, each scene is rendered in illustrious detail. In one of the more humorous bits in the film when Peter loses his shadow, the shadow takes on a life of its own and it sure isn't unused panty hose. When Peter Pan flies, he does so unimpeded by any laws of gravity, twirling, bouncing, and floating, in a whimsical way that not unlike Superman, will convince you that with the help of good thoughts and fairy dust, a boy can indeed fly. With each movement, Tinkerbelle emits a shining sparkling cloud of fairy dust that fills the screen like a thousand Independence Day Sparklers. When Peter, Wendy, John, and Michael first arrive in Neverland, they land on puffy pinkish clouds, which are quickly bombarded by Captain Hook and his cannons. In one of the most compelling and touching scenes in the film, Peter and Wendy are witness to a fairy dance, and then take to the skies themselves in an airborne ballet. When Pan takes flight to engage in swordplay with Hook and his pirates the scenes are nothing short of amazing. These are just a few of the many magical, charming, and energizing moments throughout Peter Pan.

As for the story, it pretty much sticks to previous incarnations we've seen in the books, films, and on Broadway. Wendy tells stories, Pan listens and loses his shadow one night, the dog Nana makes a mess of things a few times, Papa tells Wendy she has to grow up, Pan comes back to retrieve said shadow and off we go!

There is however, something inherently different about the relationship between Pan and Wendy than anything previously seen. We are made well aware of the fact that Wendy stands on the threshold of womanhood, and all indications are that the process has indeed begun. Peter, on the other hand, had run away from home with Tinkerbelle, before the rites of passage from boyhood to manhood had commenced. It is well within Wendy's ability to love, whereas the concept of true love is a foreign concept for Peter. He cannot love, and will not love, and is firm in his resolve to stay a boy forever. It sets up a much more tense conflict between Wendy and Peter and adds an emotional depth to the story never before realized.

Much of the success of Peter Pan also has to go to the young actors portraying Peter and Wendy. Jeremy Sumpter, who shined in Bill Paxton's haunting film Frailty, will make you forget any previous portrayal. For most of the film he is as he should be, the carefree rascal who sees fighting Hook and his crew as the ultimate in playground merriment. Late in the film, as he discovers the darker side of his emotions, he handles the transition as well if not better than many adult actors.

For Wendy, Hogan chose English Actress Rachael Hurd-Wood. As far as I can discover, this is her first film role of any kind, yet one would hardly believe that would be possible from watching this film. When she discovers she is on the verge of entering womanhood, she is able to portray both the fear and loathing of the prospect, but yet she depicts a wide eyed curiosity of what is to take place. Later, her anger and frustration in dealing with Peter's vow of perpetual childhood, has the same believability of someone twice her age dealing with the same conflicting feelings.

Most of the adult actors are no slouches either. Jason Isaacs does a duo role as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. How good is he? I didn't realize he was playing both roles until referencing the credits on IMDb. As Mr. Darling, the timid banker, he reminded me a lot of David Tomlinson's Mr. Banks in Mary Poppins. His Hook is as dastardly a hook that has ever taken the screen. Let's just say that when this Hook does away with someone, they pretty much stay dead and you won't see that kind of ruthless in the Disney animated film. Olivia Williams as Mrs. Darling is perhaps the weakest link in the film. She seems not to be able to portray the deep sadness that comes when one's children are missing, and likewise her joy at their return home is equally unimpressive. She is clearly overshadowed by Lynn Redgrave as Aunt Millicent.

And what about Tinkerbelle? I certainly can't leave her out. She is played with a lot of panache by an actress named Ludivine Sagnier. She does it with a lot of spunk, a little sass, and a ton of energy. She will quickly make you completely forget the fact that Julia Roberts made a mockery of the same role in Spielberg's Hook.

And most importantly there's the biggest surprise of all. Having seen the trailer several times before the film's release last years, I was under the assumption that as it always seems to be the case these days, most of the really good stuff was shown in those few minutes of advertising. I couldn't have been more wrong. Let's just say that if you saw the previews in the theater or on the internet, what you saw is just the tip of the iceberg of the discoveries waiting for you within this film.

One may come to the conclusion that perhaps I am going overboard in my praise. Yet, whether you are young or just young at heart, or wish you could fly away from your troubles to the wonderful place called Neverland, there is something in Peter Pan for even the most cynical film-goer. For an hour and fifty three minutes, it certainly made me feel younger than my years, and when a film does that I have no choice but to give it my grade and it's an A sprinkled with a healthy dose of fairy dust.

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