PETER PAN

[thompsoncory]

"Let the fight begin"

http://imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0316396/5576_D036_00058R_rgb.jpg

Directed by: P.J. Hogan (My Best Friend's Wedding)

Written by: P.J. Hogan (My Best Friend's Wedding), Michael Goldenberg (Contact)

Plot Summary: The Darling family children receive a visit from Peter Pan, who takes them to Never Never Land where an ongoing war with the evil Pirate Captain Hook is taking place.

Starring: Jason Isaacs (The Tuxedo), Jeremy Sumpter (Frailty), Rachel Hurd-Wood (debut), Lynn Redgrave (Gods & Monsters), Olivia Williams (The Sixth Sense), Richard Briers (Hamlet), Geoffrey Palmer (Anna And The King), Harry Newell (debut), Ludivine Sagnier (Swimming Pool)

Rated: PG (for adventure action sequences and peril)

Running Time: 1 hour 45 minutes

Release Date: December 25th, 2003

---------

This looks fantastic and will be my annual Christmas movie this year. What do you schmoes think?

[Moviefan1234]

I'll pass. Aside from Jason Isaacs, this looks very lackluster to me. I have yet to become impressed. Unless the reviews are super, I won't be seeing this in the theatre.

[Fisting Ackbar]

On a technical standpoint this doesn't look too bad, but this looks too juvenile for my tastes.

[Stripes]

My Peter Pan comment from earlier

Yesterday I was priveledged enough to see both Peter Pan and the RTOK.

PETER PAN
I won tickets for a special screening for Peter Pan, and I must say, that movie will be a huge money maker.

It was a little slow at the beginning for children, the few that was at the screening were getting antsy the first 15 minutes, but once Pan comes in and takes the children to NeverLand, it is nothing short of amazing.

The CGI lacks a bit in certain areas, but it will not be noticeable to children, and the movie was artsy enough where, it didn't really matter. The violence in this movie although comicly was a little more than a PG rating to me. If somebody as much as sneezed at Capn James hook the wrong way he would shoot them dead. He really did freak the kids out. I don't think there could be a better Live action Pan than the one we got here.

Ok for the bad:

Tinkerbell.......... Tinkerbell was one of the most annoying characters, for one thing she just hissed and squeakd when she was mad or not mad, she didn't talk, she was over acting, if thats is what you call it ....believe me she was just annoying, there is no other word for it.

The Lost Boys...... Ok there was nothing actually wrong with the lost boys, except that they did not have nearly enough screentime with peter Pan, or Wendy.

The movie was a little rushed in parts (kids from the explanation of how the clock was in the crocodile, was explained very fast and was not actually shown, some children had no Idea what was going on they just new a crock was trying to get him.

All in all it is one of the greatest children stories brought to life, and is done in a way, where award winners are going to love it.

*** out of ****

[jolanar]

Boo for child acting.


That is all.

[Jon Lyrik]

Looks like Michael Jackson's new favorite film is coming out.

I dunno, it can be a worthy retelling or expensive crap. But it looks nice and dark (for a family film) and Jason Isaacs is Captain Hook, so why not see it?

[Strider]

Honestly, I actually think "Peter Pan" looks pretty good. The casting for the characters seems perfect, especially Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook. Also, the film looks like a nice piece of eye-candy. And judging by the trailers, this "Peter Pan" looks like a dark and fun re-telling of the classic story. So, I'm there.....

[Ed]

this is one of my most anticipated films this year. I really really really really really really want to see it :D

[ilovemovies]

It looks pretty good but it looks like it uses too much CGI. Some of the sets are phoney and cheesy looking. But it looks pretty decent overall.

[chinton]

CGI dopes look a tad cheesy but Im s o glad they a re s ticking close to the book.

Why a re so many people up in arms over the sexual aspect of the movie. The origianl story of Peter Pan is a sexual awakening with Wendy falling in love with pan and Hook seducing Wendy. Oh and lets not forget Wendy menstrating around chapter 2

[MadsenOMC]

Saw it earlier this week. It is OK. There is way, way too much CGI. It seems like there is CGI in every single shot, and to make matters worse, the CGI is glaringly obvious. It is distracting. You're always thinking, wow, that is CGI. And that is CGI. The flying scenes are done well. Fairly convincing. But that's about all that is positive when it comes to the special effects. They really overdid it. It's also kind of awkward. Clearly trying to please kids and adults equally, and succeeding at neither. Too dark for kids (Hook kills lots of people on screen) but too silly for adults (scene where all the character "I do believe in fairies" is lame as hell. It moves quickly, almost too quickly. The Lost Boys get almost no screen time and Hook is absent too often as well. The acting is pretty good. Jason Issacs is good in both parts he plays and the actress playing Wendy is good. Sumpter is OK in title role. Not spectacular. Some of his lines are delivered oddly. It's harmless and passes the time, but it's OK at best.

5/10

[ilovemovies]

The reviews are actually pretty good so far.

[Arathon]

I saw the trailer again, and now my opinion is it looks pretty mediocre. I don't think I'll watch it, unless the reviews are good.

[Scarface98.9]

I'll probably see it eventually, though my hopes aren't high at all for it. It just looks pretty meh to me, and with laughable looking special effects when showing Pan flying around. It's just hard for me to take seriously the fact of the actor playing him easily beating Hook

[anakinsrise]

This movie looks beautiful.I have always been a Pan fan!!

[blankpage]

Meh. I'm not too interested in the film. I may go see it, but with pretty low expectations. Anyway, it could be good or bad.

[chinton]

I sometimes wonder why studios even bothering adapting the original stories of fairy tales like these. I cant count the many friends I have that just dont get that fairy tales are traditionally dark and twisted. We have all sadly been santisized by Disneys reworkings. Thankfully Potter is helping to reverser that.


MadsenOMc

What did you mean exactly he kills a lot of people off s creen? I was always pissed that Hook didnt kill anybody. i mean he was a pirate with a hook. I kept waiting for soembody to die. Even though i didnt like Speilbergs Hook I did like the Boo Box scene. brought out the nasty side in Hook.

[Jon Lyrik]

This has a pretty good possiblity of flopping as well. It has fairly minimal ads and there are at least a billion decent Pan adaptations out there.

It still looks good, though.

[rilocay]

Well, because it was made in Aus, we have been getting a shitload of ads for it, and if i can see it b4 christmas i will but i dont think anyone will tag along with me. It looks interesting to see hw it will trun out, but thats about it.

[Moviefan1234]

If this is a bomb, I think Revolution Studios may be in big trouble. They have had an awful year. If they're not careful they'll go down MGMs financial path.

[Mike]

No thanks! I wouldn't waste my time seeing it in theaters. It looks like a Harry Potter movie.

I'll rent it sometime, but it looks pretty mediocre.

[Kastman]

I onyl saw this movie in theaters because there were pirates in it (but they sucked monkeys actual balls compared to the ones in piraes of the caribbean) and i was dissapointed, alot...

This movie really really sucks, it moves slowly and is really unexciting.... peter pan looked like all he wanted to do was get in the her pants.

on a scale of 1 to 10, i says 3 i does...

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
If this is a bomb, I think Revolution Studios may be in big trouble. They have had an awful year. If they're not careful they'll go down MGMs financial path.
If it flops, I hope that it doesn't derail plans of theirs to make a Watchmen movie :(

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS

Chinton, Hook kills at least five people on screen, some with a gun and some with a sword. Just seemed to be in the wrong movie. I really think they struggled trying to make this appeal to adults and kids, and they don't succeed. Yes, Hook is supposed to be a big, bad pirate. Someone like him would kill people. But at other times in the movie, he is a silly, bumbling idiot. So his character is uneven and the movie is as well.

[sharkstank]

the first teaser looked dark and mysterious, and it intrigues me.
the final trailer and tv spots are making it look like another kids fairy tale that is high on kids stuff.
but some of the reviews on rt are saying its EROTIC?!
may catch it christmas, but i will see it on dvd if not.

WWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Mike]

The reviews for this are actually pretty damn good. It's supposed to be dark and edgy. Also, I've read in a few different reviews that it's supposed to be erotic. Well how do you like that, an erotic family movie. That's certainly interesting. Maybe one of these might have been a better title: Showpan, Showpeter, Showpp, Wild Peter, Basic Panstinct, 9 1/2 Peters (I know these are lame, but I tried ;))...

Anyway, the reviews saying that it's edgier and not really for the younger kids have gotten me more interested. I wouldn't go see it in theaters, but I'll be sure to give it a rent now.

[Shockwave]

Anyway, the reviews saying that it's edgier and not really for the younger kids have gotten me more interested.

Thats my take on it.

Im MUCH more interested in seeing this now. A darker Peter Pan is always what i wanted the story to be and the expanded role of Captain Hook sounds great.

[MonkeyGoat]

I just saw it, and it's ok. I mean, it was worth at least one watch. To tell you the truth, the only reason I want to see it again is because of Jason Issacs magnificent acting.

[thompsoncory]

I saw it today. It wasn't as good as I expected but it was still decent, mainly due to the good acting and spectacular sets.

7/10 (B)

[Romero&Juliet]

The acting was fairly decent and there were enough really cool sets to keep me drooling..

I could've lived without, though.. Nasttty CGI overkill and some verry lame humor (kiddie is not target audience here, I assssure you!). Passable, I guesss..


cant WAIT to hear how it did at the Box office.. should be interesting.

[JCR]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
If it flops, I hope that it doesn't derail plans of theirs to make a Watchmen movie :(

If it flops, I hope that it does derail plans of theirs to make a Watchmen movie. Watchmen is unfilmable imo.

I'd like to say something to keep the post on topic here but am having problems due to the fact I couldn't care less about pan. Oh well, just imagine I said something cool about it here.

[Shockwave]

Watchmen is unfilmable imo.

Watchmen is VERY filmable, just very unlikely to be done right.

I never could understand how people can mess up on comic book movies, u have the template written for u already but The director, script writer, or studio always trys to add thier own "Zing!" to it and ends up making it crap. Most recent example of this was LXG. That should have been a SUPURB comic book movie, probably the best yet.

Instead they changed and rewrote it until it got to where it is today an unprofitable peice of shit that isnt worthy of the comic.

[Mike]

This is from Dark Horizons:

"Peter Pan" Causes Controversy
Posted: Friday Dec. 26, 2003 11:30pm (Au-EST)
Author: Garth Franklin


You gotta love parental censorship groups, they always have to keep themselves busy, even around Xmas time. According to MSNBC, the latest eruption has come from the website of the Family Research Center who have claimed the new feature film adaptation of J. M Barrie's classic kids fantasy story "Peter Pan" which opened yesterday is too 'naughty' for the littlies.

"If moms and dads are looking for ways to protect their kids from a graphic sex education, beware of this movie...As far as we’re concerned, the only time and place to see it is never, neverland" says the site article whilst an FRC spokeswoman told the column that "Hollywood has turned a classic fairly tale into a sex education lesson. This is a children’s movie and it’s completely inappropriate to include sexual content".

But before you go believing the Lost Boys mix sodomy in with their cowboy & indian games, or the evil Captain attaches battry-operated appendages to his hook hand, a spokesman has already commented on the matter - "Our film ‘Peter Pan’ celebrates J.M. Barrie's original tale and its content is wholesome. We support every parent’s right to determine what is appropriate for their child, and we hope that parents make their own decision about‘Peter Pan’ and find it a magical and meaningful film to share with their entire family".

Indeed, various other family groups have already endorsed the flick, and one or two criticisms already being levelled by critics is that this incarnation of 'Pan' is a too clean as it is take on the subversie original story.

How lame. They need to get a life. Maybe the controversy they're creating will only help it out. I know it's certainly got me more interested in it.

[JCR]

Originally posted by Mike
How lame. They need to get a life. Maybe the controversy they're creating will only help it out. I know it's certainly got me more interested in it.

Yeah I was rather bemused by the angry 'review' on imdb which ranted about what I would consider some mild innuendo. Heck, kids movies have had this for years- I watched who framed roger rabbit on tv today and it was full of innuendo.

Alas capalert ain't put a review up yet. It will be interesting to see what he makes of it all. ;)

[Nachokoolaid]

Let me just say...GREAT FREAKING FILM. I went in, not expecting much. It's been awhile since I've been exposed to anything Pan related, the last being HOOK, but this was truly great. A breath of fresh air in a dull movie year, if you ask me. I was sort of surprised however that something I thought would be a strength was really the only noticable weakness. That would be Jeremy Sumptner's portrayal of Pan. I thought he would own the role, and he was a bit disappointing at times, although quite good at others.

Good:

Jason Issacs rules as Hook, but probably moreso as Mr. Darling. Awesome job. I hope he wins some awards.

Wendy was delightful. I thought her character was the most fully developed of the bunch, and the young actress gave the best performance of the film, on par with Mr. Isaacs.

The Lost Boys were very likeable, and surprisingly not annoying.

The cinematograpy was excellent. Great use of color and it gave the film a much needed magical quality. I heard something about crappy CGI. Rubbish!!! I noticed a couple of places where you could tell there was a certain effect being used, but if this would have occured pre-LOTR, no one probably would have even noticed. The standard may be raised by the LOTR or Matrix films, but I would hardly call it crappy. If anything, it lent itself well to the fairy tale feel.



Bad:

I was a little underwhelmed by Sumptner's Pan, but I guess I was expecting more perhaps, especially based on his subtle performance in FRAILTY.

Personally, I wanted to see the indians show up and kickass at a battle. Other than Princess Tiger Lily (her moment with John KICKS ASS), the indians were pretty absent from the film.

Conclusion:

One of the better films of the year, full of youth and life. On par with Pirates of the Carribbean, although aimed at a slightly younger audience. It makes you feel like a kid, and it has a great sense of innocence and joviality mixed with a little tragedy. PJ Hogan did an awesome job with this film. If you want to have fun at the theatre, go see this. I HIGHLY reccommend it.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Shockwave
Watchmen is VERY filmable, just very unlikely to be done right.

I never could understand how people can mess up on comic book movies, u have the template written for u already but The director, script writer, or studio always trys to add thier own "Zing!" to it and ends up making it crap. Most recent example of this was LXG. That should have been a SUPURB comic book movie, probably the best yet.

Instead they changed and rewrote it until it got to where it is today an unprofitable peice of shit that isnt worthy of the comic.
Not to get off topic, but I have faith in a Watchmen movie, mainly since the word around the campfire is that the writer, and rumored director, David Hayter, got it right, and didn't put in the Tom Sawyer bullshit LXG had. It's said to be extremely faithful, and a great script.

Also, I've read in a few different reviews that it's supposed to be erotic. Well how do you like that, an erotic family movie

Am I the only one creeped out by this concept? Not that it's an erotic fantasy movie, but the ones in question are two 14 year old kids? Maybe I'm just being conservative, but it all feels so...statuatory

[rushmore beauty]

Aww man, I seriously cannot wait to see this flick....good thing I'm going to it tomorrow and 21 Grams the following night.

[Ed]

Peter Pan (9/10) is definitely one of the best pictures i've seen this year.

[HHH123007]

Can anyone tell me what is "sexual" about this movie?.....that might make me want to see it.












Err....wait.

[Nachokoolaid]

Damn, it looks like Peter Pan didn't do so well at the box office this past weekend. It's a shame, because I really enjoyed the film, probably more than anything else I've seen in theatres this year besides X2 and Return of the King. Well, at least ROTK is still # 1 at the box office. But if you haven't seen Pan, go give it a look.

[Kastman]

It's not very erotic...

Peter pan is just giving her the "i want to get in your pants" eyes...

and shes giving him the "i want you to get in my pants" eyes...


but i bet a lot of the 13 year old viewers came out of the theater a more moist than when they went in...

[Shockwave]

This movie was by far one of the best movies i have seen this year.

I really didnt find ANYTHING offensive abouth the way Pan and Wendy acted other then hyper critical soccer moms complaining that "OMFG THEY LOOKED AT EACH OTHER!? DID U SEE THAT!? THEY DID IT AGAIN! OMFG!!!!!"

The acting in the movie was great and both Pan and Hook were complex characters with deeper personalities then i had been led to beleive by previous versions. I liked how they treated Pan more as a thing then a person, like all of Neverland revolved around his state of mind.

One last thing... THE MUSIC SCORE WAS INSANE!! If this does not win best score for a movie there is no justice in the world. This was BY FAR the best score i have heard to a movie in over 5 years. The price of admission was worth it for the score alone.

Movie 9/10

Score 10/10

If it sounds like im gushing its because i am. Its a shame this movie is getting eaten alive by ROTK(altough completely expected, what the hell were they thinking releasing this so close ill never know.)

[Shockwave]

I cant beleive no one else has gone to see this. I know it was going to get the stuffing kicked out of it by ROTK but man..

[Ed]

yeah man, this movie should be doing way better. I hope it has legs.

[t3h Qster]

Originally posted by thompsoncory
I saw it today. It wasn't as good as I expected but it was still decent, mainly due to the good acting and spectacular sets.

7/10 (B)

I agree with some of the acting....only the boy playing Peter did a bad job, and yes the sets were very visually pleasing

7/10 C+

[HHH123007]

Originally posted by Shockwave
I cant beleive no one else has gone to see this. I know it was going to get the stuffing kicked out of it by ROTK but man..

I almost saw it yesterday, but I was with my mom and she wanted to see Paycheck more. She didn't really believe that it would be entertaining for someone over 12....

[willem84]

Well, I am 19 years-old and I have to say I thought this film was absolutely amazing> I LOVED it!! Yes, it was cheesy. Yes, it was a little over-the-top. It stayed true to the story though. The acting, other than Hook, could have done some work on. Was it just me, or did Ms. Darling favor Ms. Darling (Robin William's wife) in Hook. Was that her!? I doubt they'd do that, but she favored her. Anyway. This film had all the elements of a great family flick I was dying to see, it was dark, it was heart-warming, comical, breathtaking, simply brilliant. This year has been good for fantasies. Definately better than Pirates of the Carribbean and The Chamber of Secrets. I'm pushing for an 8 but I doubt I would go that high. Not as good as Hook, but definately worth a watch. Go see it so it will make more money!!! I'm so pissed at the woman at the ticket-booth sold me a ticket for Cheaper by the Dozen instead of Peter Pan!!! What a bitch! It's a conspiracy. I didn't realize it til i went out. If i really cared enough I'd go back and tell them to change it, but .....sorry I don't. ....anyway. That pisses me off that that movie was no. 2 this week and Pan was 7 :( ....oh well GO SEE IT!!! Visually pleasing, although a bit too CGI-ed and cheesy. But, hey it's good when they know they are cheesy. Didn't fall very short of my expectations :)

7/10

[Ed]

Originally posted by willem84
I'm so pissed at the woman at the ticket-booth sold me a ticket for Cheaper by the Dozen instead of Peter Pan!!! What a bitch! It's a conspiracy.

OMG!!! now that you say that, the same thing happened to me!!! weird :confused:

[Shockwave]

Here is Eberts review of Peter Pan-

PETER PAN / ***1/2 (PG)

December 24, 2003






Mr. Darling/Capt. Hook: Jason Isaacs
Peter Pan: Jeremy Sumpter
Wendy: Rachel Hurd-Wood
Aunt Millicent: Lynn Redgrave
Mrs. Darling: Olivia Williams
John Darling: Harry Newell
Michael Darling: Freddie Popplewell
Tinker Bell: Ludivine Sagnier


Universal presents a film directed by P.J. Hogan. Written by Hogan and Michael Goldenberg. Based on the books and play by J.M. Barrie. Running time: 113 minutes. Rated PG (for adventure action sequences and peril). Opening Thursday at local theaters.


BY ROGER EBERT


I'm not sure how to describe this "Peter Pan" to you. It's so different from what I expected. I walked in anticipating a sweet kiddie fantasy and was surprised to find a film that takes its story very seriously indeed, thank you, and even allows a glimpse of underlying sadness. To be Peter Pan is fun for a day or a year, but can it be fun forever? Peter is trapped in Groundhog Day, repeating the same adventures, forever faced with the tiresome Capt. Hook, always shackled to Tinker Bell, who means well but would get on your nerves if you took a three-day bus trip with her.

"Peter," asks Wendy, "what are your real feelings?" Those are precisely what Peter is unable to share. This expensive new production, shot in Australia and unveiling a young unknown as the beautiful Wendy, is aware of the latent sexuality between the two characters, and Peter is a little scared of that. They are at precisely the age when it is time to share their first real kiss -- and they do so, astonishing the other characters (they've never seen that before -- not in the cartoon, not on the stage -- never!).

The movie has been directed by P.J. Hogan, best known for the Julia Roberts comedy "My Best Friend's Wedding." Here he stays closer to the J.M. Barrie book, which is about to celebrate its centenary, and also closer to the book's buried themes, which are sidestepped by most versions of "Peter Pan." When a muscular and bare-chested gamin appears on the windowsill of the prettiest 12-1/2-year-old in London and asks her to fly away from home and family to join with the Lost Boys in Neverland, he is exactly the kind of strange man her mother should have warned her about. When the other major player in Neverland is the one-armed Capt. Hook, who takes an uncomfortably acute interest in both Peter and Wendy, there's enough inspiration here to have Freud gnawing on his cigar.

It's not that the movie is overtly sexual; it's just that the sensuality is there, and the other versions have pretended that it was not. The live action contributes to the new focus; Peter Pan is played by Jeremy Sumpter, who was so effective in Bill Paxton's "Frailty," and Wendy Darling is played by Rachel Hurd-Wood, who was selected at an open casting call and is delightful in her first role. They're attractive young people in roles that in the past have been played by such actors as Robin Williams and Mary Martin, and there is chemistry on the screen.

The special effects of course are endless, but there is a method to their excess. The movie's not simply a riot of pretty pictures, but begins with a Neverland that seems overgrown and pungent -- more like Louisiana than Middle-earth. There is a vast, gloomy castle and all manner of paths into the darkness, but then scenes will turn as delicate as "A Midsummer Night's Dream." At a point when lesser films would be giving us swashbuckling by the numbers, Peter and Wendy dance in mid-air, emulating the fairy ballet.

As the film narrows into its crucial themes, we realize there are two: Wendy's desire to free Peter Pan from eternal boyhood, and Hook's envy of the affection they have for each other. It is no accident that the poison made of droplets from Hooks' red eye consists of envy, malice and disappointment.

Capt. Hook and John Darling are both played by Jason Isaacs, in a dual role made traditional by decades of holiday pantomimes; each character is short on qualities the other has in abundance. Hook is all gnash and bluster, while John Darling is so shy, he can hardly talk to himself in the mirror. Mrs. Darling (Olivia Williams), mother of Wendy and her two younger brothers, seems awfully composed during her long nights by the open window, waiting for her children to return, but maybe she has seen the earlier versions.

Wendy finds a role for herself in Neverland. It's touching, the way the Lost Boys so desperately want to be found, and crowd around Wendy, asking her to be their mother. (What does a mother do? "Tell us a story!") Later, when the Lost Boys join Wendy and her brothers John and Michael back home in their bedroom, they ask Mrs. Darling to be their mother, and she agrees, although when Smee (Richard Briers) arrives late and is motherless, the new character of Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) steps in joyfully.

It was Aunt Millicent who really started all the trouble, by observing that Wendy was not a girl any more, and offering to take her into hand and make her a woman. This offer is vaguely alarming to Wendy, and what Peter offers her is the chance to drift in her pre-adolescent dream forever. What she offers him is a change to grow up. "To grow up is such a barbarous business," Hook observes. "Think of the inconvenience -- and the pimples!"

But to never grow up is unspeakably sad, and this is the first "Peter Pan" where Peter's final flight seems not like a victory but an escape.

[paul]

Originally posted by Shockwave

I really didnt find ANYTHING offensive abouth the way Pan and Wendy acted other then hyper critical soccer moms complaining that "OMFG THEY LOOKED AT EACH OTHER!? DID U SEE THAT!? THEY DID IT AGAIN! OMFG!!!!!"


I totally agree with you. What is so wrong with a romance that involves kids? I guess it was just because Wendy and Peter were just looking at eachother VERY sensually. At least I think thats it. But really, I didn't find anything wrong with it.

[Shockwave]

Aye, i just take it as people being hyper critical of a movie they probably never saw.

The funny thing is, it makes apoint of showing that Peter is afriad of growing up and anything that has to do with it including getting close to someone. It itimidates and scares him.

That was one of the things i liked about the movie, it showed(unlike previous installments) that never growing up has its ups and downs.

[Deckard_HR]

I thought this movie was fantastic! Anyone who sees something erotic in this movie is just plain perverted. It's more a story of a first love than any other previous installments...but it sure as hell doesn't show any type of moments where it seems like Hook was hitting on Wendy or something- and I heard people saying that! This was the second best family film of the year for me after "Finding Nemo". It has some awesome visuals, its bright and vibrant, with lively actors who never really stink up the screen. Jeremy Sumpter is great as Peter Pan, even though his accent was sort of off at times. Rachel Hurd-Wood is a true talent as Wendy, and being as this is just her first role I think she has a career ahead of her. And Jason Isaacs is great as well as Hook, so good that he gives Dustin Hoffman's fun performance in "Hook" a run for its money.
10/10

[Shockwave]

And Jason Isaacs is great as well as Hook, so good that he gives Dustin Hoffman's fun performance in "Hook" a run for its money.

Aye, i agree totaly.

[psycho path]

Are the pirates like they are in Pirates of the carribean?

I like the music score to this film, judging from the trailers music. I wanna see it, but I hope it's not like Harry Potter, because honestly, I hated that movie...

[Shockwave]

Are the pirates like they are in Pirates of the carribean?

No, these pirates are not the walking dead.:)




I like the music score to this film, judging from the trailers music. I wanna see it, but I hope it's not like Harry Potter, because honestly, I hated that movie...

Its nothing like Harry Potter other then both movies have child actors who can act.(for once) Its got better pacing then either of the Harry Potter films so it might not bore u if u found them a trifle long.

[Jon Lyrik]

Saw it. Damn good, but not as good as it could have been, some of the set/effects work could have been sorted out a bit, and some of the writing was a bit unsteady. But overall, it was a surprisingly dark family film that deserves much more money than it is getting. 7.5/10.

BTW-anyone who finds it "erotic" is reading WAY too much into it.

[Shockwave]

BTW-anyone who finds it "erotic" is reading WAY too much into it.

Aye, im not sure where peole got that from, cause it sure wasnt in this movie. Maybe there is some sort of HBO "Peter Pan" floating around that they got it mixed up with. :D

[Jim H]

I liked it. Everything that I wanted to say has been said though. I will say the "Believe in faeries" bit, I thought was pretty good.

"they ask Mrs. Darling to be their mother, and she agrees, although when Smee (Richard Briers) arrives late and is motherless"

WTF? Richard Briers is seventy years old. Did I miss soemthing? I guess Ebert just made a mistake.

My rating: 7/10. It was good, but not quite what I'd hoped for. It's good to see some faery tales with a darker edge coming out in the past few years.

[MonkeyGoat]

Everyday I laugh about the beleive in fairies thing where the father is saying it and he's at work. Everyone else is like "what the hell?" That cracks me up!

[Vega]

Man, I loved this movie. I thought it was just about perfect - the scenery was beautiful, the actors were good, and the whole thing just had this great, magical sort of atmosphere. In fact, my only complaint is the same problem I have with all movies I love - I wanted to spend more time there! It almost felt like the director gave us this amazing world, and didn't give me enough time to play there. Of course, I feel the same way about the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, so it's not like Peter Pan actually needed to be longer - just that the creation of a new, exciting world was so completely successful that I didn't want to leave when the credits were over.

[Sheriff Hobbes]

The film just started a few weeks ago here in Germany.
I pretty much liked it. There's just one very bad downside for viewers in my country: in the land of censorship "Peter Pan" has been strongly cut for a 6-Rating. And the cuts were made so amateurish that it was hard to watch and ruined the whole film. My favorite scene is when Peter is shouting in the sky "I do believe in fairies, I do, I do".

I'm really looking forward to the uncut U.S. DVD which I already ordered.

Originally posted by Kastman
It's not very erotic...

Peter pan is just giving her the "i want to get in your pants" eyes...

and shes giving him the "i want you to get in my pants" eyes...

Very well said. :D
But there's more to it, e.g. when Wendy kisses Peter on the deck of the ship, he literally explodes! I interpreted this explosion as a metaphorical way to describe an orgasm.


Originally posted by Shockwave
One last thing... THE MUSIC SCORE WAS INSANE!! If this does not win best score for a movie there is no justice in the world.
I agree; James Newton Howard did a pretty good job. I purchased the soundtrack CD. Only downside is that the music from the end credits is missing.

Cheers,
The Sheriff