Review: Peter Pan (** 1/2)

PETER PAN
A film review by Steve Rhodes

Copyright 2003 Steve Rhodes

RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2


The colorful sets and sumptuous cinematography for the new live action
version of PETER PAN are absolutely magical. The movie, by writer/director
P.J. Hogan (MURIEL'S WEDDING), is based on the famous musical with one
major, glaring exception -- all of the wonderful songs and music are gone.
What's next? OKLAHOMA! without the musical numbers? With the stunning
success of CHICAGO last Christmas, the decision to skip the tunes this time
is a strange one.



So what does Hogan's version offer in place of songs? Surprisingly, it
offers raw sensuality. Many parents may not know quite what to think of a
sexually-charged version of PETER PAN. I know I didn't. The young teenage
leads look like preteens who are rapidly coming to grips with their
exploding sexuality. Granted not much happens other than a few kisses and
an accidentally sexual drawing, but, if you can't see what is going on just
below the surface, you'll want to get your eyes checked. Male model Jeremy
Sumpter, a sandy-haired kid with a slightly androgynous look, plays Peter
Pan, the boy who refuses to grow up. He spends the whole movie running
around without a lot of clothes on. Rachel Hurd-Wood, a pretty young
actress with bee-sting lips and a big toothy smile, plays Wendy Darling,
Peter's pretend wife. As they share many moments cheek to cheek, it's
completely clear what is really on their minds.



What works best in the movie, in addition to the striking appearance of
cotton-candy clouds and sparkling lights, are a couple of the supporting
performances. Jason Isaacs gives a spirited rendition of Captain Hook. On
the downside, he makes Mr. Darling into too much of a buffoon. Best of all
is French sexpot Ludivine Sagnier (SWIMMING POOL) as a scene stealing Tink.
The only problem is that Tink never gets the screen time that she deserves.



If you're looking for a sex-charged fairy tale, full of magical images, you
won't be disappointed. But, if you're looking for the charm of the
original, you won't find much of it in Hogan's version. Still, I suspect
that most preteen girls will adore this movie.



PETER PAN runs a long 1:45. The film is rated PG for "adventure action
sequences and peril" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up.



The film opens nationwide in the United States on Christmas Day, 2003. In
the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC and the Century theaters.



Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com

Email:



************************************************** *********************



Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email?

Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

Umm, you so realise that due to the 100 year anniversary of Peter Pan
next year, this movie is based on the JM Barrie's 1904 original? Which
was a great fantasy yes, but also about the fear of growing up etc and
featured an innocent sexual awakening between Peter and Wendy.

This has nothing to do with the diluted Disney musical, which was NOT
the original, nor was Barrie even alive to see it (thank God!).

Umm, you so realise that due to the 100 year anniversary of Peter Pan
next year, this movie is based on the JM Barrie's 1904 original? Which
was a great fantasy yes, but also about the fear of growing up etc and
featured an innocent sexual awakening between Peter and Wendy.

This has nothing to do with the diluted Disney musical, which was NOT
the original, nor was Barrie even alive to see it (thank God!).

Some of us liked the Disney version. It was, perhaps, a more innocent product.
(Of course, this comment will no doubt inspire a great many responses regarding
the "blatantly racist" song "What Makes the Red Man Red". Funny, I don't recall
any massive protests at the time the movie was released. Get a life...)

And getting back to the original comment, 100 years after Barrie, is there
really any such thing as an "innocent sexual awakening"? I've seen the
commercials for this movie, and while the special effects look incredible,
Peter and the Lost Boys look more than a little "Lord of the Flies"-ish to me,
and after reading this review, I would be VERY reluctant to take a young child
to this movie.

(GI Trekker) wrote in message ...
Umm, you so realise that due to the 100 year anniversary of Peter Pan
next year, this movie is based on the JM Barrie's 1904 original? Which
was a great fantasy yes, but also about the fear of growing up etc and
featured an innocent sexual awakening between Peter and Wendy.

This has nothing to do with the diluted Disney musical, which was NOT
the original, nor was Barrie even alive to see it (thank God!).

Some of us liked the Disney version. It was, perhaps, a more innocent product.
(Of course, this comment will no doubt inspire a great many responses regarding
the "blatantly racist" song "What Makes the Red Man Red". Funny, I don't recall
any massive protests at the time the movie was released. Get a life...)

And getting back to the original comment, 100 years after Barrie, is there
really any such thing as an "innocent sexual awakening"? I've seen the
commercials for this movie, and while the special effects look incredible,
Peter and the Lost Boys look more than a little "Lord of the Flies"-ish to me,
and after reading this review, I would be VERY reluctant to take a young child
to this movie.


.... none of which alters the fact that in Steve Rhodes' review, he
blasts the movie for not featuring musical numbers! Jesus f--ing
Christ! Why should a movie based on a novel be blasted for not having
songs?

And why SHOULD the original Peter Pan, with it's more complex, true to
life representation of growing up be sanitised for the modern day? It
was a classic 10 years ago, yet today children can't handle it?
Rubbish. Is our culture that Disneyfied and devoid of depth? It sounds
like parents are the ones more afraid for the children to grow up,
than children themselves. Please evolve.

And yes, there is such a thing as an innocent sexual awakening. Is all
sex considered dirty suddenly?

"GI Trekker" wrote in message
...
Umm, you so realise that due to the 100 year anniversary of Peter Pan
next year, this movie is based on the JM Barrie's 1904 original? Which
was a great fantasy yes, but also about the fear of growing up etc and
featured an innocent sexual awakening between Peter and Wendy.

This has nothing to do with the diluted Disney musical, which was NOT
the original, nor was Barrie even alive to see it (thank God!).

Some of us liked the Disney version. It was, perhaps, a more innocent
product.
(Of course, this comment will no doubt inspire a great many responses
regarding
the "blatantly racist" song "What Makes the Red Man Red". Funny, I don't
recall
any massive protests at the time the movie was released. Get a life...)

And getting back to the original comment, 100 years after Barrie, is there
really any such thing as an "innocent sexual awakening"?

yes of course there is, & since it's a story, doubly so. kids don't see
things the same way you do - they are filtered through their own much more
limited experience. they don't know what you know or see what you see.

I've seen the
commercials for this movie, and while the special effects look incredible,
Peter and the Lost Boys look more than a little "Lord of the Flies"-ish to
me,
and after reading this review, I would be VERY reluctant to take a young
child
to this movie.

steve's is the only not-so-good review i've read of this. we're definitely
going & taking the kids too. there are only so many opportunities in a year
to see a children's film which is of the quality you'd (well, i'd) expect of
any movie, and isn't execrable crud with an intelligence level more suited
to a lamp shade. which isn't something that can be said of many disney
products.

besides that, the target audience is not "young" children.
kylie

"0tterbot" wrote in message ...


steve's is the only not-so-good review i've read of this. we're definitely
going & taking the kids too.



The key point here is not whether you like the original or the Disney
version.

The key point is that Steve Rhodes' review is a wrong, and therefore
irrelevant: his primary fault with the movie is that it doesn't
feature musical numbers "like the original", so he clearly has no idea
what he's talking about. (This movie is based on the original novel
written 100 years ago which wasn't a musical).

He seems to think the Disney musical was written by J. M. Barrie and
anything different from that should be lambasted. Shame on him.

Since some of the wording of my review could be taken, incorrectly, to imply
that I didn't know the original source material for Peter Pan, I made a few
modifications for clarity so that it said better what I had originally had
intended.

My revised version is below.

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and to your families,
Steve

PETER PAN
A film review by Steve Rhodes

Copyright 2003 Steve Rhodes

RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2


The colorful sets and sumptuous cinematography for the new live action
version of PETER PAN are absolutely magical. The story, by writer/director
P.J. Hogan (MURIEL'S WEDDING), is based on the J.M. Barrie book as were the
many previous musical versions. Fans of the musical will be sad to find
that all of the wonderful songs and music that we've come to know and love
are gone in Hogan's PETER PAN. What's next? OKLAHOMA! without the musical
numbers? With the stunning success of CHICAGO last Christmas, the decision
to skip the tunes this time is a strange one.



So what does Hogan's version offer in place of songs? Surprisingly, it
offers raw sensuality. Many parents may not know quite what to think of a
sexually-charged version of PETER PAN. (I think we already get enough tales
about sex and Neverland from our nightly news.) The young teenage leads
look like preteens who are rapidly coming to grips with their exploding
sexuality. Granted not much happens other than a few kisses and an
accidentally sexual drawing, but, if you can't see what is going on just
below the surface, you'll want to get your eyes checked. Male model Jeremy
Sumpter, a sandy-haired kid with a slightly androgynous look, plays Peter
Pan, the boy who refuses to grow up. He spends the whole movie running
around without a lot of clothes on. Rachel Hurd-Wood, a pretty young
actress with bee-sting lips and a big toothy smile, plays Wendy Darling,
Peter's pretend wife. As they share many moments cheek to cheek, it's
completely clear what is really on their minds.



What works best in the movie, in addition to the striking appearance of
cotton-candy clouds and sparkling lights, are a couple of the supporting
performances. Jason Isaacs gives a spirited rendition of Captain Hook. On
the downside, he makes Mr. Darling into too much of a buffoon. Best of all
is French sexpot Ludivine Sagnier (SWIMMING POOL) as a scene stealing Tink.
The only problem is that Tink never gets the screen time that she deserves.



If you're looking for a sex-charged fairy tale, full of magical images, you
won't be disappointed. But, if you're looking for the charm of the
original, you won't find much of it in Hogan's version. Still, I suspect
that most preteen girls will adore this movie.



PETER PAN runs a long 1:45. The film is rated PG for "adventure action
sequences and peril" and would be acceptable for kids around 9 and up.



The film opens nationwide in the United States on Christmas Day, 2003. In
the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC and the Century theaters.



Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com

Email:



************************************************** *********************



Want free reviews and weekly movie and video recommendations via Email?

Just send me a letter with the word "subscribe" in the subject line.