Peter Pan (2003)

Jake Lipson · Post by **Jake Lipson** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:21 pm

Well, I saw it, and it was messy.

I will always love Disney's version, but I was open to a new telling and was severely disappointed. It has a lot going for it -- the cast is exellent, nice direction, wonderful score -- but there was also a huge dose of something that's almost the anti-Peter Pan: sexuality and romance. I read bits of the book before going to see this and there were small hints of it in there, but nothing to this extent. It tried to be a love story between Peter and Wendy and it tried to be Peter Pan at the same time and just plainly doesn't work. (For example, in the final battle, Hook talks to Peter about Wendy: "She'd rather grow up than stay with you, what do you have to offer her, someone else will take your place and he is called husband," and Peter is loosing, and as Hook is about to finish him off Wendy runs forward and kisses him and he gets up and beats Hook.) And the "I Do Believe in Faries" scene is just the cheesiest thing in the world. The battles were well done and a lot of things had a dark edge, like the mermaids, but they were underused. It should have been good, it just...wasn't. Avoid it, or if you must see it, rent or wait for TV.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:33 am

Jake Lipson wrote:Well, I saw it, and it was messy.

...
Hook talks to Peter about Wendy: "She'd rather grow up than stay with you, what do you have to offer her, someone else will take your place and he is called husband," and Peter is loosing, and as Hook is about to finish him off Wendy runs forward and kisses him and he gets up and beats Hook.)

And the "I Do Believe in Faries" scene is just the cheesiest thing in the world. The battles were well done and a lot of things had a dark edge, like the mermaids, but they were underused. It should have been good, it just...wasn't. Avoid it, or if you must see it, rent or wait for TV.

Well, it may sound cheesy but the romance/speech you quote does seem to be about the level of the original PLAY (the book was written after the play) and while I'll accept it sounds dated, it is true to the original.

As for the Belive section, I don't know how they handled it in the film, but this section was always meant to be interactive, with the audience participating in the scene. (Yes, we had interactive entertainment long before computer games and digital TV!)

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:33 pm

Well, I saw it today, and I simply adored it!!

I think, this being a Disney forum, that we've got too many biased individuals around - obviously several people here have seen and liked the animated version, so no opinions are really that objective.

My history with the animated film is I watched it occasionally as a kid, but never tons of times. Then I grew more distant from it as I got older (ironic, eh?) - it just didn't appeal to me after a while. And now the character of Peter really irritates me. He acts more like some mischievious elf than a real, naive child frozen in time. He shows no concern about Wendy through pretty much the whole film - he's just kinda removed from all the proceedings. No emotional connection either between him and the other characters, nor between him and the viewer (i.e. me).

So yeah, not a big fan of the animated film anymore. Just because it's classic Disney doesn't make it undoubtedly excellent. If a live-action film of The Jungle Book came out that it was more faithful to Rudyard Kipling's narrative than any other adaptation, I'm sure people would whine about it being too dark, too. I know that Walt didn't like its seriousness, hence the version we got, but as fun as the animated JB is, it still kinda neutered the original story by being so light and jazzy. Chuck Jones' animated adaptations of The White Seal and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi (both of which were also in the original book) are more faithful to their tales; they include a bit of darkness in them - the same that was found in the original short stories. Kotick's rage on his former ostracizing colony and Rikki's showdown with Nagina are well-portrayed, methinks.

I admire this adaptation of Peter Pan mainly because of its integrity. P.J. Hogan's vision of the story is shamelessly and unblinkingly faithful to the original play - it's wonderful. That includes the off-putting tones of sexuality, or the more sinister behavior of Hook (who casually kills several of his men according to his mood), or the "cheesy" 'I believe in faeries' sequence. I guess if one hadn't known about that part from the play (which, as Netty said, was an interactive piece - the audience had to chant that and clap their hands to get Tink to come back to life), they would've thought that part kinda hokey. The only thing is, I wish the film hadn't spotlit it so much - a long sequence with upsoaring music and everything. Bit over the top.

I loved how dark and grimy everything looked - and the digital grading and CG effects were spectacular. Some flying parts looked a bit awkward - but then again, how can you make a flying human look graceful? All the wires and effects in the world won't ever make us look too cool in the air.

I think I may get the soundtrack, too - James Newton Howard is one of my top favorite composers. He's had me totally hooked since DINOSAUR. If that and the Triplets of Belleville soundtrack I just ordered came on the same day, I'd be thrilled!

I'm really saddened that this film isn't doing too well at the box office right now - but it was pretty dumb of Universal to release it during the cramped holiday season. Unless you've got built-in audiences (Return of the King), star-attraction (Something's Gotta Give), or Oscar buzz (Cold Mountain), you're bound to not do well during November-December. Just too much to choose from, and yet another Peter Pan adaptation - no matter how faithful or well-made it is - is gonna flop.

My hope is that, once the holidays die down, and people/families are looking for something they haven't seen come the weekend, Peter Pan will then pick up a bit. That is, if Universal doesn't cut down its theatre count drastically. Hopefully it'll be fairly widespread in the U.S. throughout January. *crosses fingers*

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 5:46 am

Maerj wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:
Overall, it deserves about an A- and I'm sure it's better than that rip off Cheaper by the Dozen.
Actually isn't Cheaper by the Dozen a remake of the classic 1950 film, which was adapted from a book about the true story of the Gilbreth family?

Also...there was nudity in Peter Pan??

Tinker and Wendy?

Grunches · Post by **Grunches** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:26 am

MickeyMouseboy wrote:
Maerj wrote: Actually isn't Cheaper by the Dozen a remake of the classic 1950 film, which was adapted from a book about the true story of the Gilbreth family?

Also...there was nudity in Peter Pan??
Tinker and Wendy?

No Michale and John. If Cheaper by the Dozen was a reamake, I still liked it a lot more then peter pan. Have you seen Cheaper by the Dozen

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:22 am

The new "Cheaper by the Dozen" only has two things in common with the 50's movie :

1) the title is the same
2) both movies feature a husband and wife who have 12 children

The old movie was based on a true story. This new one is not.

As for the new Peter Pan, I thought it was good, better than 90% of the movies released to the theaters in 2003. It was a thousand times better than Hook. However, it could have been even better than it was. One thing that I found annoying was that there were some times where it seemed to have missing scenes; it was like there were references to things that happened during the timeline of the movie, but never appeared on screen. Perhaps some of these scenes ended up on the cutting room floor or perhaps they were never filmed at all; either way, I think the movie would have benefited from being a bit longer with more scenes to smooth the flow of the story.

Disney Guru · Post by **Disney Guru** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:17 am

My Excitement for this movie is not to high. I dought it will be good as the origional Disney Animated Release.

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:10 am

Rebel wrote:However, it could have been even better than it was. One thing that I found annoying was that there were some times where it seemed to have missing scenes; it was like there were references to things that happened during the timeline of the movie, but never appeared on screen. Perhaps some of these scenes ended up on the cutting room floor or perhaps they were never filmed at all; either way, I think the movie would have benefited from being a bit longer with more scenes to smooth the flow of the story.

Although I haven't seen the film yet (am seeing it next week), I've read enough on it to know that about an hour's worth of footage landed on the cutting room floor. Evidence of this is proven by 1) the fact that half the things shown in the trailers aren't in the film and 2) people reported witnessing the filming of many scenes they didn't see in the film. So if we (hopefully) get the director's cut of Peter Pan, it'll clock in at a whopping 3 hours.

Mermaid Kelly · Post by **Mermaid Kelly** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:03 pm

Today I got the Peter Pan live action movie (blind, I never saw it). I didn't get to watch it yet, but I noticed something odd, it has no insert! Well it has a little cupon book, but no regular insert. Did anyone else buy it? If so, please let me know. Thanks!

Maybe this should be in off topic, but I didn't know, so I put it here. Luke, you can move it if you like.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:17 pm

Since Peter Pan is not a Disney film, but Universal Studios, it does belong in off-topic.

As for the insert, Universal has dissapointingly discontinued these. I believe they stopped around September 2003. Just from my own collection, I know copies of Fast and the Furious, Hulk, and Seabiscuit don't have inserts, for example.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:41 pm

There was no insert in my copy either.

BTW Kelly, goog blind buy. I think this is the best interpretation of Peter Pan, and I am comparing it to the Disney version.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Tue May 04, 2004 8:18 pm

you could perhaps loosely tie this into the "General Discussion" forum because originally this film was supposed to be a joint production with Universal and Disney. about a year ago, though, Disney pulled out of the project and left Universal with the picture (i'm not sure of the details and all). If you take a look at the people who were involved in the making of the film, I"m sure you'll find some familiar names

I only remember this because there was an open casting call for kids to be in the film, and i remember thinking, "If only I were 8 years younger, I'd SOoooooo try out for this film".

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Tue May 04, 2004 8:46 pm

Yeah, Disney pulled out and Universal went to Columbia and Revolution, got the green, and one year later here be the film on DVD.

ZOOMBOOM0688 · Post by **ZOOMBOOM0688** » Wed May 05, 2004 12:28 pm

Jack wrote:Universal has dissapointingly discontinued these. I believe they stopped around September 2003. Just from my own collection, I know copies of Fast and the Furious, Hulk, and Seabiscuit don't have inserts, for example.

Cat in the hat doesn't have one either. I E-mailed Universal and they said they don't put inserts in because all of the info is in the DVD.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:05 pm

wait.... SOMEONE BOUGHT THE CAT IN THE HAT?!?!?!?!?!

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:12 pm

Echos Secret Disney Man's amazement.

At Blockbuster the other day they were trying to sell previewed ones for $ 5. Far and away the lowest price of any of the DVDs. Still had a huge pile of them. And darn it all the Lost in Translations were full screen.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:15 pm

I won't even pay $0.05 for this crap.

Mushu2083 · Post by **Mushu2083** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:24 pm

Why would someone feel the need to BUY Cat in the Hat? Rent it for a little kid to watch while baby-sitting, maybe, but OWNING IT?! WHY? I heard at Blockbuster that if you get the live-action Peter Pan DVD, you get a free book. I never cared much for the inserts when I buy DVDs unless they were coupons.

Aladdin · Post by **Aladdin** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:33 pm

"WHy not own it ?"

Is it that bad ?

What if someone has kids ? Is it better to have it conveniently at home and pop it in anytime the kids want to watch .... or go to the Video store to rent it everytime. Not sure what the problem is here ... seems like there is a hate for it or very closed-minded members here.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:42 pm

The Cat in the Hat is NOT a kids movie! It's got sex, language, there was a girl in the audience that was asking her mom what a Ho was and what (blocked out due to profanity)S.H.I.T. spelled. It is NOT FOR KIDS!!!!!! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PG-13!!!

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Peter Pan (2003)

Peter Pan

Peter Pan (Live action) dvd.........no insert????