Rating: 
Summary: "That was no Thimble!"
Review: The last time J. M. Barrie's infamous creation hit the big screen was in the lacklustre "Return to Neverland", the latest in a long line of pitiful animated sequels that the Disney Company have been mechanically churning out. The time before that was in Steven Spielberg's critically ill-received "Hook". With these two movies as a somewhat stale background for writer/director P. J. Hogan's attempt to recreate the fairytale, it was not surprising if audiences at large were somewhat cynical.But children's literature translated onto the big screen is always successful when it is done faithfully and respectfully, and that is precisely what Hogan and his team have done. For the first time ever (if you can believe it) a young boy plays the part of the Boy Who Never Grew Up: Jeremy Sumpter, complete with bare feet, pan pipes and captivating smile. Following in the pantomime tradition, Jason Issacs plays both George Darling and Captain Hook, meek and clumsy in one role, charismatic and brutal in the next. Ultimately a figure to be pitied, Hook is more aware of his dependence on Pan than he lets on, and the two are more similar than either would like to admit. Olivia Williams plays the beautiful and graceful Mrs Darling, whilst Richard Briers makes a humorous Smee, often making side-comments directly to the audience. John, Michael and the Lost Boys are played by some wonderful child actors, in particular Slightly (Theodore Chester) who creates most of the laughs for the movie: "Okay boys, look lovable." Ludivine Sagnier takes on the rather difficult role of Tinkerbell. The role means she has to rely solely on exaggerated facial expressions to present Tink's "one emotion at a time", though I was disappointed in the failure of creating the bond between Peter and Tinkerbell, which somewhat lessens the impact of her later sacrifice. The real star of the story however belongs to Wendy, and new-comer Rachel Hurd-Wood breaths her to life. Gone is the prissy Wendy of the Disney productions, thankfully replaced by a young woman who is both mischievous and wise, playful and sensual, with a hidden kiss in the corner of her mouth. She is a remarkable find, and shows considerable talent for one who has no previous experience. There are a few changes to the original story (mostly surrounding the considerably heightened romantic inclinations between Wendy and Peter), but they are sparse. The inclusion of Aunt Millicent was something that intially didn't appeal to me, but luckily she is not portrayed as a grumpy, aristocratic matriarch, but a somewhat befuddled, though loving aunt. And let's face it, Lynn Redgrave never fails to deliver a performance. The changes are slight and understandable, but those kept true are breathtaking. My main concern was that of Tinkerbell's cure, would could come across as cringe-worthy if done badly, but just try to refrain from smiling when Peter, then Wendy, then the Lost Boys, then the children of London begin to chant: "I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!" (and I was especially glad to see adults included in this declaration - I'm certainly one of them!) The visual creation of Neverland is something I can't really comment on, as it is entirely a matter of opinion - let's just say it's bright, vibrant and doesn't hesitate to bend the rules of reality. I thought it was beautiful, but only wish I had more time to enjoy it, as sequences of potential awe (such as flying through London and the fairy-covered pirate ship) flashed by too quickly to really soak in. There is one fault (if you can even call it that) in the telling of the story, and as it's playing on my mind, you'll have to bear with me in sorting it out. By creating a mutual attraction between Peter and Wendy (whereas in the book he called her "Mother" like the Lost Boys), the screenwriters begin a personal development in Peter that is not brought to a conclusion that makes sense. Throughout the story, Peter shows signs of perhaps wanting to leave Neverland: he is horrified at the thought Wendy might marry someone else, it is discovered he loves Wendy's stories because they all end in love, her "thimble" saves his very life, and he even admits to himself at the conclusion - "to live would be an awfully big adventure". And yet, he still returns to Neverland. It would seem all that Wendy has shown him, all that he has discovered about himself comes to nothing, and there is no doubt in audience's minds that the choice he made was the wrong one. But of course the alternative was that Peter actually *does* grow up, and that defeats the very purpose of Barrie's book. It was a no-win situation for the screenwriters: they could either stay true to the novel, or continue with their own creation and complete Peter's self-awareness. They choose the former, making the conclusion not just bittersweet, but truly heartbreaking. There is no real right or wrong answer to my comments, its just something I wanted to bring up for people to think about. Ultimately, the story of Peter Pan is as Hook says: a tragedy - a boy is trapped in youth without any experiences of love or marriage or fatherhood. Whilst Wendy will one day embark on what her Aunt Millicent called "the greatest adventure of all", Peter remains a boy that cannot give her what she seeks. Only a hidden kiss connects these two soulmates as a testimony to what might have been.
Rating: 
Summary: i do beleive in great movies, i do i do
Review: this movie was quite a blow. in the good way. i loved how both the kid and adult actors acted. i think jeremy sumpters and rachel wood did a extraordianry job. keep up the good acting! the only little hting that bothered me is how they twisetd aroudn the plot a bit, other than that...AWESOME PERFORMACE:D
Rating:
Summary: Peter and Wendy
Review: The movie was outstanding. The on screen chemistry between Peter and Wendy was absoulutly wonderful. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the play and read the book. They did a wonderful job of bringing the story of Peter Pan to life.
Rating:
Summary: Peter was brilliant. but was Wendy?
Review: the new movie Peter Pan was a brilliant film, P.J Hogan (the director) couldn't have chosen a better cast, although, Rachel Wood (Wendy), wasn't all that convincing, especially compaired to Jeremy Sumpton (Peter), a better Wendy would've been Sarena Sanghera from Briton (UK). Sarena hasn't been in many movies yet but is certainly destened for stardom.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Enjoyable Movie
Review: I must admit that until I read the book and watched this movie I really never did understand Peter Pan. The stage version with Cathy Rigby was truly confusing and ridicules. But, two weeks ago I did read the book and then yesterday went to see the movie. The movie was fantastic. It did follow the book extremely well with three exceptions. One, it omitted some minor bits of the book (like the neverbird) that would have probably slowed down the movie and not added much. Two, the epilog was not shown but I think the same point was made at the end where Peter is looking in at the reunited Darlings and the narrator says that it (growing up in a family) is one joy that Peter will never have. Three, way too much was made about Peter being too young to understand love. This did not come from the book but, rather, the script writers. Some other reviewers below have tried to psychoanalyze why some men seem afraid of commitment in relationships by saying that they are like Peter Pan and just won't grow up. That is purely simplistic. In most instances men that won't commit are actually very much in tune with what love is; more than the women trying to make them commit. Unfortunately, they have been hurt in the past by women that really don't know that love is more than a word for a relationship. After learning that they can be hurt for falling in love they then proceed with much more caution. A fear of commitment? No. A fear of being emotionally hurt. The special effects in the movie were great and almost surreal. Tink was a little over done but all of the rest of the cast played their parts perfectly. Like the book, the movie was pretty much a story of Wendy growing up. Peter Pan and Neverland was really just a vehicle used by the author to show the loss of innocence in the transition from childhood to adulthood. Peter Pan made the perfect contrast to Wendy. The child that would never grow up with the child that realized she had to grow up. Definitely a five star movie. This is one that will definitely go into my DVD collection.
Rating:
Summary: Wow, I am utterly AMAZED
Review: This is one of the best films I have seen all year. If the Academy Awards were just, this film would sweep the awards. First of all, the directing was the best I have seen all year. The choice of visuals was like nothing I have seen before in a theater. I was particularly "wowed" when they were flying to Neverland. The special effects were outstanding. The acting was wonderful. This movie had no "A-list" actors, which is why I think it isn't doing better at the box office. Every actor in the movie gives a strong performance, especially that of the three central roles: Peter Pan, Wendy, and Captain Hook. There wasn't a moment in the movie I was taken out of the fantasy world created by the director because of poor acting. The story is a classic most of us have been exposed too minus the commercial and PC garbage. The screenplay is perfectly on track with the original story. I don't understand the negative comments on this film. Parents who don't think this movie is appropriate for children have been brainwashed by Finding Nemo and other excuses for films. This movie is a true FILM, not merely a kiddy flick. Watching this movie gave me a feeling like I was a kid again. I loved it!
Rating: 
Summary: More does not mean better
Review: The problems with this version of 'Peter Pan' are numerous. First of all, the outrageously high usage of special effect and GGI take away the magic of J.M. Barrie's classic tale of the boy who won't grow up. Peter Pan is undoubtedly one of the greatest stories of all-time, but you would never know this from this horribly made version. I saw an interview with the director, in which he said this version is how J.M. Barrie would tell it if he had a big Hollywood budget and CGI to tell the story. Apparently, this director had no idea what he was talking about. The heart of the story should rely on the characters, their relationships and their development. Unfortunetly, the filmmakers thought the heart should be special effects, which completely ruins the great story. Overall, the acting is fine. All of the acting is done superbly, with two major standouts, one of which is good, the other which is bad. First, Jason is a marvel as Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. He plays the role originally and very well. A standout performance from a very fine veteran actor. However, the title character, Peter pan, is played very unevenly by Jeremy Sumpters. Sumpters did a very fine acting job in the very dark "Frailty", playing the son of Bill Paxton's character. I came expecting another great performance. Unfortunetly, the performance was scathing, im sorry to say. He looks the part, but needed much more emotion. His performance drags down the movie even more. All-in-all, Peter Pan can be an ok movie if you watch it expecting what it is, a big-budget Hollywood movie that is big on special effects, but little on heart and story. Stick to the classic Animated Disney version. I guarantee your children will enjoy it more. This movie could have been spectacular, but Hollywood always manages to mess up the most charming of tales. Who knew a telling of Peter Pan could be as bad as this? J.M. Barrie would be dissappointed.
Rating:
Summary: second star to the right straight on till morning
Review: This film was absolutely perfect!My sister and I loved it!
Jeremy Sumter flew away with our hearts! Compared to the movie Hook, we thought it was extremley better. (We've seen it twice and would see it again,) Wendy, her family, tink
and the lost boys contributed towards the movie also. We thought Wendy was just first class as Slightly would say. Two of our favorite lost boys were Slightly, and Nibs they were delightfully hilarious! The mermaids on the other hand were frightfully scary and made us cringe! We were glad that there was chemistry between Peter and Wendy.
Not to be forward but we think Jeremy Sumter is beyond gorgeous! I would recommend this film to anybody! This is a movie to see with friends and family.
Rating:
Summary: Come Away To Neverland...
Review: Rarely has an adaptation from a classic childhood story been so seamless, visually stunning, and truly entertaining. Originally written as a novel by J.M Barrie in 1904, and then for the London stage soon after, the legend of The Boy Who Never Grew Up entered American mainstream with the 1953 animated Disney version, which, although popular, failed to accurately capture the at times dark subject matter of the original storyline. Now, in 2003, under the guidance of director P.J. Hogan, Peter Pan has been given a live-action cast, the advances of modern filmmaking, and an overall look that is remarkably refreshing to a much wider age range of watchers. Wendy Darling (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is a bright-eyed, and intelligent London girl who delights in telling captivating stories and sword fighting with her two younger brothers John and Michael (Harry Newell and Freddie Popplewell, respectively). But, one day, much to Wendy's dismay, her parents and aunt lay down an ultimatum: It has come time for her to grow up, and leave the nursery and her childhood behind. That night, after Mr. and Mrs. Darling leave for a party and the Darling children are all snug in their beds, a magical boy named Peter Pan enters through their open window and with the help of fairy dust and happy thoughts, whisks them away to Neverland, a magical paradise in which you never grow old, and all the characters from Wendy's stories come to life. From adventures with the pirates of the Jolly Roger, commanded by evil Captain Hook, to Indians and fairies, the delightful story comes to life once again on a grand scale. In the terms of performances, most of the young cast are first-time actors, virtual unknowns in the business until now. As Wendy, Rachel Hurd-Wood sparkles, and has an innocense and hidden strength of a heroine around her. As for Peter Pan, (this version is the first to use a boy in the role) the search for the right person spanned nearly three continents, and ended with the find of Jeremy Sumpter (known for his part in the thriller "Frailty"), who is without a doubt, perfect for the role. With his perfectly tousled hair and devilish good looks, he has a spark of confidence, charm, and a cocky little smile, (and still manages to convey his wish for a mother) that completely captures the character of Peter Pan. Jason Isaacs, who plays both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook (following the stage tradition) is delightful in his range of talent in both characters; Mr. Darling is an awkward, stuttering man who cares deeply and sacrifices much for his family, and Captain Hook is a seductive menace who terrorizes Neverland. In this version, the fairy Tinkerbell is played by French actress Ludivine Sagnier, who is at times annoying, but overall an interesting and amusing approach to the role. One of the things that truly stands out in this Peter Pan is the visual effects and the sets. The Darling household and London itself are beautifully done, and Neverland is beyond words. From the cotton-candy esque clouds above and the dense jungles with the hideout of Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, to the menacing ticking crocodile hunting Captain Hook, "Peter Pan" never ceases to amaze, as well as in the realms of costumes and makeup. Sprinkled with humor, and with a crackling script, a brilliant director, and extremely wise choices in casting, sets and costuming, and visual effects, "Peter Pan" is one of the best movies of the year and will continue to delight audiences for years to come.
Rating:
Summary: I Do Believe in Fairies, I do, I do.
Review: This enchanting story of Peter Pan and Neverland captured my imagination. Every kid should believe in Neverland no matter how old they get. I've seen Peter Pan in many different ways-- plays, movies, cartoons, and books but never like this movie. Even though it had more and better special effects, it was based on the real true story that was written. The characters were wonderful, especially Peter and Wendy. I also thought that Tinkerbell was funny. This movie had much dialogue so there was never a boring moment. And no matter how old I get, I will always believe in Peter Pan, fairies, and the magical world of Neverland.
|
