Okay, it wasn’t exactly ick, but the new version of “Peter Pan” (which the now fairly healthy Ariel and myself went to see this afternoon) just somehow didn’t engage me as much as it should have.
I’d have to attribute it largely to the casting. Jason Isaacs as Hook had the singular misfortune to follow the recent cinematic piracy of Johnny Depp and Geoffry Rush, and pales in comparison. Peter Pan himself is inexplicably the only American and is certainly handsome enough to look at but just doesn’t capture Pan’s arrogance. The only truly magical presence in the film is the mercurial Tinkerbell, who infuses every frame she’s in with boundless energy that no one else approaches (which is ironic considering presumably she shot all her scenes by herself against a green screen.)
Nor am I ecstatic over the subtext of budding maturity being brought so completely over the top. While in the book literally no one touches Peter (which can be interpreted so many ways that it’s a thesis-writer’s dream), in the film the sexually awakening Wendy lays a timely kiss on Pan that sends the entirety of Neverland into orgasmic spasms.
There’s moments. There’s tons of moments. Some great visuals. But somehow it just didn’t make me stand up and crow.
PAD
• 
I’m so sorry to hear you didn’t like it. We saw it opening night and positively adored it, particularly Jason Isaacs as Hook.
One question: when did you last read the original book? I read it for the first time a few months ago, in anticipation, and I thought the movie did an excellent job at capturing the spirit of the book without slavish adherence. (They changed enough that I was still surprised and in suspense)
I didn’t have any problems with comparisons to Pirates of the Caribbean because I saw the characters as being very different. Although the character of Hook dresses flamboyantly (described as reminiscent of Charles II), J.M. Barrie wrote him as a rather melancholy and tragic figure. [Here are a few quotes from the book if anybody’s interested.] Frankly, after I was done reading it, I wanted somebody to write up his backstory like Gregory Maguire did in Wicked. But I suppose fanfic will take care of that…
The message I got from the film was romantic love is what sets children apart from adults; neither Hook nor Pan really had love, but only Hook was aware of his loss.
I was also impressed with how they handled Princess Tiger Lily, as somehow I didn’t think references to the “Piccaninny tribe” would go over well with modern audiences…
Wow, So this is what it’s like to be the first person to respond to a post. Hmmmmm, it’s kinda roomy up here. At any rate, I haven’t seen Peter Pan yet, but I have read several reviews saying that this version is closest to the original book then any other Pan movie made to date. (I haven’t read the book either, but that’s what they say.) I’ll probably see it when one of my friends buys or rents it.
I’m waiting to see what the new version of “Willie Wonka/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is going to be like.
Wendy lays a timely kiss on Pan that sends the entirety of Neverland into orgasmic spasms
Yeah, but as we discussed on the drive home, given the blank look Peter gives as he and Tink fly away at the end, we suspect he’s already forgotten who Wendy was…
I’ll stick to the orginals thank you very much. I’m a purest when it comes to classics. 😉
So Dee, you’ll only read the play? It predates the novel by two years, but I’m sure I’m not telling a purist like yourself anything you didn’t already know.
The depictions of Indians in Peter Pan is tricky because Neverland exists as part of Peter’s imagination and given his background (child of the 19th century), the Indians should not be depicted in PC terms.
The live-action PETER PAN is probably nothing more than Hollywood’s resident monkeys-in-suits trying to cash in early on the inevitable fantasy cinema surge triggered by THE LORD OF THE RINGS’S success.
Other than THE DREAM-QUEST OF UNKNOWN KADATH, (and even the most daring of studio executives wouldn’t touch that story with a ten-foot pole), I have no desire to see any more works of the fantasy genre beaten like so many dead horses.
Well, if you don’t want to see it, don’t see it. You don’t have to run it by us for our approval first…
I’ve always thought the Peter Pan story was creepy in a Freudian way. The Disney movie cheated by bumping Peter and Wendy along to a safer teen look.
While I agree this movie was a tad more creepy in that regard, it’s what I always think of the story. (And, no, I don’t think much of the story.)
Well, if you don’t want to see it, don’t see it. You don’t have to run it by us for our approval first…
Thank you, Doug. I haven’t seen it, and I don’t intend to see it.
But what on earth gave you the impression I was even LOOKING for your approval?
I dont watch remakes of anything and this is a remake. Hate to burst your bubble on that. I doubt this will do well at the boxoffice.
Dee:
No film adaption of Peter Pan is a remake since the source material did not originate in film but on stage (and as a novel).
Another Fight Club would not be a remake, either, as it would simply be another adaption of the book.
I guess I’ll have to dissent. I really liked the movie, and the freud-ish growing-up story with Wendy. Perhaps it did have the bad timing to be out so soon after Pirates of the Carribean (sp?) but other than that I felt it captured the proper feeling of the book.
But then, I always liked movies you could view more than one way, depending on the state of your mind.
I felt the child actors were a pretty good lot as well. I didn’t sense a ‘falseness’ from them that I sometimes do with mediocre to bad child actors. The boy who played Slightly I think will end up in some more movies…he really stood out (in a good way) to me, which rarely happens to me with *adult* actors, much less child actors.
And Tinkerbell was great too.
And the effects. I was expecting the flying to be really bad–either bad CGI or bad wire work, but in my opinion it wasn’t. It was natural, as it should be (even if lots of ‘children’s’ films get gyped on the computer effects, compared to ‘adult’ films).
So yeah. I liked it, and will be getting the DVD so I can re-watch it. I might even see it again in the theaters.
Haven’t seen it and don’t plan to, despite the fact that Jason Issacs plays a classic villain. Given that box office returns as of this morning show it opened in seventh place, and mainstream critical reviews are killing any chance it has at longevity, perhaps one reason the movie appears to be foundering is the many stories of pedophilia making the news of late? Not to imply that Peter Pan is all about pedophilia; rather, I think that after being continually bombarded with the charges against Michael Jackson, and all the stuff that’s come down in the past year about priests molesting little boys, would Americans want to see a movie about little boys (especially with the oddball ‘budding maturity’ subtext that seems to be torpedoing the film in reviews)? Couple that with the misfortune of being released after the super success of “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and you’ve pretty much sunk the film from the get-go. Just a theory for your consideration.
That said, I’m looking forward to the new ‘Willy Wonka’ movie as well… last I heard, Johnny Depp had been cast as Wonka, and Christopher Walken was involved somehow. Though I would’ve paid good money to see Walken as Wonka (imagine him riffing on the watch speech from ‘Pulp Fiction,’ but replacing the watch with an everlasting gobstopper!), Depp’s just as good a choice. Any news on this film?
That OTHER John Byrne
Brak, the critical reviews have been slightly weighted toward the good side. Ebert and the film critic for the New York Times both raved about it.
As for the “oddball subtext,” sheesh, people. It’s not really that obvious–certainly, very few, if any kids will pick up on it. There’s a little bit of sexual tension between Peter and Wendy, but people are acting like a couple of 12-year-olds have never had a crush on each other–that’s really what it is.
And for the record, Jason Isaacs was fantastic. Granted, I’d say that if he’d stood there and read the Sydney phone book, but still.
No film adaption of Peter Pan is a remake since the source material did not originate in film but on stage (and as a novel).
I know that. Peter Pan as they have this current version now. I wouldn’t go see. And besides it was already a Disney Cartoon movie so why would I want to see a live version of it? (shrugs) Just not my cup of tea. Ok, who was the orginal female in the play that played Peter Pan???? Thats the orginal I’m thinking of….
I dont like seeing classic novels turned into movie versions anymore than I would go to see any remakes of classic films. 🙂
At any rate, it’s been done to death whether on stage, cartoon etc…
and, it still hasn’t really made any impact at the boxoffice. I’d go see LOTR before I’d go see Peter Pan..
my 2 cents
dont get me wrong, Im sure its good for kids but, sexual tensions between characters is not in the book, cartoon or play.
Just like the Cat In The Hat. Sex was never in Cat In The Hat. A horny cat? Where did they come up with that idea???? They try to appeal to the teenyboppers by adding the sex sub context. which was never in the orginals.
Darkrose, you must be reading different reviews than I am, because just about everything I’ve read (and heard word-of-mouth) has been pretty harsh… though I admit I don’t tend to read a lot of reviews. Most movie critics seem unnecessarily harsh to me, and let’s face it, reviewers like Roger Ebert don’t have the same motivations for seeing any given movie that I do. Why let their opinions ruin or undermine my ability to enjoy a film on my own terms? And, well, Ebert in particular I just don’t listen to anymore; his opinions about what makes a film good differ wildly from mine. I usually know when I’ll enjoy a film, because it’s something that he pans.
Excuse the pun.
tOjb
BrakYeller wrote:
just about everything I’ve read (and heard word-of-mouth) has been pretty harsh
Well, right now it’s got a 76% fresh rating at RottenTomatoes
Ebert in particular I just don’t listen to anymore; his opinions about what makes a film good differ wildly from mine. I usually know when I’ll enjoy a film, because it’s something that he pans.
See, that’s how I feel about Leonard Maltin; I tend to follow Ebert’s reviews because he seems to agree with me often enough to be useful.
Dee, I take it you never watch Shakespeare, either?
BTW, PAD, I know you don’t want answers to your Last Thoughts, but the book says:
[In case anyone was unaware, British English uses public school to describe what Americans call private school, often referring to exclusive boarding/prep schools] Every time I read this, I keep wondering whether Barrie was trying to make a veiled reference to the royal family with this remark.
On the other hand, a recent NYTimes article pointed out that James Barrie gave his name to very few of his characters .
I also liked the movie, but agree that Pan’s performance was one of the things I didn’t like. The other main thing I disliked was that after bringing that “coming of age” subtext so much to the fore, they then failed to follow through on it, opting to stick to the book (more or less) for the very ending. It seemed so clearly to be pointing at a radical departure from the resolution, and then…it didn’t. Young, alone, done for.
—Dave
Haven’t seen Peter Pan yet but if you are looking for a good “coming of age” film involving fairy tales, I would recommend the Neil Jordan film Company Of Wolves.
Very good adaptation in most respects, but it faltered in two key ways for me. First of all, doing away with Hook’s obsession with “good form” really took some depth away from the character (not to mention one of his main reasons for hating Pan). Secondly, Pan’s forgetfulness was drastically downplayed (and this is spoileriffic for the movie and the book, so I’ll continue in inviso-text): in the book, he completely forgot who Hook was after killing him, and even eventually forgot about Tink, not to mention Wendy. The movie’s ending was ambiguous, as if Peter purposely stayed away or something .
And not for nothing, but I would have loved if at one point Peter switched sides in the middle of a fight (“Now I’m a pirate!”). But that’s probably just me.
SEAN
I agree with Sean that they totally trashed the idea of “good form”. Instead of a tragic character he seemed like just another completely evil villian when in the novel, he was somewhat sympathetic. However, Jason Isaacs did make a great Hook over all.