Rating: 
Summary: this is a great movie
Review: hey, this is one of the greatest movies that i have ever seen. it was the only movie that had me laughing and crying.plus the total babe jeremy sumpter was totally hot in it which makes it a bonus! ever since ive seen this movie i have done anything to see it again. so far i have seen it 3 times, in 2 weeks. i love it. plus i have already booked it for when it comes out on dvd. i cant wait. i totally recomend it to anyone that wants to laugh and cry.
Rating:
Summary: Remembrance of Things Past
Review: Directorial vision, a quirky edginess, and a sprinkling of magic make this movie something special. The movie made me recall, better than any movie I've seen lately, that oh-so-brief yearning and ambivalence that preteens on the brink of sexual knowledge feel. They know something is out there that will change them forever, but don't know quite how to put it into words. The girl playing Wendy is only a few steps ahead of Peter in that regard; she's a little more worldly and forceful but clearly doesn't know why she's pushing him to be physical. He's delightfully impish and mischievious yet too innocent to really hurt anyone but himself. Parents, don't be leary of reviews that make it sound too sexual--it's neither too mature nor too childish; the sexual tension is age-appropriate and not gratuitous, but rather, is a vital component of the movie. I would recommend it for children ages 5 or 6 and over. My 9-year-old thought it was fantastic and I think a lot of the boy-girl stuff went over her head. Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook is not to be missed! Give this man more roles--he's excellent as Hook, adding layers to the character I haven't seen in any other version. He's frightening, poignant, silly, deep, and thought-provoking. The special effects are lovely and like Pirates of the Caribbean, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. The only flaws were a less-than-believable Tinkerbelle; I had no problems with the actress but felt they should have chosen someone closer to Peter and Wendy's age to make her jealousy believable; she seems much older and so her obsession with Peter is a little creepy. Also, the extended "I do believe in fairies!" scene was over-the-top sweet to the point of embarrassment. Still, this movie more than made up for a few missteps. I can't get it out of my mind.
Rating: 
Summary: The thinking person's Peter Pan - warning: SPOILERS
Review: I don't know whether this movie adaptation of J.M. Barrie's play (and/or book) is faithful to the author's intent or not, since I've never seen the play or read the book. What I do know is that this movie finally brings to the screen a version of Peter Pan that has depth and intelligence. A more clearly dangerous nature of Neverland is shown as never before. Most movie adaptations tell the tale as a simple adventure story for kids, rather than getting involved with the darker themes that are simmering just below the surface. This latest version, while still allowing the story to resonate with children, also explores more adult themes (though tentatively), and plays with the flawed characters of Peter and Hook and their relationship to one another and to Wendy's family.In Neverland, both Peter Pan and Captain Hook are shown as flawed personalities - both being opposite sides of the same coin. Peter personifies the joy of childhood, but he is willing to lose his humanity and deny the adult side of his love for Wendy because of his fear of the evils of adulthood, which are personified by Captain Hook. Conversely, Hook personifies all the evils of adulthood: he has lost his ability to love because of his obsessive envy of youth, which is personified by Peter. His youth (and his right hand) stripped away, Hook is pursued by a crocodile in whose belly a clock relentlessly ticks - symbolizing the onrush of time and Hook's inevitable death. In many ways Peter and Hook are one and the same person - they are both critically flawed by the fear of what time promises to do to them. Peter fears adulthood and thus denies the mature love that will allow him to grow into a man, whereas Hook fears his mortality and wishes to exact retribution on the lost youth that Peter represents. Both characters eventually have their fates forced upon them, but whereas Hook finally accepts his end, Peter refuses to acknowledge his love for Wendy. In this sense Hook is the film's heroic figure, and Peter its tragic figure. Hook is the only character (except perhaps for Wendy) intelligent enough to see the depth of Peter's tragedy. In Neverland, Peter and Hook represent Wendy's appreciation of childhood and adulthood. At first Peter is all openness and fun, whereas Hook is the fearful unknown. But as time goes by, Peter shows he is incomplete, and Hook becomes more of a comical caricature. This seems to show Wendy's slowly maturing appreciation of the realities of childhood and adulthood, and that her own fears of adulthood were groundless. Hook dies, and with him die Wendy's fears of adulthood. When the children finally reappear back in the real world, Hook's triumph over his demons is mirrored in the father's new-found ability to outwardly show his love for his children (note that both Hook and the father are played by the same actor). Peter disappears into the night promising to return, but Wendy must grow to adulthood and leave Peter forever. Peter's last words to her serve only to deepen the sense of loss - they appear hopeful, promising her a new adventure in adulthood. But the words are mirrored earlier when Peter is facing death at the hands of Captain Hook, and this throws the ending into a yet bleaker light. In the real world Peter represents Wendy's childhood. Wendy loves her childhood, but she has been told (by her very Victorian/Edwardian aunt) that childhood and adulthood are very separate and that she must leave her youth completely behind her. Accepting this, she nevertheless hopes desperately for Peter's return, but as the film ends we are told that this never happens. It is a very sad moment, and the tragedy is complete. The only saving grace is that adulthood holds no more fear for Wendy, only a deep sense of regret for what is lost.
Rating:
Summary: Please, it's not a Disney remake!
Review: This film is NOT a remake of the Disney movie, but a faithful interpretation of the original classic by JM Barrie. It does not simply highlight the fantasy, pirates, and sword fighting (although all are present), but also explores issues in the book that were ignored by the earlier productions, such as the deep psychological undertones of the Peter-Wendy-Hook triangle, the latent sexual tension between Peter and Wendy, and the poignancy of Wendy's maturing feelings for Peter, who refuses to reciprocate. This is a great movie for kids, adults, and all lovers of the original book. The child actors who play Peter and Wendy are both gorgeous and marvelous. It is heartbreaking to realize that neither exists anymore -- in real life, they're growing up.
Rating:
Summary: ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE!!!
Review: Peter Pan is the best movie I have seen in my whole life. It has everything adventure, romance, really good special effects and really good actors. When you see this movie, you travel to a whole new world, a magical world, and you escape from everything. Jeremy sumpter (peter pan) did an incredible job, I can't see another person being peter pan, directors did a great great job with him, so as with Jason Isaacs (Captain hook)and the whole cast. The chemistry between Jeremy sumpter and Rachel (wendy)it's awesome. If you like adventure or romance or fantasy, you have it all in this movie. You have to see it, you will love it, I promise.
Rating:
Summary: CAN'T GET ANY BETTER!!!!
Review: this is the best movie ever! i've seen it so many times i can recite the lines by heart. it is diffrent from the cartoon movie and the book. it has been changed for the complete and total better. i highly recomend this movie to anyone. if you're old enough to talk, see the movie. if you're so old you can't walk, see the movie. if you're anywhere in between, see the movie. just see it before you make any decisions.
Rating:
Summary: Peter Pan (2003) is the best Peter Pan movie so far
Review: Peter Pan is the best Peter Pan movie by far definatley. This is my favorite movie, and every one who hates this movie, they really have a problem. Sorry, I just reallly likie this movie, and Rachel Hurd-Wood, is definately the best english actor.
Rating:
Summary: awesome
Review: i thought that peter pan was awesome ! the cast was amazing (especially jeremy sumpter who played peter pan ) ;) my friends and i saw it and all loved it. i have seen it 3 times already and can't wait till it comes out on dvd and video
Rating:
Summary: True to the story
Review: J.M. Barrie would be proud of this film. The characters were portrayed perfectly. Great cast, Great script, Great movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Sometimes even ideas can't hide a lack of substance.
Review: This take on the familiar fairy tale is somewhat interesting for its subversive, sexualized treatment of the main characters. What was subtext is essentially made text here as the film focuses less on the Romantic idealization of childhood (the raison d'etre both of the original book and previous filmic incarnations) than on the burgeoning bodily passions of early adolescence, and how these passions affect our relations to the two social groups we're caught between in this stage of human development, children and adults. Thus the Peter Pan character, given the majority of the attention (and the hero's treatment) in previous incarnations of the story, plays second fiddle here to Wendy. Pan here retains from previous versions of the story that vigor born out of pure youthful capriciousness, though the filmmakers here have chosen to treat this condition as a malady--a particularly debilitating psychosis that is given an added tragic dimension by the fact that Pan mistakes this flaw for virtue. Totally oblivious to the intellectual and emotional confinement produced by his condition, Pan is shown to be a rather pathetic and ultimately damned creature, dead to an entire world of human experience because of his naive resentment of something he does not know--adulthood. In this sense the character is an embodiment of all of our own unfounded prejudices and myopic ideals. This works both for and against the film. Intellectually the approach is interesting, but it also causes us a certain discomfort and disappointment, effectively building a wall between the audience and the character as our expectations of him are willfully confounded, thus throwing us into a void where we essentially spend the remainder of the movie grasping blindly in an attempt to regain a sense of who this character is, and failing because here Pan is essentially an intellectual construct or category rather than a character with a specific arc. In previous versions of the story Pan's final battle with Captain Hook served as a satisfying resolution to the former's conventional hero-arc. And although this final battle is in Hogan's film as well, it feels curiously devoid of urgency, danger and, in the end, catharsis. Because Pan is not a hero in this film and, as critic Dave Edelstein points out, Hook is not so much a villain as a kind of playmate, Pan's eventual triumph is moot. The rivalry between Hook and Pan is not so much about the rivalry between good and evil. Rather it's the dutiful performance of one's role that is valued in this rivalry, as if each character's decision to go through the conventional narrative motions was the cause of the rivalry itself, the means serving a comfortable dual role as both themselves and the end. No motivation, no movement, just a vapid theatricality substituting for meaning. This inherent stagnancy in the characters is neither helped by the vacant stare and charisma-challenged line readings of the boy playing Pan, nor the generic-villain malevolence displayed by the man playing Hook. The young boy is, however, good looking enough to convincingly play the object of a young adolescent girl's lust, which works well for the development of the film's real protagonist, Wendy. The actress playing Wendy, with her sinful mouth playing in marked distinction to her girlish demeanor (something that is remarked upon repeatedly in the film), is very good at conveying the initial throws of womanhood and all the self-conscious anxiety that that brings on. The key event early in the film occurs when Wendy's aunt calls the girl in front of the family and tells them that the girls full lips reveal that she'll be a woman soon. This uncomfortable confrontation with familial authority is undoubtedly the first time the girl becomes aware of her sexuality as such, providing the impetus for her decision--an act of psychosexual avoidance and repression--to go with Pan (along with her brothers, who are just in it for boyish thrills) to Neverland. While there the blond-haired, blue-eyed, perpetually bare-chested Pan becomes, in contradiction to her conscious intentions, a further provocation to her pubescent sexuality. Indeed this whole adolescent psychosexual motif is brought further into light when we consider the fact that the film is infused with so much nocturnal and dream imagery. Wendy is swept away at night by a flying, young Nordic god, taken through a universe of popup-book planets, stars and moons, and lands in Neverland on a fluffy pink cloud. At the conclusion of her fantasy, after being given her first kiss, she returns to her parents at night, leaving her young would-be lover and his forever-stunted growth behind. Freudian cultural critics should at least get a good chuckle from all of this blatant eroticism in what is ostensibly just a corporate funded family film. This story of a girl's passage from childhood to adolescence is not really as interesting as it should be though. There are not enough instances of character development to fully sustain interest in the narrative. Too often we are given dull action sequences and pointless, meandering side stories (e.g. the capture of Wendy's little brothers). The society of the Lost Boys, an aspect of the story that is crucial, as it gives Pan's character a broader socio-political context (illuminating the hierarchical structure of Neverland's supposedly anarchic rejection of authority and adult values), is given short shrift here. And while director Hogan's compositions have lots to look at, they lack the tactile authority of reality that a much simpler approach can often achieve with ease. Like so much of contemporary visual media, the film's language belongs to the hyperreality of television commercials and music videos. Which wouldn't be such a problem if this omnipresent aesthetic was balanced by more traditionally photographed scenes of character interaction. Unfortunately the director's inability to create a palpable reality (which would require the ability to move beyond the decontextualized aesthetic vacuum of postmodern visual arts) results in a movie experience more akin to a sugar high than to an experience of authentic cinema. The pretty colors and snazzy effects are interesting for a little while, but quickly become anesthetizing in the absence of Hogan's restraint. The film is more glossy than polished, more pretty than beautiful, which leaves us, rather disappointingly, with something that is more interesting to discuss afterwards than to actually watch.
|
