Peter Pan

Yes, the production is lavish. But the performance is wonderful! Cathy Rigby comes across as a real boy: innocently cruel and noble in equal measure. Most kid's fairy tales are rather um, grim -- and this one is no exception.

In Mary Martin's Peter Pan, the dances were very thrown together. This is not a bad thing when the cast can make it look like that is not the case. That WAS not the case. You could see mistake after mistake, and you could tell when even the littlest mistake was made.

Furthermore, the casting for Mary Martin's was terrible. Wendy had a piercing to the ear sounding voice, and Mary Martin in no way, shape, or form made a believable little boy. She instead made a believable little old man.

In Cathy's version, everyone sang on key, and everyone seemed prepared for the performance at hand. Cathy's performance made it easy to forget that she was an adult woman, and truly made you believe that she was that of a young boy. This is not easy for many actors/actresses out there. What's funny is that she had little training. Mary Martin had lots.

Makes you wonder who possessed the real talent.

I only saw this production because I happened to find a VHS tape of it in a clearance rack in my local video store (and bought it for next-to-nothing). It is a new staging of the Broadway musical from the 1950's; this does not minimize its impact in any way, but there are many reviewers here who feel the need to make excessive (and in my opinion unfounded) comparisons between this production and the original one with Mary Martin- when, in fact, it is the same show. I have copies of both performances and primarily treasure the Martin production because of its historical significance as a time capsule of early television. This version with Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby version is brilliant; its presentation differs from the 1960 one as they captured an actual performance from a theater with an audience rather than tape on a network sound stage. As someone else noted below, Ms. Rigby's mannerisms and costuming better are indeed more boyish than Ms. Martin's (although I didn't care for Ms. Rigby's attempt at a British accent). The point is they each do it a little differently, Ms. Rigby opting for more exuberance. The book itself is a bit corny (doesn't matter which version), but chances are you're watching it with your own children or re-living your own childhood- and that's sort of the point. The Act 1 finale which shows Peter and the Darling clan fly out the window is stunning. Plan to lose yourself for two hours, and you'll probably believe you can fly when it's over.

I found this film to be upbeat and entertaining. The actors did their jobs so well that they made you lose sight of the fact that you were watching this play on a stage with a full audience.

The musical numbers were positive, the acting was excellent. The dog was funny.

All the actors performed their roles exceedingly well. I especially enjoyed the scenes when the actors flew over the stage. All around a nicely filmed stage production of the Broadway play with a great cast and crew. Recommended.

This version of Peter Pan is almost exactly identical as Mary Martin's 1955 version. Cathy Rigby is excellent in the role of Peter Pan. I had no idea she could even sing! The children are adorable, as they were in the Mary Martin version. There are some differences, for instance, in this version, Liza, the maid is barely in it. I loved that about the 1955 version. The acting quality by everyone in this one is superb, as is the singing. The actor who played Captain Hook has an incredible singing voice, as does the actress who played Wendy. I was amazed at the similarities these two versions had in common. Those who are used to Mary Martin play Peter Pan may not enjoy this version as much because the two (Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby) get into the parts in their own ways. The comedic moments in this version are brought out a little more than they were in the 1955 version. In my opinion, both are ideal for the entire family.