Good story, Not enough for a whole film
While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.
I have never seen any other Peter Pan films or the plays so I don't have much to compare to, but I really enjoyed this! The story is simple but nice, and the concept of not wanting to grow up is relatable. The acting is great and it has a satisfying ending.
Peter Pan has been adapted into a theatrical live action movie multiple times, but would you believe that this is the first one where the titular role is played by an actual young boy? Early stage versions of the story started a tradition where the character was played by a woman, mostly to give the actor enough experience while still retaining the look. Theatre world is weird like that.Nevertheless, this is the first one, so how does it hold up next to its kin? Well, it's a mixed package. The young man they got to play the part of Pan, Jeremy Sumpter, certainly has the look down pat. He's an imp, quick and agile, with a devil may care grin always on his face, and those attributes transfer to his performance as well. He embodies the cockiness and infallibility of the boy who never grew up, certainly bringing to mind the mythological Pan after which the character is named. Jason Isaacs is also magnificent in his dual role of both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook - another theatre tradition, but one which I heartily approve. Isaacs is easily the best Hook I've seen so far, and also one of the better pirate characters in general. Dark, menacing, hiding behind the veneer of a gentleman, while plotting his nefarious schemes to bring down the one he hates above all else.The rest of the cast is unfortunately merely okay or even slightly below average. The Lost Boys and the Darlings are played by child actors, making their acting rather wooden most of the times, though Wendy's actress Rachel Hurd-Wood at least manages to have some chemistry with Sumpter. They also added in a new character in Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) who, while played by a talented actress, brings nothing to the plot, making her completely pointless.I also detest the use of CGI in this film. Though to be fair, most every movie in the 00s was doing this, but it has not aged well. Not at all. It's overly bright, often rather rubbery or sleek, and you can spot its fakeness miles away. And it is everywhere. It's like they shot the film and decided to colour saturate every single frame using computers. It looks hideous. And it glitters, making me feel like I've walked into a store for five-year-old girls. Perhaps some would say that's a valid art style for a Peter Pan film, but personally I think it makes the whole film look artificial.The actual plot is captivating, closely mirroring the original play by J. M. Barrie. No complaints there, and if you can stomach the visual style of the film, it is a very good adaptation to check out for all fans of the original tale. My personal pet peeves keep me from appreciating it more, but don't let that keep you from experiencing its upsides.
Fairly true to the original written story, this version is often overlooked, as there have been several versions made of this timeless classic tale; some very bad.(Hook) The major change is that a new character was written-in for Lynn Redgrave, who ends up adopting one of the children. Sumptuous sets. Made in Australia. Especially well-staged is the "Nanna" dog. Little Michael is shown jumping on "Nannas' back" (to take a bath) through the use of multiple dogs and computerized images. The mermaids are there, and they are "evil", for the most-part, as they should be. Beautiful musical score, but not the memorable songs from either the Broadway or Disney productions. Too bad. Had this been "married" to the Broadway songs, this would have been a perfect version (in my opinion). Other reviewers describe "sexual tension" between Peter and Wendy. It's hinted-at in the musical stage versions, as well. Although Peter Pan is quite elf-like and child-like, at least he's played by a boy. Often a $5 DVD bargain at stores and on-line. This is a Universal-Columbia co-release. Make sure it is the live-action version from 2003. It was a box-office success, world-wide, in it's time.
This is a much more sexualized Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood), and Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) wants to teach her while banning her from the nursery. She is on the edge of becoming a woman. Mr Darling (Jason Isaacs) is trying to climb the social ladder. On her last night in the nursery, Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter) and Tinker Bell (Ludivine Sagnier) intrude on their lives.There is a lot of talk of kisses. Wendy is resisting the pull of adulthood but there's something happening between her and Peter. It seems to be taken a different tack on the never growing up aspect. It is diving right into the teenage hormones pool. It is a rather dangerous swim seeing how Rachel Hurd-Wood was no more than 12 at the time. In the end, they pull back before anything truly scandalous happened. It's quite a risky proposition to sexualize a children's fantasy. It is darker and not really the same as the Disney classic that everybody knows about. This one did it in a tasteful manner. The CGI especially Tinker Bell looks great. Ludivine Sagnier is actually able to act as a member of the cast. Jeremy Sumpter as Peter Pan is too effeminate. I think it's the curly hair. Everybody else does a good job. It's a darker Peter Pan movie with an edge.