Just went to see the new "Peter Pan"

[carlotta]

I think this movie might get lost. It was great! If you like Peter Pan in general, I think you'll like this version.

It remedies what I have always thought of as the "Wendy problem"--Wendy was always just too girly, simpering and sweet.

Rachel Hurd-Wood (Wendy) is channeling my twelve year old self. She is all girl while sword fighting and tells a great revision of Cinderella. She perfectly captures that ambiguous area between childhood and adolescense. She can run and play and goof and still find herself wanting to give a boy a kiss.

The movie is quite sensual. The only way I can get away with mentioning how utterly alluring Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan) is, is to loudly declaim that it is my twelve-year old self speaking. Peter Pan should be seductive. He lures children away to NeverNever Land.

The sensuality is not misplaced, but has always been inherent in the story and is not inappropriate for children old enough to see the movie (not younger than 7 or 8 I think--otherwise just a little too scary- you know, things jumping out going RAAA!)

Add Jason Isaacs (you may remember him as Lucius Malfoy) as Hook and you've got a real treat.

Go see it! (If you like this kind of thing)

[Glory]

I did like it, but a couple of things had me saying "huh?" Like Aunt Millicent? What?

[Glory]

Oh, and I meant to say, they left out one of my favorite parts of the book:

When Peter returns and Wendy is grown up. Wendy's daughter goes to Neverland instead. I LOVE that part and really missed it in the movie

[bienville]

Best Kiss On Film Ever!



.

[acrossthesea]

I can't wait to see this movie. I love all things Peter Pan and I've waited a long time for a real live action story book version of it to be made. Now if they could just do a big budget version of Through the Looking Glass (Alice in Wonderland is my other great old kid's story love, but movies tend to ignore the second book) I'll be happy.

[Profane]

Has anyone seen it with a young child? I have a 6yo that I'm sure would love it, but I'm not sure on the almost-four yo.

[Snite]

It made me want to read the book. Of course, I've always wanted to do that.

The movie did one thing quite excellently: Remind me why Captain Hook is one of my favorite villains. Really, how can you not like the dude?


Psychopachik Vampire

[carlotta]

LunaSea, I didn't actually see it with a little kid, but I have my own four year old who loves the Disney "Peter Pan."

I think it would be ok for him to see it, but there are a few dark and scary scenes that he would probably be scared during, and a lot of dialogue that would probably be above his head. My little guy is also very susceptible to scary music which abounds. So I'm not taking him to see it.

But I don't think he'd be scarred if he happened to see it.

[CyberPundit]

I liked it quite a lot as well. It's certainly superior to the Harry Potter films ; there was genuine tension in the darker scenes and the children's acting was better: particularly Hurd-Wood as Wendy.

What did you people think of Tinker Bell? I thought she was quite funny but some reviewers seemed to find her annoying.

I liked the early scenes poking fun at the social pretensions of Aunt Millicent and Mr Darling. A neat period touch ,too, when Aunt Millicent is shown reading War of the Worlds before the scene where she is scared.

[Tamerlane]

Interesting article on the original, unsanitized Peter Pan and it's slightly oddball author. Interesting to me, anyway, since I didn't know a lot of this background ( having grown up with the Disney version as my touchstone ):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/30/DDGOJ3V0F01.DTL

- Tamerlane

[mobo85]

For those who want to read the original book, you'll have to buy it or check it out at the library. Even though it would be public domain, due to some unusual loophole in British law, its copyright can never expire. (All royalties go to the Hospital for Sick Children in London.) It is believed Disney backed out of this live-action version after they refused to pay the royalties.

[Baker]

I haven't seen it yet, although I plan to. But I checked out something on IMDB and saw that the movie followed the tradition of having Mr. Darling played by the same actor who plays Cpt. Hook.

[Eve]

Originally posted by Glory
Like Aunt Millicent? What?

The director is a friend of Lynn Redgrave's and wrote the part for her.

Peter Pan played by a boy? Hmmph. I'm a traditionalist.

[Nichol_storm]

Originally posted by mobo85
For those who want to read the original book, you'll have to buy it or check it out at the library.

"Peter Pan" is on Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/BR16.HTM).

[Orual]

Jason Isaacs is AWESOME!

[Orual]

Hmm... silly submit button...

Here be the rest of my post.


Exemplary performance from Rachel Hurd-Wood, I thought she caught the confusion of that age very well.

I thought Tinkerbell was hilarious, but can see why others might have found her annoying.

Smee was Polonious from Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet! I spent a good portion of the movie trying to figure where I'd seen him before.

The lost boys were all adorable, particularly the one (SLightly?) who ends up with Aunt Millicent.

All in all, very satisfying. Much better than the Disney version.

And Jason Isaacs is still awesome.

[Scorpio]

I found a review I read rather amusing when it complained about the unpleasantness of Tinkerbell's jealousy of Wendy and the selfishness of Peter. Never read the original book, did you, Mr Reviewer?

[GuanoLad]

For some reason, I found it quite unsatisfying, and I am wondering if I didn't see a version with bits missing. Because it sure felt like the pacing was off.

Nobody else has mentioned anything of the sort in reviews, both professional and amateur. Most people said they loved it. And there were certainly parts I enjoyed.

But overall it just felt incomplete. Subtle things like better establishing of location, establishing of motivation, and deeper insight of character, is all it would've needed for me.

Hmm

[mobo85]

Originally posted by Nichol_storm
"Peter Pan" is on Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/BR16.HTM).

Good point. The American copyright law makes perpetual royalties illegal. The British, however...

[Equipoise]

My husband and I enjoyed this, and it's nice to see that others did too. It's bombing badly at the box office which is a real shame, especially when the filmmakers took great pains to be true to the source material, while Cat In The Hat, which had no concern whatsoever about the original material, is doing boffo box office.

I loved the look of the film. Everything looks right to me, so even though they made use of CGI (the fairy dust!) and miniatures (the snowy London street scenes), it's to strengthen the story and not to be geewhizbang about it. All the actors look and feel right too. Their faces have character and no one seems "dropped in" from 2003.

It's a little bit dark and a little bit wonderous. It's a little bit scary and a little bit magical. It's gorgeous eye-candy and keeps you enteretained, and it also touches on some of the problems of growing up.

This is good, old-fashioned moviemaking (even with using today's technologies) and good, old-fashioned stroytelling.

It deserves better than the reception it's getting. Please go see it.

[Equipoise]

Ugh, typo city. Sorry.

The music is wonderful too!

[RickJay]

You know, I'd never read "Peter Pan" until I read this thread, and followed the Guternberg link.

Holy moly - this is FANTASTIC. Barrie may have been a sad and strange man, but this is brilliant material.

[drm]

I went in half expecting to see some cute kids movie. I was more than pleasantly surprised, I ended up having real feelings for all of these characters - which has a great deal to do with my overall enjoyment of a movie.

I very much like the tinkerbell character. She didn't annoy me at all, everything she did made sense to me - even how she handles her jealousy.

Oh, I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I didn't mention how beautiful I thought the movie was, aesthetically speaking. I just enjoyed this movie so much!

[CyberPundit]

Yes, it looks very good. I don't like reading lots of text online but maybe I will borrow or buy the book some time

[Glory]

I absolutely adore the book. This is the copy I have, the illustrations are beautiful.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670841803/qid=1073203420/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-7635112-3012128?v=glance&s=books

[Jonathan Chance]

Certainly not the movie I'd anticipated but worth every penny.

Though I, at least, was a bit uncomfortable at the obvious sexual tension between our two twelve year old protagonists. That's unusual enough for the pre-teen set on film that it surprised me.

I saw it with my three year old and she really enjoyed it. Even the scary parts she thought were funny. I think she really identified with Wendy.

Anyone else pick up that the actor playing George/Captain Hook also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies?

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally posted by carlotta
The sensuality is not misplaced, but has always been inherent in the story and is not inappropriate for children old enough to see the movie (not younger than 7 or 8 I think--otherwise just a little too scary- you know, things jumping out going RAAA!) Things jumping out and going RIAA? Man, that IS scary!

[don't ask]

Originally posted by carlotta
The only way I can get away with mentioning how utterly alluring Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan) is, is to loudly declaim that it is my twelve-year old self speaking.

You're lucky, I can't take twelve-year old self anywhere. Sounds like she had fun.

[FriarTed]

saw it this afternoon- FREAKIN' LOVED IT! It was funny & gorgeous & exciting & a little scary & even made me (41yo male)
cry (I do believe). As far as capturing the fullness of the source book, it bested ROTK (which is the better movie IMO but Pan is a close 2nd now). One part did jump the shark a bit (this isn't a spoiler).... turning pink?!?!

and 12yo boy me adored Wendy (and Tink)

But I am still safe to be around preadolescent girls *L*

[FriarTed]

btw, just for a fun compare/contrast, see FRAILTY before PAN

[Marlitharn]

Bibliomania (http://www.bibliomania.com/0/-/frameset.html) has the full text online, as well.

After being taken in by Hooked, I was kind of reluctant to go see this one, but after reading this thread I might just have to change my mind.

[Pábitel]

I have read several reviews of it and none of the reviewers "got it"

The one in the local paper complained long and loud that it was nothing like the original. It was obvious but never stated that he thought the "original" was the Disney cartoon.

Another reviewer I read said that it wasn't a good kids film because there was actual suspense and drama. He thought the kiddies were not up to it. I guess drama is too much for them but crotch kicks (standard fare in most LA kids flicks) are just fine.

My five year old loved it. The parts where I thought it might be too intense, like the crocodile scenes, she was saying, "cool!"

I loved Jason Isaacs as hook. He had exactly the right blend of the tragic, the comedic and the sinister. I grinned every time he appeared on screen. I was also pleased to see Richard Briers cast as Smee. I always like his work and his asides were precious. "Oh, this will be exciting, two dead already!"

The kids were all great, especially the leads. Although we all thought the Michael / Tigerlilly scene was a hoot as well.

I would very strongly recommend this film to anyone but especially those with kids.

This is the kind of quality movie I wish Hollywood would go back to making for adults.

[Sassafras]

I took my three year old niece to see it (well, I DRAGGED her, she wanted to see Haunted Mansion) and we both LOVED it.
Jason Isaacs is incredible- I will go see anything if he is in it!

[burundi]

What an amazing movie! I saw it last night, and now I want everyone I know to rush out and watch it.

The actors and sets were wonderful, but my favorite thing is how the movie didn't pull its emotional punches. I loved that they didn't shy away from the sensuality of Peter and Wendy's relationship. (It reminded me a lot of Will and Lyra in The Amber Spyglass.) Twelve year olds, though adults often don't like to be reminded of it, do think about love and sex. The movie handled it very tastefully, but very truthfully. And I loved how they made it clear that Peter's story is tragic. Because he won't grow up, he'll never experience all the fullness and richness of life.

I'm glad they were willing to show the darker aspects of the story, too. I'd forgotten about

Tinkerbell getting the Lost Boys to shoot the "Wendy-bird"

And Hook's "happy thoughts" during the final battle were great. "Children's blood! Puppies' blood! Black Death!"

[BiblioCat]

So is it okay for kids, then? I've a 7-year-old who really wants to see it.
He's seen the Harry Potter movies, and wasn't too scared.

[andymurph64]

Started another thread on this. Should have checked first. I just saw it and was surprised.

Darn fine show.

[Atreyu]

Originally posted by BiblioCat
So is it okay for kids, then? I've a 7-year-old who really wants to see it.
He's seen the Harry Potter movies, and wasn't too scared.

Strictly my opinion, but I think that if this seven-year-old could handle the Harry Potter movies, then he should be able to handle this "Peter Pan" movie.

[squeegee]

My almost-five-year-old was fine with it. Some of the Wendy-Peter stuff in the middle was right over his head, but there were enough action moments for him, and he wasn't frightened by them.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I took my 4 1/2 year old tonight, having some reservations about all the pirate fighting and such. I had him on my lap for scary parts and occasionally whispered some things, like how brave the kids were, and how much they were smiling (and not afraid) when fighting the pirates. We'll probably have a little talk tomorrow about Hook being A Very Bad Guy (he killed a lot of his own crew).

All in all, I liked it, and I was entranced by the sensuality. I was a little disturbed at how appealing I found Peter. God, that smile. If I were 24 years younger, you bet his photo would be taped up in my locker.

[Profane]

Thanks for all the input, I'll take them both. :)

[Baldwin]

Got my girlfriend to go with me, and we both liked it a lot. Made up for having had to sit through Hook. I had forgotten how many truly creative storytelling elements are in there, like the villain being perpetually chased by a crocodile who swallowed his hand and so loved the taste that he wants the rest (although fortunately the crocodile can be heard coming because he swallowed a clock). That's not the sort of thing you get from the committees of marketing specialists who squeeze out the commercial products that usually pass as children's entertainment these days.

[ddgryphon]

My two "Tweenagers" loved it -- so did my wife and I.

Not a bad note in the whole of it, and the production was fine. While kids should love it, it isn't a movie just for kids.

Everyone should see this. No one should be made to sit through The false Cat in the Hat monstrosity going around.

[RitzyRae]

Yes, yes Jason Isaacs is fabulous! And it was quite a shock to see him go from the long white hair of Lucius to the long black hair of Captain Hook.

I loved that the movie stuck closer to the book than any other and I was so happy they also stuck to the tradition of Mr. Darling and Captain Hook being played by the same actor.

But, sadly, the first spoiler mentioned in this thread is the part I missed most of all!! :(

Overall, it was very very good.

[Profane]

Finally took them both to see it today. We all loved it. When it was over my daughter asked if we could watch it again. If it wasn't for the $17 I would've said yes.

I really hope more people go to see it. The thatre I went to was small, but quite full, so I'm hoping it'll make decent money.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I liked it a lot.

I'll have to go back and re-read the book, it's been many years since I read it to my kids. The movie seems to be a strange combination of bits from the book and play (the poison in the medicine), bits from the Mary Martin musical version (building the house for Wendy), and bits from the Disney version (like the flying pirate ship.)