Peter Pan Live

This shockingly awkward and careless production of a classic left me and my family (those who hadn't fled the room after Walken's Hookzombie appeared) numb with disbelief. How could a major studio disgorge so amateurish and unattractive a musical stew? No we weren't expecting performances like those of Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard from the golden age. We didn't demand that, but we did look forward to some higher grade fun than this dreck. Williams tries hard to lend a bit of charm to Peter and succeeds to some degree, but she's swimming against an ugly tide created by the director and production managers. Walken, with (almost literally) one eye on the teleprompter and the other on the studio clock (When can I get out of this nightmare and go strangle my agent?), delivers what has to be one of his strangest performances, mincing around among his equally directionless crew like a geezerly Jack Sparrow. The pacing is nonexistent. The colors and costumes frightening. The Neverland boys are aging chorusliners, and the "Redskins" are ...let's see...what exactly are they supposed to be?

I am surprised at all the negative reviews. This was live television. It is not supposed to be perfect. Many theater plays do not always go well and this is the same thing. It is precisely that spontaneity that comes with a live performance that makes it so much fun to watch. There is no post-production work when you do live, so that can't fix the occasional crew member or light that gets in the picture.

Most of the cast did a great job. If you know the history of Peter Pan productions, you would not be surprised at a young woman playing the title role. Allison Williams pulled it off beautifully, with a great singing voice and the guts to hook up to a wire on live TV.

As far as the stone-faced Christopher Walken, he played the role as he saw it. It worked, but it wasn't Dustin Hoffman or Cyril Ritchard. They saw it differently. It is called artistic license and Walken kept to his own style.

I gave it a 7 out of 10 because I thought the lost boys and the Indians were too old. They were extremely talented as dancers, actors and singers, but they looked almost perverse as they attempted to act like kids. Had they cast kids in those roles, the dancing and singing may have suffered, perhaps, but it would have looked better.

Some reviewers also complained about the sets. With very little CGI and only sparing use of green screen, the set designers did great! Neverland is a product of a child's imagination...it should be colorful.

I grew up watching Mary Martin play Peter Pan on our 9" black and white television. This was a modern tribute to that legendary performance. Watch the original again and you will see how archaic it looks. The performances are why it is a classic, and I hope time will show that this is no different.

Other than the too old ensemble to bring it down just a little, live television is something we need to see a lot more of.

Fell asleep twice last night watching this. Now, having spent several painful hours forcing myself to get through it all, I understand why I couldn't force myself to fight the sleep. Ms. Williams turns out to be an excellent singer, but she doesn't know what to do with her hands while she's singing and so keeps repeating the same motions over and over. It was so annoying. Walken is fine, perhaps a bit disappointing. Was this production meant to be seen by adults only? I have to wonder why it was shown on a school night and starting so late at 8 pm at that. Three hours is way too long for this. It was too long between songs and I saw no acting worth watching. I believe I was actually in pain, forcing myself to see it through to the end. One more complaint: why, on earth was the child, Wendy's, gown untied to show just a bit of pubescent cleavage? Remember her father saying she was almost grown-up? Why purposely present children this way? A disgrace for certain.

I thought it was good not great but good. I thought Allison was a good pick for Peter Pan considered she's wanted to play the role since she was 3. I honestly would have picked Tim Curry or Jason Issacs to play Hook . Christopher Walken had no energy behind his interpretation of Hook. Sad really. The One thing I LOVED about Walken and Williams together was the duet "Duel" SO GOOD! The actress that played Mrs. Darling was also GREAT.

My favorite version of the musical was Cathy Rigby's version. I have seen her twice live in 1997 and 2005, I have also seen Mary Martin and Sandy play Peter as well.

I'd give Peter Pan Live! a 6/10. Allison was the best part of it honestly. I would see her on Tour if she goes on tour with it.

I saw this with my mom tonight. She of course loves the old songs (original to the productions in her days) so she has a lot of nostalgia which carries her through it.

I overall enjoyed it too though,surprisingly. Christopher Walken, as always is really fun to watch. And it was interesting to see a live stage production turned into a DVD / movie to watch at home. I think they did manage to capture some of the live magic.

I wasn't a huge fan of the girl playing Peter Pan, but not sure if that's her fault or how she was directed. She didn't ruin it though, she just felt a little flat or something. The other actors did a better job of conveying emotions.