I think we can all agree that we grew up with Peter Pan in our childhood. The idea of a kid that never grew up, lives in a world far beyond the stars, has a group of friends at his aid and fights pirates surprisingly never got old. J. M. Barrie unleashed an amazing world of fairies and cut throat pirates while bringing in a group of interesting characters. But as far as film versions go, there’s always two I tend to look at; The animated Disney version from 1951 and Steven Spielberg’s “possible sequel” Hook. I watched these movies a lot as a kid admiring the child spirit of the animated version while Hook acted more like lost “fatherhood” than a search for childhood. With these two embedded in my mind, there was practically no other take I can think of that really stood out and said “this is Pan in his finest hour.” I’m also aware of the Fox animated series “Peter Pan and the Pirates” which sadly I never saw at the time. But I will say thanks to the Internet, I can mark it off as a good twist on the classic tale.
Now, jump to the holiday season of 2003 which I will always regard as the dark period of my theater going experiences. There was a great amount of family movies that came out at the time that rarely became a box-office hit. Sure there was Elf and the last Lord of the Rings movie, but with so much competition at stake, I felt everyone had no idea which was a safe choice to watch with their kids or just by themselves. Brother Bear and Looney Tunes: Back in Action failed to make a big splash at the box office while The Cat in the Hat and The Haunted Mansion were failures with critics and viewers for taking cherished nostalgia into pure crap. With many mainstream movies geared for the adult audience like Honey and Bad Santa, it was a tough act to find a film that was for the younger crowd while also good at the same time. The only two I can think of that were true hits were Elf and the remake Cheaper by the Dozen. With so many different films to choose from and compete against, it was a tough market to be in let alone for a movie about a boy who could fly and never get old. And for these reasons alone, that is why I think P. J. Hogan’s “Peter Pan” wasn’t a box office success.
Needless to say, I never saw this adaption in theaters but wanted to. It looked darker and felt like an edgier take. But once 2004 kicked in, those memories of seeing trailers and TV spots while getting hyped faded away. It wouldn’t be long til I finally saw it (or at least some) when I was in 8th grade. It was a basic situation where a movie would play while one would work to arts and crafts to pass the time. And unfortunately, that is how I best remember my “fond” memories. I knew the technology was finally updated to the point where CGI could be a lending hand but something about it kept me from seeing the special effects as unique. It was action-packed and went into grim territory when needed but I always kept thinking back to Harry Potter when it came to family films that had a balance between light and edge. The cast and its performances were good but there was not much I could remember that really stuck out to me. Well, after finally revisiting “Peter Pan” I can finally say that I don’t think its necessarily a bad movie but there was room for improvement that just didn’t meet my expectations.
The story about a kid that “never grew up” is there and the entire cast again is not bad. Jeremy Sumpter plays the Pan in grass clothing and all while promsing Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood) that a world lies beyond the stars where she can remain young forever and never get old. Seeing her parents are pressuring her into adulthood, she accepts while tagging her brothers John and Micheal who relish in the thought of adventure as much as they do. The kid acting is fine even among the Lost Boys who don’t feel dull or generic. Again, I can’t think of a bad performance as we started to get into that age where child acting really got up to speed and showed that a ten year old can really carry emotion.
Jason Isaacs is devious as Captain Hook while also stern and awkward as Mr. Darling. In keeping with stage play tradition, the actor who plays Hook also has the role of the father of the Darling family. But what feels missing is the same amount of menace that Mr. Darling had to make that connection between reality and fantasy. Instead, Mr. Darling is depicted as a bumbling klutz than the usual “nose to the grindstone” father that is usually seen. I guess this was done to lighten him up seeing Hook is fierce in comparison but I can see the idea of Darling being equally menacing as the infamous pirate. Even the Disney version knew when to limit that by showing he wasn’t a bad father but frustrated while trying to stick to his beliefs of what makes in his opinion a good family. Instead, the 2003 version has him trying to overcome social awkward tropes while also played as the comic foil.
When Jason Isaacs plays Hook, however, its the total opposite. He really chews out the scenery in being a memorable Hook. He sets his sights on revenge without stop, he is a cunning planner, lays his crew to waste when he’s frustrated or angry, and even proves to be a huge threat for our heroes. I should say this is hands down a good take on the character but something feels missing. With Has Conried, he was devious while still a campy yet funny version. And Dustin Hoffman delivered a more psychological variation that is played for laughs and dug into the character’s mindset. Its not that Isaacs is not doing a bad job as this is the Hook we all wanted, but there’s not much fun to his character. He’s used as a straight up villain which is not bad but I wish there was more humor to his take.
On top of that, there are some elements in this version that feel really uncomfortable. I don’t know if its the source or how the film is delivered but there is a lot of romantic tension that come off as feeling awkward. I guess it didn’t bother me too much as a teenager because I didn’t pick it up on first watch, but it feels like there’s a lot of “sexual tension” between Peter Pan and Wendy most of the time. The dialogue when they talk for the first time is executed in a manner that feels like something adults would say and there’s all these close ups of Peter getting excited that are really tight and enclosed that ruin the whim of the moment. Wendy should be amazed by the idea of a kid that can fly and remain his age. Not all these metaphors about martial parenting and teenage love. It almost comes off as creepy. And it doesn’t help either when later on Hook seduces her with piano and a lobster dinner that feels near pedophilia when he talks about having her join her crew of adult pirates, tell stories and there are these moments where Hook acts like a lady charmer in subtle expressions. It just feels weird and unsettling. Maybe I’m looking at this too much seeing it is a fantasy for the younger crowd but it just comes off as out of date in either the context its delivered in or just suffers from being seen in a new vision.
It also doesn’t help the special effects haven’t held up here. Don’t get me wrong. Some things like the sets and Ludivine Sagnier’s tiny appearance as Tinkerbell do work. But from time to time, you can tell when something is CGI and when something is being blue screened to the point you don’t feel like kids are flying in the air or that a crocodile is really chasing after Hook. Its surprisingly how another pirate movie (Pirates of the Caribbean) at the time used CGI and practical to a degree where they blend seamlessly where else here it just feels like a video game crafted for the PS2. A good example is when the Darling kids fly for the first time as they jump off a bed. Its clearly established its such a small room where else when they jump into the air, the ceiling above them looks huge out of the Sistine Chapel. With many inconsistencies and effects that range from cartoony to an obviously computer crafted crocodile, they took me out of the moment where I felt like I was watching a movie and not so much fully convinced Neverland.
So your probably thinking I really dislike this adaption? Well, its more half and half. As a kid, I would have enjoy seeing this version but at the time, Harry Potter was on the scene and really pushed the boundaries for young fantasy. I feel with Hogwarts on the big screen and enchanting audiences ages 8 to 52, there wasn’t much to offer here aside from trying to be this edgier take. There’s even elements that I felt could have been better expanded on like the Native Americans and mermaids we see for one scene or even how the logic of Neverland works. To be fair, it does start off clever as Pan’s emotions sort of control the island as his absence creates winter but yet his existence on Neverland creates spring. But then there are things like when he is sad it becomes winter again or when he’s happy it becomes bright and sunny. Whatever its trying to say in this metaphoric view, it just comes off as a nice idea but weird in execution.
Maybe if this “Pan” found a balance between light and dark while placing a bit more effort into its effects while being fun and light yet unique adaption, I wouldn’t feel so underwhelmed. In a way, I expected a lot more from this version but it felt like it was playing itself too safe in spots when it tried to be dark and lost in trying to be acceptable for mainstream audiences. The final result is not a bad movie but it feels near forgettable. My personal take is that after showing how much fantasy can do with Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, it became a tough act to follow while opening a new door. Now you can make characters with depth while meshing them with amazing worlds that are digital but feel grand. “Peter Pan” feels more like a wannabe Harry Potter and less like an adaption that does its own thing. Once in a while you get a good moment and a nice visual but its bogged down by how the source is being presented or some strange directing choices that I tend to question or wish why it exists. I wouldn’t say its a movie I wouldn’t let kids watch as I can’t think of any bad morels or anything that I felt was awful. Its harmless enough on its own to watch. But with a new “Pan” on the horizon that is taking the origin route (much like “Maleficent” or “Oz, the Great and Powerful”), I am starting to wonder if there is hope for that second star to the right…
Having a nostalgic hunger for live musical telecasts, I wondered how the “near dead” genre would get back on track. Well, last year’s “Sound of Music” was the kick starter to it and despite having not seen it, I do give credit for again taking a lost tradition and giving it new legs. Or else, I would have not seen one of the most amazing live televised events. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t hype it too much. After all, some of us thought the new “Peter Pan Live” was going to be a flop. But to my surprise, this not only does the original musical right but also even the source material to a new generation. Being someone who grew up on the Disney version and Steven Spielberg’s “Hook” (which is one of my favorite films), I always liked the idea of a kid that never grew up and lived in a world where pirates where the adults and kids were trying to maintain their young selves. Now having not seen the original J.M. Barrie production and only the 1960 musical recording with Mary Martin in the title role, its going to be hard trying to compare and contrast among sources. But seeing its developed from the 1954 Broadway play and some portions of the J.M. Barrie play, its an interesting cross that doesn’t feel insulting. It shows research was done well.
Allison Williams is surprisingly well cast as Peter Pan respecting the charm of the character but also an added tragedy. The fact that the world around him is growing up and yet refuses to grow with it. I can’t reveal why as it would spoil but it very much follows a unique reason for the character’s eternal youth that I never thought before. Its lost childhood that was never experienced and only wishes to remain in that form because of how grand it feels. I know its strange to have a woman play Peter Pan but I see why. Picturing a male lead would be hard to carry much charisma and whimsy for such a notable character.
The biggest hype of the evening I’m sure everyone was waiting to toss vegetables at is Captain Hook being played by Christopher Walken. This could have gone wrong but I best remind you how much of a song and dance man Walken is. He can carry a tune and his footwork is phenomenal. While he doesn’t go over the top, the role is a surprisingly good fit. Its a more laid back take that is not cartoony giving a fresh new take on the character. Its more interrogating and serious which brings more comedy when he tries to take something so absurd like poisoning Pan with a cake while making it diabolical. If I did have a nitpick his performance a bit, it does get too relaxed at times for even when he has to react to a man in a crocodile suit. The timing of his reaction is funny but not big enough to be hilarious. When the croc was around, Hook would be in a fit. Here, he just slides away like its a spider in a window.
The updates to the show are good too; production wise and story. There’s a lot more time spent between Pan and Wendy (Kelli O’Hara) to get an idea of their relationship as Wendy wants to be a more motherly figure while Pan keeps reminding his Lost Boys to always be a kid. It makes for some great comedy while also getting some drama while Wendy finally understands why Pan never wishes to grow up. It becomes more heartbreaking than a simple shrug in the original. I also think the Lost Boys depicted as English school children is clever rather than lost orphans on an island. But the biggest update I think everyone can agree is the Natives. In the past, they were seen more as the comic relief and I don’t think it was the right aspect. I know it was of the time but it just got too campy at times and I never found them that funny. In the “Live” production, they are given a better direction that is easy to stomach with. Though, did they have to give them a skimpy grass skirt? Even for a TV-G production its questionable.
Past the story changes, there are some additional notes to the melody that I think help it out. “Ugg a Wugg” I don’t think will be missed much as it gets a decent re-write and Captain Hook has one or two extra tunes that add on to the character’s hate for Pan that get really catchy. The biggest addition is a number called “When I Went Home” that was originally cut from the 1954 production. Perhaps its reinstatement to this version is more suitable here as the past was more campy and light. This number in general that talks about a past memory Peter has fits what this version is doing but adding character depth while not too much to the point its too sad. The Pan here is more than just smiles and games. Its a kid that doesn’t wish to be something he doesn’t want. Its better reflected here.
“Peter Pan Live” is not just an upgrade but a welcome production that I’m sure will be talked about for a while. While I can’t say its 100% perfect as it does have some wires hanging about here and there while some studio lights in certain shots but that’s part of the fun of a live production. If it were a movie, that would be a different case. Your more amazed with how they have a small blooper like that and just go with it. Your expecting them to break character but yet impressed to see how they role with it and do their part. That is good acting to me. A perfect stocking stuffer I declare for this musical gem.