Rating: 
Summary: Book and Movie don't sync up
Review: I read the book about two weeks before I saw the movie. Let me tell you, If it wasn't for the same basic plot and some of the characters being the same I wouldn't have known it was supposed to be the same. Added characters, added scenes, and changed scenes. What was the screen writer thinking? Maybe if I had never read the book it would have been a good movie. The only good thing about the movie was some of the children's reactions in the theatre. It was a lot darker than previous pan movies. One child exclaimed "They can't do that" as peter was slammed onto the rock by hook. Save your money and make it a rental unless you havn't read the book or you're sure it won't bother you if everything is kinda off.
Rating: 
Summary: the best film ever with a fit boy called Jeremy Sumpter
Review: I think that peter pan was a sad and happy film it is sad in a way because tinca bell drinks the medicine then she falls down dead thats what nearly made me cry.I think captin hook was really good but I think that Jeremy sumpter (peter pan) played the best parts in the whole flim.I reconmend everyone who hasen't seen it SHOULD go and see it because it's the best film in the whole wide world.I can't think of anything else to write butI hope who ever's seen peter pan thinks that it is FANTASTIC.
Rating:
Summary: it was great!
Review: Hey my names Alyna and im 14 and i thought that the movie was absolutely fabulous actually i went to the movies Twice to see it i thought it was so good and the actors were perfect for the parts and as far as people saying there wasnt as much scenes as in the normal peterpan well duh theres not, the movie was long is it is ,adding more scenes might have made it boring but i think it was great that it "wasnt" exactly like the real peterpan becuz you didnt know what to expect next!And as far as Jeremy Sumpter well hes absolutely hott and sweet and gorgeous and i wish he lived in florida! lol But yes the movie was AWESOME! Well if Jeremy reads these i luv ya and your a great actor! x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0 mwaah! Love always and forever Alyna
Rating:
Summary: "We search as ever for Peter Pan, have you seen him?"
Review: This is one of the only movies that goes beyond the book. Other films that are renditions of books, such as Harry Potter, Willy Wonka, and others have not been as close to the book as this.
Jason Isaacs does a terrific protrayal as Captain Hook and Mr. Darling. I didn't see Hook's eyes turn red as he was pulling his hook down the front of Peter's chest though. They might have, you could pry barely tell because of the blue lighting.
Jeremy Sumpter also is a great Peter, and Rachel Hurd-Wood was terrific, I was shocked to learn that that this was her first movie. And the other cast members all did a wonderful job.
And the visual effects were stunning! The part where Peter and Hook were fighting while flying in mid air was breath-taking! The crockodile was also very well-done (even though he was a little monster-like. When Michael and John were knocking on the crockodile, my friend thought it was a dragon.)The fluffy pink clouds were also a nice touch.
All in all, this movie is one not to miss, if you are planing on only seeing one movie this holiday season, see this one!
Rating:
Summary: A KIDS POINT OF VEIW
Review: BRAVO! I applaud the imagination of this movie. It is not just a kids movie, its THE kids movie. Wonderful acting skills and potential in the lost boys. It was such a butt double when they were hanging from the tree and it was very tragic when tink died but I DO BELIEVE IN FAIRYS!! I DO! I DO! My favourite part was when Tigerlily kissed John. It was so romantic!
It was so hilarious when Hook said Wendy, Darling. It was quite violent when hook shot everyone (dont worry they were pirates) GO see the movie if you r in 4 adventure, comedy, nudity, violence and a love story of a life time!! Luv J. Weis (not Judy)
Rating: 
Summary: Pan is just OK
Review: Peter Pan is ok. It isn't bad and it isn't good. There are no great things about this film other than the visual effects, which do not substitute for the flatness of the film and the lack of anything great. Jason Isaacs does an admirable job of portraying Captain Hook and Wendy's father.However, it isn't memorable enough to warrant seeing this film. While the movie does have its cute moments, they are few and far between.There have been better family films this year.
Rating:
Summary: OK but not definitve
Review: Well, having finally seen PETER PAN yesterday I can say that I have no idea
what people are talking about when they refer to the "sexuality" in the
film. I just did not see it.
On the other hand, I can see why the film is not doing well at the Box
Office. It wasn't really good. While it was certainly more successful than
HOOK and there were parts of it I liked (the final Hook/Pan battle, Peter
trying to close the window), the film as a whole did not succeed.
I honsetly don't understand why this film is being touted as being more
"faithful" to Barrie's work than other versions. Certainly the PETER PAN
musical videos (Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby and even the long lost Mia
Farrow) are FAR more faithful to Barrie's original play, as most of the
dialogue in these videos is right out of Barrie's play. This version was
about 40% faithful --which in my eyes puts the Disney cartoon (at about 60%
faithful) as being more faithful than this one.
Some of my problems with the film:
1. Tink --I hated her. I mean HATED her in this version. Not Tink the
character but the way she was portrayed. I think they were aiming for her
to be the equivelance of one of those stupid "comic animal" characters that
show up in almost every Disney cartoon of late (Quasimoto's little gargoyle
friends). They kept cutting to her mugging for comic relief --but she
simply was not funny.
2. The Lost Boys --they were marginalized here. We never even learned their names until the END of the movie. And what about Slightly's famous
line explaining his name "Slightly Soiled, that's my name". Not there!
3. There was no segment of the film revealing the life in Neverland. As soon
as they arrive the battle with Hook begins. What about the Pirates
following the boys following the indians? What about Michael sleeping in his
basket? What about Wendy telling the boys the story of Hamlet? What abou
the Neverbird? Peter being stranded on Marooner's rock? The poison cake? The
house in the trees ? Faithful to Barrie's original? not even CLOSE!
4. As someone who has been in productions of PETER PAN since I was 8, I
was surprised that I found no emotional connection to this film. Even the
ending was just BLAH! The whole movie seemed Blah! And I really wanted to
like this movie.
5. Sumpter was good --and his American accent was not as bothersome to me
as I thought it would it be.
6. Wend y was very good too. And I did not mind the "courting" of her by
Hook. He did this in the play too, though in the play there was no question
that Hook wanted Wendy to be HIS mother. In the film you weren't too sure
what he wanted.
7. The score was very HARRY POTTER --especially at the beginning. Well the movie wasn't HORRIBLE but it was not a great film either. I will
buy the DVD when it comes out and hope for lots of extras and deleted
scenes. But I will not be going back to see this film in a movie theater.
BTW --the people in the theater with me (about 20 altogether) were not that
thrilled with the film either. When the Aunt "adopts" Slightly some girl
said, rather loudly, "This is so STUPID!" And the kid in front of me went
for large lengths of time NOT looking at the screen! He seemed completely
BORED! I am still waiting for the definitive PETER PAN movie to be made.
Rating:
Summary: Charming new adaptation; a must see
Review: Peter Pan is one of those wonderful stories that everyone knows, even if they have never read the book. It is also one that, like its protagonist, never grows old. The tale probably reached its widest audience with the well-known musical stage version starring Mary Martin (and most recently Cathy Rigby) as well as the Disney cartoon version of the early 1950s. There apparently was a silent film adaptation made at some point but aside from that there has never been a plain, non-musicalized live action version on the big screen. That is, until now. The result is truly spectacular. The filmmakers have been fortunate in finding young actors and actresses with exactly the right look and temperament for the main characters (that of course, being Peter and the three Darling children, Wendy, Michael and John). Young Jeremy Sumpter, playing Peter Pan, is particularly impressive, instilling the part with just the right amount of boyish mischievousness without going over the top. His relationship with Wendy (played by talented Rachel Hurd-Wood) is very believeable; despite reviews to the contrary, there is nothing that parents should object to. The rest of the cast, (with the sole exception of the young woman in the role of Tinkerbell, whose only direction was apparently to act as obnoxiously as possible) is ideal as well. Captain Hook is a delightfully menacing enemy, Smee is the usual goofy sidekick, and the infamous ticking crocodile is in rare form. It's nice to see an old classic return with a bit of polish, and boy does it shine.
Rating:
Summary: Adult Story About Kids...Or a Kids' Story About Adulthood
Review: I cannot decide which it is. Just as in the book, there are grown-up themes about what it means to grow up and take resoponsibility for one's feelings in this more-faithful retelling. My son is 5 and he enjoyed so much about it (especially the crocodile). But the whole girl/boy/feelings thing was just over his head enough to get him all worked up. He hid under the seat during much of that stuff....it was sort of comical, actually. Hook was nasty enough to be a bit scary. The Darlings were....well, darling. Peter looked so much like Peter that before this actor played Peter, he probably had people tease him about looking like Peter Pan. He was really effective. The set design was so real/fantastical that the mood was thoroughly captured. The element that did NOT strike true was Tinkerbell. She looked wrong, overacted, and was just the wrong kind of Tinkerbell. I liked it and so did my kids. Must be good, then, right?
Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing
Review: The previews looked amazing. Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan) looked handsome and mischieveous, the perfect Peter. Rachel Hurd-Wood (Wendy) looked strikingly beautiful yet innocent. But that's just how it LOOKED.
The movie followed the basic J.M. Barrie tale, about a boy who never grows up, flys, and lives in Neverland. Sumpter seemed good for the role, but when it came to acting...he just didn't cut it. Hurd-Wood was wonderful, charming and innocent as a girl with her first crush. But it was hard to figure out what made her so infatuated with Peter.
Jason Issacs starred as both Mr. Darling, Wendy's father; and Captain Hook. He was the best thing in "Peter Pan." As Hook, he was witty and intelligent. He was a good actor, showing different facial expressions and proving the authority of Captain Hook. But he wasn't enough to save the movie. You're better off seeing the old Disney animated classic than this. Go ahead and rent that instead of seeing this!
| 
