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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ):
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.