Rating: 
Summary: skip the Disney version!
Review: This version of Peter Pan - a filmed stage performance - is far better than the Mary Martin version of the 1960's. Cathy Rigby uses her gymnastic abilities (she was, at one time, a member of the USA Olympic Team) to enhance the Peter Pan character, and her nautral innocence and charm make the show delightful and easy to love.
Everything is better. The children (Wendy, Michael, and John)are now all well trained actors and singers, and the lost boys are the same. The story is made to make more sense (the marooner's rock scene is included, for example) and the sets are very well decorated.
The guy who plays Mr. Darling/Captain Hook is a top-notch performer ... and what a set of pipes! And he's fun.
But Cathy Rigby soars, and she takes the show with her. She is a delight, a pure delight (even when she bullies the lost boys).
The only shortfall (to me) is the handling of the indians. They are not fun. Peter is fun. Wendy, Michael, and John are fun. The lost boys are fun. And even the pirates are fun. But the indians here are made to be serious indians ... and are not fun.
Gone too is the cute dance that introduced the indians in the MM production. And the peace pipe scene ("I'll just call for Tiger Lily ... And I'll call for Peter Pan") is now an over-produced example of a choreographer gone mad.
But this is an excellent movie for the whole family. And Cathy Rigby shines as the boy who won't grow up. Not bad for an old balance beam girl.
Rating: 
Summary: Cathy Rigby is Excellent
Review: This version of Peter Pan - a filmed stage performance - is far better than the Mary Martin version of the 1960's. Cathy Rigby uses her gymnastic abilities to enhance the Peter Pan character, and her nautral innocence and charm make the show delightful and beloved.Everything is better. The children (Wendy, Michael, and John)are all well trained actors and singers, and the lost boys are the same. The story is made to make sense more (the marooner's rock scene is included, for example) and the sets are very well decorated. But Cathy Rigby soars, and she takes the show with her. She is a delight, a pure delight. The only shortfall (to me) is the handling of the indians. Gone is the cuteness of the Mary Martin production (that excellent introductory dance, for example) which is sad. And the indian dance scenes are not coherent, not a reflection of the scene at all. It is as if the choreographer went off his tether when creating the indians' dance routines. Also, they went for the sexy look for Tiger Lily (and, to a lesser extent, the male indians) which I thought was like a turd in the punch bowl. And I am sure that James Barrie himself would have strongly disapproved of this change. And the handling of the indians lowered the show's rating (to me) a full grade....from an A+ to a B+, or, as the case is here, from 5 stars to 4.
Rating:
Summary: PHENOMENAL
Review: This was wonderful as my two young children (5 & 6) and I, could not help but feel that we were part of the audience. My children were mesmerized with the movie and beleive me it is very hard to make them sit through a 30 minute show let alone a show with commercials for two hours.They wanted me to order it right then so they could watch it all over again the next day. ** SUPERB **
Rating: 
Summary: A mixed production
Review: This well-known musical version of "Peter Pan" is, for the most part, thoroughly enjoyable. The Mary Martin version seems to be the one all others are compared to, no matter what. Granted, that version had a few cheesy moments, and it is true that this musical should be done with tongue planted firmly in cheek--but, as with all things, there is a limit. This new version stretches that limit to capacity. To be fair, there are some qualities to be commended. The set design, costumes, choreography, and, of course, the flying are all first-rate. The rest is slim pickings. Former Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby, in the title role, is much more beliveable as an eternally youthful boy than Mary Martin ever was. Her strong, clear singing voice suits the role well. Unfortunately, she chooses to use a grating Cockney accent--as do many of the Lost Boys--in delivering her dialogue. At times it sounds as though the parts were filled with cast-offs from a touring production of "Oliver!". In addition, the three Darling children, Wendy, Michael, and John, are not too endearing. Wendy, in particular, is woefully miscast. She looks too old and too odd. And last, but not least, the actor in the role of Captain Hook. Though he possesses a wonderfully operatic baritone, he also seems to think that he should literally SCREAM every other line to make sure everyone knows he's the villain. It is worthwhile to watch if you like the story or the musical in general. If only they'd done it a little bit better.
Rating:
Summary: A mixed production
Review: This well-known musical version of "Peter Pan" is, for the most part, thoroughly enjoyable. The Mary Martin version seems to be the one all others are compared to, no matter what. Granted, that version had a few cheesy moments, and it is true that this musical should be done with tongue planted firmly in cheek--but, as with all things, there is a limit. This new version stretches that limit to capacity. To be fair, there are some qualities to be commended. The set design, costumes, choreography, and, of course, the flying are all first-rate. The rest is slim pickings. Former Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby, in the title role, is much more beliveable as an eternally youthful boy than Mary Martin ever was. Her strong, clear singing voice suits the role well. Unfortunately, she chooses to use a grating Cockney accent--as do many of the Lost Boys--in delivering her dialogue. At times it sounds as though the parts were filled with cast-offs from a touring production of "Oliver!". In addition, the three Darling children, Wendy, Michael, and John, are not too endearing. Wendy, in particular, is woefully miscast. She looks too old and too odd. And last, but not least, the actor in the role of Captain Hook. Though he possesses a wonderfully operatic baritone, he also seems to think that he should literally SCREAM every other line to make sure everyone knows he's the villain. It is worthwhile to watch if you like the story or the musical in general. If only they'd done it a little bit better.
Rating:
Summary: I just have a few things to say...
Review: Well, first of all, everyone should read the BOOK "Peter Pan" by Sir James M. Barrie because it is fantastic. Secondly, the first Disney version of "Peter Pan" was wonderful, BUT everyone should STAY AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM "RETURN TO NEVERLAND"!! It's downright gory and Sir James M. Barrie would roll over in his grave. Thirdly, the Mary Martin version of the stage show is absolutely wonderful and worth watching too, but the Cathy Rigby version is much truer to the book. The differences between the Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby adaptations came from the book, not any director's imagination. They are both such fun to watch, as is the original Disney animated version. But that AWFUL sequel...what were they thinking?? Am I alone here when I say it was painful to watch all the gloom and doom??? My advice: Stick with the originals! :-)
Rating:
Summary: I just have a few things to say...
Review: Well, first of all, everyone should read the BOOK "Peter Pan" by Sir James M. Barrie because it is fantastic. Secondly, the first Disney version of "Peter Pan" was wonderful, BUT everyone should STAY AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM "RETURN TO NEVERLAND"!! It's downright gory and Sir James M. Barrie would roll over in his grave. Thirdly, the Mary Martin version of the stage show is absolutely wonderful and worth watching too, but the Cathy Rigby version is much truer to the book. The differences between the Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby adaptations came from the book, not any director's imagination. They are both such fun to watch, as is the original Disney animated version. But that AWFUL sequel...what were they thinking?? Am I alone here when I say it was painful to watch all the gloom and doom??? My advice: Stick with the originals! :-)
Rating:
Summary: The best "Peter Pan" ever!
Review: When I watched this video of Peter Pan, I was amazed at how much it resembled the original 1955 Peter Pan, which starred Mary Martin. Cathy Rigby is excellent as Peter Pan. She has the right voice and she is so dedicated to her performance. Captain Hook was also excellent. He was so funny and really gave a lot to the performance. I was very impressed with all of the people involved with the show. I truly recommend this video to not only children, but to adults as well. It is something that the whole family can enjoy. I never thought that any other Peter Pan could be performed as well as Mary Martin's Peter Pan, but I was wrong. This one is just as good. Please watch this video! You will love it!
Rating:
Summary: The Most Enchanting Theatre Production In Years!
Review: When this Production premiered in 1991 it was considered a smashing success and has toured the world ever since. The performance is shot at the Miranda Theatre for the Performing Arts. I love this show it has a great storyline and is considered one of the most popular growing musicals ever. Cathy Rigby does an awesome job in her role as the boy who would'nt grow up. She handels the flying and the high notes easily. Paul Shoeffler does an absolutly histarical job portraying the evil Capt. Hook. The sets and special effects will amaze you over and over again. The whole cast is great. This is one musical you can watch over and over without getting bored. The flying provided by ZFX Flying Illusions is amazing (You can barely see the strings.) The only draw back is that there should be more wide shots the whole production is shot very close up. If you havent seen this show take my advise go see it you, you will easily entertained.
Rating:
Summary: Why?
Review: Why is the question I aksed myself throughout this production. WHY did the producers feel the need to take the simple, charming, and exquisitly structured book and revise it, adding humorless schtick and confusing plot devicesw (aka: the mermaids and that whole rock scene)? WHY did the director consistantly choose to go for the cheap laugh instead of keeping with the natural charm and humor of the original version? WHY was the choreography so chaotic and bland? WHY did the producers feel the need to butcher every song they touched with new vocal arrangements, such as the increasingly tedious "echos" in "I'm Flying"? Cathy Rigby proves a worthy successor to Mary Martin, but the rest of the cast, particualrly Cpatain Hook, does not do nearly as well by comparison to the original production, and Rigby simply isn't good enough to carry the production by herself. So the real question to ask you self is, WHY watch this one when the superior original is still readily available?
|
