Peter Pan: La gran aventura

Up front I will say it: this is the best Peter Pan adaptation yet, and in what follows I will tell you why. Despite the film's quality, it failed at the box office, and for good reason. Insight into that shall be revealed as well. Such sage wisdom ye shall not find in other reviews. Read on.

The main thing that sets this adaptation apart from previous attempts is sexual tension. Yes, sexual tension. If you've read other reviews, no doubt it has been mentioned. Many people seem to take offense at said tension. Such people seem to forget what it was like to be in the age bracket of 12 - 14. The makers of this film don't dance around the fact that Wendy has just met the boy of her dreams, and he is ready to whisk her off to fantasy land. Much is made of the fact that they meet in the bedroom and play father and mother to the lost boys. The relationship of these two pre-teens is as complex as any two adults in any other movies. And the young actors handle the relationship with grace and authenticity.

The production itself is beautiful, albeit stylized. The filmmakers do not mask that neverland is a fantasy world, and it stays that from beginning to end. Every frame in this movie is beautiful. There are some moments that are literally breathtaking.

Ultimately what makes this film excellent is that it tells a story. And this story is centered on Wendy, and the boy of her dreams: Peter Pan. Except he cannot be the man of her dreams, and that is truly tragic. Captain Hook is the opposite: a man who cannot be young. A man who is "old, alone, and done-for" according to Pan. We end up exploring Wendy's psyche throughout the film, and it is almost perfectly achieved.

But why did this film fail at the box office? Competetion. Who can possibly defeat Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, two bigger and much more commercial adaptations of fantasy books? This film deserves to be a classic and is one of the best fantasy movies to date. All should see it, young and old. It is rich, beautiful, and exciting.

9/10

This is by far the most accurate and striking adaptation of the J.M. Barrie favourite that has yet been made. Indeed it is difficult to see how it could have been better.

Whilst I'm writing here in praise of the film, I feel I must take issue with the comments of Mr John Ulmer who criticised the film for a number of reasons. I seek to defend the story of Peter Pan and in particular this version. Firstly, it was said that this version has sexual over/undertones.

Erm... well yes... any accurate portrayal of the story would have, as these subtleties are present en masse in the book, indeed more so in the book than in the film it could be argued. It is precisely this evident descent towards Wendy's loss of innocence that both disturbs and excites adult readers of the books and this is quite intentional. Children who are not of an age to appreciate this level are untouched by it but rather take delight in the glorious idea of never having to grow up but instead being allowed to play forever. Indeed the relationship between Pan and Hook is the struggle of youth to overcome the onset of age (singular human vanity and innocent childish rebellion combined). I do not believe that this film's handling of this aspect of the book was merely present in "sick adult humour", I believe that it was beautifully hinted at in a way which would stimulate adult appreciation and childish fascination in the character of Pan.

I should like to make mention of the parallel which Mr Ulmer draws between this version of Peter Pan and Jumanji (namely the use of the same actors to play the adversary and the father of the lead character) is not just a trick put in to hark back to that film. Indeed the tradition of the same actor playing the role of Mr Darling AND Hook dates back to the story's original appearance as a stage play at the turn of the century and has been carried on on most occasions since then, though I concede that the Disney version (a far less worthy and sterilised version) failed to keep this tradition up.

As for the point at which the two boys are hung upside down in their nightshirts, I thought it was funny, as did the rest of the audience in the theatre and we certainly weren't there with a red pen counting the number of bottom shots as Mr Ulmer appears to have done. This film is full of charming humour, adult overtones for the adults, childish fantasy and wonderment for those of the appropriate age. The acting is superb in all areas and I must make particular mention of both Ludivine Sagnier as a wickedly funny Tink and of course Rachel Hurd-Wood whose screen debut showed her as a previously undiscovered talent who will surely go far. All the others were excellent also.

All in all this film rekindled my love of the book which I have now re-read a number of times and makes up for all those years Pan has spent in the Disney wilderness.

Nothing against the memorable versions featuring Betty Bronson, Bobby Driscoll, and Mary Martin - portraying James M. Barrie's boy wonder - but, this adaptation of "Peter Pan" comes closer to the spirit of the original work. For one thing, "Peter" is played by a real boy, which enables Jeremy Sumpter (as Peter) and Rachel Hurd-Wood (as Wendy) to more accurately portray Peter and Wendy as the pre-romantic couple. The novel's appealing mixture of "romance" and "adventure" is more in balance. The young characters, as children, mix "yin" and "yang". Both characters - Peter and Wendy - are important, and both possess the childlike masculine and feminine attributes.

Mr. Hogan's cast and crew present an outstanding production. Jason Isaacs' "Captain Hook" supports the engaging younger performers beautifully. And, Lynn Redgrave is a welcome addition to the lore. Although this is a relatively faithful-to-the-original adaptation, it only touches upon Mr. Barrie's powerful ending ("When Wendy Grew Up"). So, a more perfect Peter has yet to be filmed...

"Peter Pan" is about that magical part of being a child, before sexuality (or, puberty) takes over, and becomes the prime directive. It's a time when Pirates and Fairies may still be real - and the difficulty in letting that part of your life go may be recalled by adults viewing director P.J. Hogan's exciting interpretation. If you don't remember the magic, watch your children enjoy "Peter Pan" - then, you might remember…

It's second to the right, and then straight on 'till morning…

******** Peter Pan (2003) P.J. Hogan ~ Jeremy Sumpter, Rachel Hurd-Wood, Jason Isaacs

This is probably the best adaptation of Peter Pan and it deserves place in movie classics. The reason it had low success in theaters and it passed almost unnoticed lies not in its quality, but in fact it was released in the middle of Harry Potter mania and at the same time with the best fantasy movie of all time - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Practically nothing had real chance competing with those two.

This is classic version of Peter Pan, but really excellent one. Production is top, although not on LOTR level. Kids are incredibly cute and they played their roles really well and scenery is beautiful. Few times I thought that CGI is bit unconvincing, but I think it's done on purpose to make distinction between real world and world of fantasy. What particularly distinguishes this adaptation is the relationship between Peter and Wendy, which is elevated to a higher level than the one we are used to. Here they are not just children, but preteens who develop early stage of romantic love and even some sort of sexual tension. That deepens their relationship and adds new dimension to the story, that is not just two-dimensional fairy-tale any more, like it was in animated Disney version. Warm recommendation.

8/10

Remember Betty Bronson and Ernest Torrence as both Peter Pan and Captain Hook respectively? Doubt it. That is because to even my amazement, the last time the true story of Peter Pan was done in a live action format was in 1924 starring the two above mentioned actors that while appearing in over 80 films collectively, we probably wouldn't recognize them if they walked down the street with name tags on their shirts.

Enter December 2003, and P.J. Hogan's retelling of the classic tale that hit theatres amongst all the Oscar hopefuls and faded from memory before recouping even half of its reported $100 million dollar budget. Thank God for DVD.

To have to spend time telling the true story of Peter Pan would mean that the reader of the critique was robbed of an incredible children's story about a fantasy land where kids never grew up and a pirate by the name of Hook set out on a personal crusade to avenge the hand he lost in an earlier confrontation with his nemesis, Pan.

This updated version stars a bunch of newbies or character actors that might seem familiar if unplaced at the time of your viewing. In the role of Peter Pan is Jeremy Sumpter a young child destined for stardom that first took our notice as the young Adam in Bill Paxton's Frailty. He, alongside his fairy friend known to us as ‘Tink', he travels from Neverland to England where he hovers outside a families window to hear the stories of adventure as told by the eldest daughter, Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood).

It is not long before the two become acquainted, and Wendy with her two brothers agree to leave their oppressive parentally controlled world and follow Peter and Tink back to a land where children run free and never get old. But pursued to the ruthless Hook and his pirates entourage, there are lessons to be learned, enemies to be defeated and as is ultimate in any fairy tale, a happy ending to endure.

One of the first things you will notice while watching Peter Pan is the incredible production values. Shot in Australia and New Zealand, Universal Studios spared no expense in bringing the childhood story to life. How Peter Pan chases his shadow, how the fairies all fly into their tree loft and the incredibly vibrant colors are all testament to P.J. Hogan's unique vision of telling story as it was J.M. Barrie almost 80 years earlier. Most fascinating is how the art of film flying has evolved from the blue screen laughers almost 80 years earlier. Most fascinating is how the art of film flying has evolved from the blue screen laughers as seen in the Superman franchise to its perfected state in Peter Pan. When Pan and Hook eventually fight amongst the clouds and ships masts in the climax, the shadows are just perfect, the effects are not hokey and the style allows for the actors to feel free from the restraints of the conventional wires we were accustomed to seeing in cheaper adaptations.

Sure, there was a few things that bothered me a little (the repeating 5 note musical score for one), but I was amazed how transformed I became while watching a movie that I was embarrassed that I coupled with Kill Bill Vol. 1 with my rental at the video store. A story that I had seen so many times before in so many formats (plays, animation etc.) was made fresh again by the highly entertaining energy that the cast all put into their roles.

I will admit that Peter Pan is not for everyone. The cynical will call it average and those that are still drinking heavily to try and forget Steven Spielberg's 1991 failed effort Hook, might not be over the nightmares to enjoy this jaunt.

However, with or without a family by your side, this is one of the forgotten films of 2003 that deserves a rental and an open mind.

www.gregrants.com