'Underwhelming' is the best way to describe most recent Peter Pan adaptation 'Peter Pan', produced in 2003 by Aussie Paul Hogan and no, he has nothing to do with Crocodile Dundee. It's both quite saddening and strange when a film can have so much money thrown at it and yet end up as such a damp piece of work, despite being an adaptation of a much loved and recognised work of writing. I think, rather crucially, that I am not the exact target audience for this particular film and therein lies the problem with both the reaction I had and the situations surrounding most of the content this film presents.
The film seems to be in some sort of rush, a rush to get things done and dusted quite briskly. Scenes do not last long and the edits to the next shot move along at a brisk and overwhelming rate despite the stuff going on within the frame as not at all that interesting to begin with. The fable of Peter Pan seems universally known, indeed this being a film directed by an Australian with a cast of which the majority are British but everything has has a lot of American money thrown at it, indeed the IMDb lists the budget at $100,000,000 and has 'USA' as a co-production nation. Pardon my immediate ignorance of literature but the only reason I know of the story is due to the 1950s animated Disney film that I saw many times, many years ago.
The story is of a boy, named Peter Pan, who flies to London from Neverland to hear the stories Wendy Darling reads to her younger relatives in the confides of a large house's nursery. Upon detection, Peter springs across the idea to take them back to Neverland so that the 'lost boys' can hear the stories themselves with the storyteller. Wendy, John and Michael all fly off with Peter and the adventure begins. I have no problem with the premise, something that has been done before and will be done again as the prologue so timely reminds us and something that will have the Barrie family and its descendants or people legally linked rubbing their hands in anticipation at a share of the money that'll head their way. But what I find most disappointing is the approach this film takes, a film that places its characters in an enchanting world of everything and then just doesn't do anything bar have them run around, make fools of themselves and then conform to slapstick humour when required.
One frustration is the casting of an American in the lead role of Peter Pan. Jeremy Sumpter, whoever he is, plays the role in an outgoing and carefree manner that has no doubt acted as a springboard onto greater things. Whereas most everyone else, including the evil pirates of course, are British of some kind. All I can really say is thank God Wendy was played by an English girl in the form of Rachel Hurd-Wood, otherwise we'd be entering 'Aladdin territory' a theory built around the fact you can make the two romantic leads physically and naturally one thing but everyone else of that 'type' something completely different. A film about two coming of age Americans quite possibly feeling the rushes of affection for one another as they defeat 'evil' British baddies in an adaptation of a British novel for the 21st Century would have been enough for me to label this as one of the worst films ever made.
But no, it's better than that although still nothing spectacular. The permutations to do with liking a member of the opposite sex and discovering that these things called a 'kiss' exist is all very well and good, introduced when a scantily clad boy from yonder-nowhere arrives and nonchalantly stands in the window frame of a girl's bedroom; both weary and a little frightened, is certainly one way of introducing the path you're wanting to go down with the material. This in addition to the ultimatum Wendy is given when it comes to 'growing up' herself and moving out of the nursery; and presumably into her own room, oh the horror.
To be critical of the film feels as if it is to be critical of the novel, but really I'm not to the latter. Do we really believe Mr. Darling, the father of Wendy and co. is this uncharismatic and quite bumbling fool despite his mansion of a house, beautiful wife and three healthy children? In the 1950s cartoon, Mr. Darling came across as quite aggressive and thorough, the sort of man who might achieve what he has in this film and I got the feeling in the 1950s version that threatening persona reverberated into Wendy when the ultimatum of having to 'grow up' was issued here is my father and he means business. The father in this film is a wimp and comes across as quite humorous when he's angry.
I guess this is where the parallel with standing up to one's authoritarian figures comes into the equation. Like past editions, the father is also Captain Hook who's the antagonist of the piece and the one who must be 'defeated'. The film is confused in its direction, coming across as fun and family friendly with a series of harmless quick fire scenes before branching off and having Hook hold a knife to Pan's throat on one occasion and head-butting him on another. Little things don't feel right in the film like believing the pirates will assume a crocodile can fly and the using of an underdeveloped Native American girl as a mere damsel in distress is disappointing. She as is Tinkerbell, who you felt was jealous and really had an agenda in the cartoon, are both invisible for most of the time rounding off a disappointing and underwhelming film experience.
The film seems to be in some sort of rush, a rush to get things done and dusted quite briskly. Scenes do not last long and the edits to the next shot move along at a brisk and overwhelming rate despite the stuff going on within the frame as not at all that interesting to begin with. The fable of Peter Pan seems universally known, indeed this being a film directed by an Australian with a cast of which the majority are British but everything has has a lot of American money thrown at it, indeed the IMDb lists the budget at $100,000,000 and has 'USA' as a co-production nation. Pardon my immediate ignorance of literature but the only reason I know of the story is due to the 1950s animated Disney film that I saw many times, many years ago.
The story is of a boy, named Peter Pan, who flies to London from Neverland to hear the stories Wendy Darling reads to her younger relatives in the confides of a large house's nursery. Upon detection, Peter springs across the idea to take them back to Neverland so that the 'lost boys' can hear the stories themselves with the storyteller. Wendy, John and Michael all fly off with Peter and the adventure begins. I have no problem with the premise, something that has been done before and will be done again as the prologue so timely reminds us and something that will have the Barrie family and its descendants or people legally linked rubbing their hands in anticipation at a share of the money that'll head their way. But what I find most disappointing is the approach this film takes, a film that places its characters in an enchanting world of everything and then just doesn't do anything bar have them run around, make fools of themselves and then conform to slapstick humour when required.
One frustration is the casting of an American in the lead role of Peter Pan. Jeremy Sumpter, whoever he is, plays the role in an outgoing and carefree manner that has no doubt acted as a springboard onto greater things. Whereas most everyone else, including the evil pirates of course, are British of some kind. All I can really say is thank God Wendy was played by an English girl in the form of Rachel Hurd-Wood, otherwise we'd be entering 'Aladdin territory' a theory built around the fact you can make the two romantic leads physically and naturally one thing but everyone else of that 'type' something completely different. A film about two coming of age Americans quite possibly feeling the rushes of affection for one another as they defeat 'evil' British baddies in an adaptation of a British novel for the 21st Century would have been enough for me to label this as one of the worst films ever made.
But no, it's better than that although still nothing spectacular. The permutations to do with liking a member of the opposite sex and discovering that these things called a 'kiss' exist is all very well and good, introduced when a scantily clad boy from yonder-nowhere arrives and nonchalantly stands in the window frame of a girl's bedroom; both weary and a little frightened, is certainly one way of introducing the path you're wanting to go down with the material. This in addition to the ultimatum Wendy is given when it comes to 'growing up' herself and moving out of the nursery; and presumably into her own room, oh the horror.
To be critical of the film feels as if it is to be critical of the novel, but really I'm not to the latter. Do we really believe Mr. Darling, the father of Wendy and co. is this uncharismatic and quite bumbling fool despite his mansion of a house, beautiful wife and three healthy children? In the 1950s cartoon, Mr. Darling came across as quite aggressive and thorough, the sort of man who might achieve what he has in this film and I got the feeling in the 1950s version that threatening persona reverberated into Wendy when the ultimatum of having to 'grow up' was issued here is my father and he means business. The father in this film is a wimp and comes across as quite humorous when he's angry.
I guess this is where the parallel with standing up to one's authoritarian figures comes into the equation. Like past editions, the father is also Captain Hook who's the antagonist of the piece and the one who must be 'defeated'. The film is confused in its direction, coming across as fun and family friendly with a series of harmless quick fire scenes before branching off and having Hook hold a knife to Pan's throat on one occasion and head-butting him on another. Little things don't feel right in the film like believing the pirates will assume a crocodile can fly and the using of an underdeveloped Native American girl as a mere damsel in distress is disappointing. She as is Tinkerbell, who you felt was jealous and really had an agenda in the cartoon, are both invisible for most of the time rounding off a disappointing and underwhelming film experience.