Review Peter Pan (2003)

filmfan95

Member: Rank 3


(Description taken from Wikipedia):

Peter Pan is a 2003 American-British-Australian fantasy adventure film released by Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, and Revolution Studios. It was the first authorized and faithful adaptation of J.M Barrie's play Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up in half a century, after Disney's version in 1953. P. J. Hogan directed a screenplay co-written with Michael Goldenberg which is based on the play and novel by J.M Barrie . Jason Isaccs plays the dual roles of Captain Hook and George Darling, Olivia Williams plays Mrs. Darling, while Jeremy Sumpter plays Peter Pan, Rachel Hurd-Wood plays Wendy Darling, and Ludivine Sagnier plays Tinkerl Bell. Lynn Redgrave plays a supporting role as Aunt Millicent, a new character created for the film.

Contrary to the traditional stage casting, the film featured a young boy in the title role. Since the first stage production of the story, the title role has usually been played by a woman, a tradition followed in the first film adaptation. Two subsequent animated adaptations have featured a male voice actor as Peter Pan, and a Soviet live-action film adaptation for television cast a boy to play the role. This film was the first live-action theatrical release with a boy playing the part. The casting of a single actor to play both George Darling and Captain Hook follows a tradition also begun in the first staging of the play.

Peter Pan received positive reviews from critics, but was a box office bomb, grossing $48.5 million in the United States and $122 million worldwide from a $130 million budget.

(My review):

This is the first Peter Pan movie I ever saw (even before the Disney version). My parents tape-recorded it off TV when I was young, because they knew that I really liked the book Peter Pan. I watched this movie quite a bit when I was a kid, and I really enjoyed it. Although I saw the Disney version later in life, it never had the same impact for me that this version did. The Disney version is all fun and games with little care for the depth of the story, while this version is a dark, more serious adaptation that truly does the story right, in such a wonderful way that I think I might even like the movie better than the book.

Recently, I got the movie on DVD, and it still holds up after all these years. The special effects are spectacular, the actors have their characters down to a T, and I still get shivers from hearing the score composed for the film.

Sadly, hardly anybody I know has even heard about this movie. I'll mention it in conversation, but more often than not, the response will be "Are you talking about 'Hook?'" Or, more recently, due to another recently released movie, "Are you talking about 'Pan?'" It disappoints me that so many people people don't know about this movie, because I think it's a wonderful film with an equally wonderful soundtrack. It's a legitimately heart-to-heart film that might even draw a few tears at times (Peter calling all around the world for people to believe in fairies in order to revive Tinker Bell is spectacular, and still gives me shivers, and the dance between Peter and Wendy at Pixie Hollow is beautiful). One of my all-time favorite movies.

Anyone else have opinions on this film?
 

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
Haven't seen it for a few years now (got the DVD lying around somewhere) but I remember enjoying it a lot. It was a pretty good adaptation, with some beautiful cinematography and Jason Isaacs perfectly cast as Hook.
 

The Seeker

Member: Rank 6
I thought it was wonderful - until Hook started to fly. That was its one flaw. According to the book, adults simply can't fly. But otherwise - wonderful! I enjoyed it very much.
 

filmfan95

Member: Rank 3
I thought it was wonderful - until Hook started to fly. That was its one flaw. According to the book, adults simply can't fly. But otherwise - wonderful! I enjoyed it very much.
Haha. Yeah that part was pretty silly. It felt more like it belonged in the Disney version than in this version. I also wish that the deleted scene where grown-up Wendy allows her daughter to go to Neverland with Peter had been kept in the movie, as it shows that even as an adult Wendy hasn't forgotten her childhood. But I can see why the ending was cut. Audiences not familiar with the book might have thought the filmmakers were trying to set up a sequel (this was only one year after Disney's "Return to Neverland," which has a similar premise to the ending of the book, so it was probably for the best not to inadvertantly confuse audiences into thinking there would be some kind of live action version of that movie).
 

duzit

Member: Rank 6
Based on all the excellent reviews, I felt compelled to watch this version. I also disliked the staged shows with the flying harnesses. Disney was Disney. This was everything the previous reviewers said it was, I don't know what more I could add for a review. Although, there is one thing that did catch my eye during the end credits.

Mohamed Al-Fayed was the Executive Producer & he dedicated it to his son; Dodi Fayed.
He was killed with Princess Diana in a fatal car crash. It just struck me that after all these years, a dedication done by a loving father would bring back memories that I thought were put to rest.
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
“Peter Pan” Almost Ruined Jason Isaacs


peter-pan-almost-ruined-jason-isaacs-696x464.jpg


British news outlet The Guardian is on a roll today in its interviews with actors who’ve regretted some parts. Following their talk with Christopher Eccleston, actor Jason Isaacs has discussed one role of his almost ended his career.

Isaacs burst on to the scene as the memorable villain in “The Patriot,” became iconic as Lucius Malfoy in the “Harry Potter” films, and more recently has had success in TV such as the key role of Captain Lorca in CBS & Netflix’s “Star Trek: Discovery”.

However, he revealed that his role as Captain Hook in P.J. Hogan’s 2003 film “Peter Pan” was supposed to be his ‘big break’ according to others around him – but the film bombed:

“I’ve had a good year or two, but there have been other times… I’ve been to Sundance with eight films, and only one of them came out.

When I was in [PJ Hogan’s 2003 film] Peter Pan, it was going to be gigantic. I was told it would change my life. Be careful, they said; make sure you’ve got the right people in place. Then it came out, and it was a catastrophic flop. It killed my film career stone dead for a while.

It was a great lesson. Just have a great time and do the best you can. Sometimes I wish I was more famous; you have more choices as an actor when you are. But I tend to ask: how can I be grateful for the things I’ve got, rather than for the things I haven’t got? Moaning is a waste of life.”

Indeed “Peter Pan” adaptations have been under a curse in recent years – Spielberg’s 1991 sequel “Hook” is considered one of his few disappointments. Both Hogan’s 2003 and Joe Wright’s 2015 “Pan” were critical and box-office duds, and NBC’s “Peter Pan” live musical with Christopher Walken as Captain Hook almost ended the revival of TV live musicals before it started.

Isaacs has a scene-stealing part in “The Death of Stalin” out this week, and has “Hotel Mumbai” on the way later in the year.
 
Top