Overall Rating
  Awesome: 65.5%
Worth A Look: 22.22%
Average: 7.6%
Pretty Bad: 1.75%
Total Crap: 2.92%
5 reviews, 141 user ratings
|
|
| Peter Pan (2003) |
by Collin Souter
"Helps wash away the scar left last year by Benigni's 'Pinocchio'"
|
It might be safe to assume that the great “Peter Pan” film has never and will never be made. Sure, you can always rely on the 1953 Walt Disney version if you want to show your little ones the basics of the story, but would you really consider that the definitive film version of James M. Barrie’s classic tale? What about the stage versions featuring grown women such as Kathy Rigby or Sandy Duncan as the boy who never grew up? Nah, too creepy. And wouldn’t that end up giving young boys a complex when they see a high-pitched woman playing a pre-pubescent man-child? I, for one, would probably take offense. “What, because my voice hasn’t changed yet, you’re saying I sound like a girl? Screw you!”And screw “Hook,” too! I may have been charmed by it 13 years ago when I refused to believe Spielberg could make a wrong move, but I, like the director, grew up and now find it kind of unwatchable. It’s just too cute, too bloated and too gooey to take seriously. Robin Williams shaving off all his body hair adds to the creepiness factor already made abundant by a certain Michael Jackson proclaiming himself a Peter Pan of sorts with his Neverland Ranch in which many boys have allegedly gone “lost.”
But I digress. What we have now is a new, well-cast semi-definitive live action “Peter Pan,” one with probably the same budget as “Hook,” but this time sticking with the literary source. In fact, an unexpected element of romance has been added in order to give the story more dimension, an element that saves this version of “Peter Pan” from becoming just another Hollywood production played safe. If only the rest of the movie were as daring.
You know the story. Wendy Darling (played wonderfully by newcomer Rachel Hurd-Wood) and her two brothers, John and Michael, get swept away by Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter of “Frailty”) and his companion Tinkerbell. By thinking happy thoughts, you can fly. The Lost Boys populate Neverland, which looks like a Brazilian rainforest. Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs) and his band of pirates, including Smee (Richard Briers), await a showdown with Peter Pan and use the kids as bait. And, of course, you MUST believe in fairies.
(SPOILERS WARNING)
Almost everything happens as you would expect it. Even an Indian girl shows up with a feather in her cap and plants a big kiss on Wendy’s older brother. Yet, half way through, the movie takes an unexpected turn and explores the sadness behind Peter Pan’s unwillingness to grow up. The movie portrays him as being somewhat cursed with stubbornness. Growing up would be the death of Peter, but how else can he fall in love with Wendy and be with her forever? He can’t. He must decide whether or not to take a leap into adulthood or stay young and carefree forever, which would also mean doing away with serious emotions, such as love, an emotion Peter does not want to confront.
With this dilemma comes a surprising amount of insight into Captain Hook’s vendetta against Peter Pan. Hook sees Wendy and Peter dancing together in mid air, holding each other in a wistful, romantic embrace. It moves him to the point of jealousy. He has lived alone and with no one to hold him for too long. The power play that ensues between Peter and Hook over Wendy’s fate begins to gain more weight as a result. Finally, the movie has a clear reason for having been made.
(SPOILERS END)
And yet, the rest of it falls into traps that you would expect from a movie that seems inspired only by the success of the “Harry Potter” franchise. The shopping mall Tinkerbell comes off too cute and annoying. The special effects look unfinished. At times, the magic in “Peter Pan” feels like an ILM/John Williams clip-reel of manipulation. And an episode near the beginning involving an overly cartoonish Saint Bernard has the feel of something that was left on the cutting room floor of a “Scooby-Doo” movie. Like Smee says, “It’s all pretty tragic when you stop and think about it.” What Alfonso Cuaron did with “The Little Princess” could also have been done with “Peter Pan.”
But still, this is probably the best film version I’ve seen. When the movie aspires to be more than a young-versus-old story told for the sake of swordfights, one can’t help but admire it. The complexities between Wendy and Peter’s relationship exists, and I’m glad they explored them. The two leads playing Wendy and Peter have chemistry and manage to pull off the love story with warmth, grace and believability. Jason Isaacs does okay with the Captain Hook role, but doesn’t add anything new to it (I honestly can’t look at another pirate performance in quite the same way after Johnny Depp’s in “Pirates of the Caribbean”).So, I guess this will be as close to “definitive” as we will likely get (the box office numbers suggest that there will not be another attempt at this for at least 20 years). But, hey, the lesson comes through crystal clear: The trade-off of growing up is falling in love, which can be the ultimate happy thought that can make you fly. Without this element in the story, this version of “Peter Pan” would be a completely forgettable excursion, but I’m glad I went and I think parents and their kids will be too. At least now when kids think of Peter Pan, they will picture an actual boy and not a grown man or woman in tights. Now, finally, it makes sense.
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=8380&reviewer=233
originally posted: 01/02/04 16:15:02
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
USA
25-Dec-2003 (PG)
DVD: 04-May-2004
UK
N/A
Australia
18-Dec-2003
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
