User reviews

"Peter Pan" is without a doubt one of Disney's classics, alongside animated features such as "Snow White" and "Pinocchio." It captures the imagination just as J.M. Barrie's novel and play have. In the movie, the eternally young Peter Pan takes Wendy Darling and her brothers to Neverland, a place of the imagination, populated by Indians, mermaids and pirates. Captain Hook, voiced by Hans Conreid, will always be a classic villain, and his henchman, Smee, is a perfect comic relief. There are many funny scenes and good animated sequences. Beneath it all, the story speaks to the kid in all of us. We remember how important it can be to remain young at heart.

Watching this movie 15 years after probably the last time I saw it, I still found myself laughing every time Peter Pan took on Hook, it was all arranged for laughs by Disney to make a mockery of the dear Captain Hook.

My favorite character in the movie was not Peter, Hook, Wendy, Wendy's brothers or The Lost boys; my favorite character was the Crocodile. I can't just get it out of my head how he seems to be so creative in trying to catch Captain Hook, my favorite was when he pushed aside the boat that Hook was trying to jump into and he caught Hook in his mouth.

Disney's Peter Pan animation was done in 1953 and it is based on the play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up in 1904 and a novel in 1911 by J. M. Barrie. It is the 14th film in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series.

It features the adventures of Peter Pan a boy who could fly and wouldn't grow up and lives in Neverland with the lost boys. His partner or side kick is Tinker Bell a fairy. The story also features his adventures with Wendy and her brothers, as they learn to fly to Neverland, meet the mermaids, Tiger Lily and the red Indians. They also battle Captain Hook and his crew.

Disney out did themselves in this money spinning classic, that raked in more than 20 times its production cost (making over 80 million in the box office), Peter Pan became a source of controversy in its stereotyping of its Characters, especially the Native Indians. If not for the time it was made such a movie will never leave the production board, due to its referring of the Indians as red and comparing them to hunting animals.

Peter Pan was the last and final Disney film in which all nine members of Disney's Nine Old Men worked together as directing animators and it was the last movie that was distributed by RKO Radio Pictures before Walt Disney's founding of his own distribution company, Buena Vista Distribution.

Peter Pan has remained a classic over the years for children and adults alike and it is one of my best Disney animations. I will like to say it is a nice watch and something to own and keep for later as you will love to see it years after, just to see the two (Peter and Hook) go at it again and if you are like me to see the Croc try to get Hook again.

www.lagsreviews.com

This Disney cartoon classic offers flights of fancy that appeal directly to children's fertile imaginations. The ability to fly and be a devil-may-care youngster and never grow up, exploring a fantasy island of Indians, pirates, mermaids and mysterious caves is a powerful magnetic pull for young dreamers. The production's artwork is beautiful, and the characters and catchy tunes add to the pleasure of watching this movie. Peter Pan is nearly upstaged by his companion Tinker Bell, a temperamental pixie who is jealous and possessive of Peter's friendship with Wendy. Captain Hook and his shadow, the crocodile, the sniveling Smee, the beautiful mermaids, and the stoic Tiger Lily are all memorable characters. The catchy tunes also make this adventure one of Disney's best.

This is one of the most charming, magical movies ever! It is an adaptation of James Barrie's Peter Pan, the story of the boy who wouldn't grow up. It starts in London, where a very proper Wendy has one night left in the nursery before she most grow up. Her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Darling are out for an office party, and the nursemaid, a dog named Nana is tied up outside for the night. Peter Pan comes and takes Wendy and her brothers John and Micheal away to Neverland, "the second star to the right and staight on til morning", with the help of the pixie dust from the jealous little pixie Tinkerbell. A sprinkling of the dust makes them fly, just like Peter does. Once in Neverland they encounter mermaids, Indians, and the foppish, but evil villian Captain Hook. This beloved story will bring you back to your childhood and this delightful score will be hard to forget! It is sure to have you singing along! This is a wonderful movie that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike!

The film deserves a 10 but this latest DVD transfer by DTS Digital Images has taken all the brilliance of the latest photochemical Technicolor restoration of this film and thrown it out the porthole...

Exactly why that is is anybody's guess: Lack of respect of a 100 years of film-making, lack of interest in the film's history, colour-blindness, lack of supervision by Disney's Nine Old Men? A corporate decision to give the film a radical new look? The refusal on the restorers' part to remove their sunglasses? A horrible computer foul-up? You tell me! What is evident is that the colours have been drastically altered, the contrast is subdued and the bitrate is not very high. The colours are slanted, not so much towards yellow as towards gold. Everything is imbued with a golden glow which makes Tinker Bell the real heroine of the story and brings out the golden highlights on everything from Mr. Darling's cuff links to the golden ornaments on Hook's ship. Peter Pan's tunic is at times a sickly wilted parboiled creamed corn colour. There is no true blue sky, just a variant of Egyptian Blue. Neverland sometimes looks like your lazy neighbour's parched garden. The skies are often milky white or beige. The red and blue wallpaper in the Darling children's bedroom is now a brownish mushy mess. Mermaid Lagoon has lost its greenery and turned a repulsive and rather obscene labia pink... Having said this, it is quite possible that the unwary viewer, taken in by the quality of the animation and the beautifully restored sound, will overlook these limitations but it is still no excuse for this abomination, which is miles removed from the colour values of this film that have been preserved for 55 years in the form of its original artwork. It's a wild, one might say irresponsible concept, which some might call "experimental", except that experience has gone horribly wrong. What the digital "restorers" have actually done is to artificially deprive the yellow(negative)/blue(positive) layer of the original 3-strip Technicolor film of about half its information.

On the down side, the Redskins have turned a politically correct pink. On the plus side, every brown and yellow surface is made to shine unnaturally, even at night, and lots of things are visible in the dark that weren't before. The reverse is true in the daytime.

In the indoor scenes, this slant towards yellow makes sense as it replicates the warm, nostalgic, homey glow of lamplight. Otherwise... The best thing I can say is that it gives the viewer a brand new (though some might say old-fashioned) perspective on a film he's seen maybe too often and the total effect is unreal and reminiscent of a yellowed full-colour illustration in an old picture book. A quick look at the numerous art galleries in the extras will remind you that there should have been a whole lot more green and blue everywhere according to the original artwork.

Where the PE really shines, though, is in the sound department which might persuade me to buy this edition (I only rented). The whole soundtrack (dialog, singing voices, orchestra, sound effects) has been completely rethought, refurbished and rechannelled creatively for 5.1 (in French and Spanish too). There is a lot of work evident also in the original mono track. But in the Enhanced home theatre mix (the word "enhanced" appears three times on the cover), very interesting things happen. The dialog is mostly in the center speaker but the music comes regularly through the other four speakers. At some points, individual instruments are made to come through all the surround speakers (like the harp, when Peter appears on the rooftop, instead of the flute, like you might guess). The sound of instruments and voices has been given more resonance. It is less harsh, dry or abrupt. The children voices are almost bearable in this version. There is nothing grating in the brass or in any other part of the orchestra. Everything sounds modern, natural and free-flowing. Of course, the sound effects have been amplified with bass and the mix makes good use of directional effects (Tinker Bell's glockenspiel and celesta, the crocodile's ticking clock, Peter's ghostly voice in Skull Rock). The whole film becomes a symphony where the music takes center stage without overshadowing the character voices, which are now disentangled from the surrounding music. This is an element that could have seriously added to the dream-like quality of the whole, were it no for the off-kilter colours. By comparison, the 5.1 mix of the Special Edition (2002) and the 4.0 mix of the Limited Edition (1999) was only fat, untreated mono with lots of harshness in the loud passages and instability in the soft ones.

Well... considering the radical changes made to the colour palette, maybe they could have called this the "Golden Slumbers Edition" or "Pixie Dust Edition" or, better still "Global Warming Edition"... And it's not something you can correct with the Tint button (which adds red or green) or with the Cold setting (which adds a little blue). But it's perfect if you are sound-oriented and an improved sound is very important to you, if you have no memories of what "Peter Pan" used to look like or if you really pictured Hook's harpsichord as being made of solid gold.

If Walt Disney had never made another cartoon feature after BAMBI in 1942 he would still be remembered as the man who transformed the animated full length film into an art form. SNOW WHITE , PINOCCHIO , FANTASIA and BAMBI all belong on the list of the greatest achievements in American Film. Disney's next phase in full length animation took place after World War 2 and although these subsequent works may not match the brilliance and creativity of the earlier films, they still possess the superb craftsmanship the Disney artists are famous for. Missing from the new batch of films was the meticulous background detail that distinguished the earlier projects. Starting with Cinderella in 1950, the animators seemed to concentrate more on clean, uncluttered backgrounds but the drawing was just as professional as before , characters still brought to life with fluid, lifelike movements. Colors tended to be bright and splashy, but the cartoonists also knew when subtlety was called for, and scenes occurring at night were done with convincing atmosphere and shadows. The success of Cinderella confirmed that the movie-going public was still willing to be entertained and moved by a cartoon movie, and Disney and his artists forged ahead with an impressive array of animated features that to this day remain models of the Art Form. Perhaps the greatest of these was PETER PAN, first released in 1953. Based on J.M. Barrie's immortal play and novel about the little boy who doesn't want to grow up, PETER PAN had been a project stewing in Disney's mind for years. It wasn't until after the War that work on the film really took off. When the movie was completed and finally released to theaters, Disney seemed rather ambivalent about its achievement. He had a hard time defining who Peter actually was as a character but to millions of children in movie theaters all over the world, that didn't seem to matter. PETER PAN is not very deep story-wise. It lacks the heart and sentiment of the Barrie original, which to some degree is a good thing. Past stage versions and the spectacular 1924 Paramount film version could be cloyingly sentimental at times.

The Disney version is light and breezy and moves at a clip. The London sequence which opens the picture is spectacular in both the backdrops and the animation itself. When Peter, Wendy, John and Michael leap out of the Darling nursery window and fly over nighttime Edwardian London the viewer is treated to some of the most thrilling animation ever created for the movies. Later sections of the movie are equally enchanting, and the personage of the villainous Captain Hook is brought to great comic life by Disney animators and the marvelous vocal talent of Hans Conried. As with past Disney efforts, the song score is superb. "Second Star to the Right", "You Can Fly" and "Your Mother and Mine" are highlights in a tuneful soundtrack created by Sammy Cahn and Sammy Fain.

PETER PAN holds a special place in my heart. It was the first movie I ever saw. As a 4 year old sitting with my father in an ornate, red carpeted movie palace in Cincinnati, Ohio, looking up at that big screen watching Peter and his friends swooping and flying over the roofs and spires of London was an overwhelming experience. I was hooked, so to speak, and it is an image that has stayed with me ever since. This is the film that initiated my love affair with movies. PETER PAN is one of the iconic films of the Baby Boom Generation.

Peter Pan is directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske, and is a post war Disney animated film about a young man named Peter Pan that lives in Neverland, a place in the sky in which no one physically grows up. When Wendy, a teenage girl living in late 19th century Britain, decides she doesn't want to grow up, Peter escorts her and her two younger brothers to Neverland, where an evil pirate named Captain Hook is out to get revenge on Peter Pan.

Many older Disney films are considered classics, and Peter Pan is definitely one of them. From the characters, to the top notch animation, Peter Pan is one of the most iconic animated films of all time. Even 60 years later, most everyone has seen Peter Pan, from people who grew up with it when it came out, to children who are growing up with it today. Rewatching Peter Pan, however, I found a few problems with it that stand out along with all of the great aspects of the film.

To start, the animation in Peter Pan is absolutely timeless. Every hand drawn fame of the characters or environment looks amazing, and engulfs the viewer into the bright, whimsical place that is Neverland. All of the characters are also excellently animated, especially when in action. The two characters that stand out the most are that of Peter Pan and his rival, Captain Hook. This particular aspect demands that, in each scene, the viewers' eye is drawn to either of the two enemies, which was a very smart move on the filmmakers' part.

On the subject of characters, all of the voice acting is very good, with great performances being given by, specifically, that of Bobby Driscoll (as Peter) and Hans Conried (as both Hook and Mr. Darling). These two play off of each other brilliantly, washing away all suspicion of two men recording in a studio. The other actors also do very well, and aren't necessarily outshadowed by that of Driscoll or Conried.

One big issue I did find with Peter Pan was the pacing. It may be confusing to read, but the pacing in Peter Pan is so good that it makes a 77 minute film feel like 45 minutes. Each and every scene is so necessary that the film flies by very quickly. One blink could cause major confusion with how a character got from point A to point B, or where the characters even are. It may be hard to comprehend, but, once seeing the film, this problem is understandable.

Another issue I found with the film is the writing for Peter Pan himself. Peter Pan, as written in the original play, is a fun loving child that never grows up. He is supposed to be free- spirited, and a caring person. However, the script for this film seems to portray Peter as a cocky, selfish jerk. He feels as if he's above the Darling children, and, at points in the film, is pretty close to being hated by the audience. He begins to get a bit annoying, and has the viewer rooting for Wendy and her brothers, therefore indirectly rooting for Peter, rather than having us root for Peter himself.

Overall, Peter Pan isn't as fantastic as I had remembered it to be. Is it a good, timeless film? Yes, it is, but it has a few more problems that I see more clearly now than I used to. Anyone who isn't too hard on films will enjoy Peter Pan, and others will, too, because it is a pretty good movie.

I don't hate it, I just find certain things unappealing.

To get it out of the way. I can't stand Tinker Bell, and I really don't know why a character this cruel and selfish has become a Disney icon!? Heck, she tries to kill off Wendy more than once and is stupid enough to believe Captain Hook! And I really don't like the indian stereotypes in this movie. I hope parents of today will take the talk with their kids about such things in movies and media in general.

Besides that we get wonderful animation as usual (the flight scene over London towards Neverland is one of my favourite scenes from any Disney movie) and mostly highly enjoyable characters. Captain Hook and Peter Pan are just hilarious together. The crocodile and Hook make some great slapstick comedy worth a fortune. And a couple of memorable songs like "You Can Fly" and "Following The Leader".

The ending should be a reminder to every parent who blame their children for being children. It's a wonderful lesson to learn for the parents.

Having seen this movie again several times recently, I have learned to appreciate this film a little more. While not nearly as good as some of the more famous Disney films (such as Beauty and the Beast, Bambi or Little Mermaid), it still deserves a 9 because it is head and shoulders better than other kids movies. The animation is very good, pace is fast and the movie is just fun. The negatives are simply a product of the times, in that this is about the most politically incorrect Disney film ever made (perhaps more so than Song of the South). I'm sure that MANY American Indians watch the film and deservedly cringe at the depiction of Indians, who seem rather dumb and sing the song "what makes the red man red?"--an ode to every terrible stereotype about Indians. BUT, I am a strong believer in discussing these things and NOT condemning the entire film. In fact, I am a history teacher and have used the film to talk about these aspects of the film.

After great Disney classics like 'Snow White', 'Pinocchio', 'Bambi' and 'Dumbo' and a nice one like 'Alice in Wonderland' I have to say 'Peter Pan' is a little disappointing. Just a little though. It has all the nice Disney ingredients so it is still pretty entertaining. The crocodile that has eaten the hand of Hook (and the ticking clock) and wants the rest of his body has the funniest scenes, one with Smee (voice by Bill Thompson) in particular. Hook (Hans Conried) and Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll) have some funny scenes as well. Wendy (Kathryn Beaumont, also voice of Alice in 'Alice in Wonderland') is your usual Disney woman, adorable but sometimes a little too good and brave. All this together makes a nice Disney movie, but not much more than that.

Except for The Jungle Book (which I watched every day as a kid), Peter Pan was probably my favorite Disney film during my childhood. Why? Its in the story. I mean, who hasn't been a kid and wished they could fly or do something else magical at least once in a lifetime? Neverland is a place kids dream about, having adventure with Indians and mermaids and pirates. That is what makes this film so wonderful, that despite its simple plot, its less than complex characters, it is something that brings back memories. It is something that kids can relate to, and something that teenagers and adults can watch and think, "Ah, I remember when I used to wish I were like that." There's no real moral, just a simple story that is purely entertainment. And that is why I loved this and The Jungle Book so much when I was a young kid. Now older, my perspectives have changed, but not even Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and Mulan, my three favorite Disney films, have such sentimental value to me as those two films do. Its just a shame that the sequel to Peter Pan was horrendous, I hope they don't do the same to The Jungle Book this February.

This was like watching wild Saturday morning cartoons, but only "Baby Boomers" would understand that (likely).

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: I love the story itself because it expresses values I've held for years. Coupled with Disney's animation it had potential to be a wonderful story for children and adults.

Unfortunately the execution of it here is done as if in a frenzy with continuous outbursts of yelling. I don't understand how this is so wild as opposed to, say, "Pinocchio" (1940) being more balanced and maturely delivered.

I've looked at the directors and writers but cannot find a pattern.

ACTING: Hard to assess animation "acting" --- but the characters seemed believable, albeit somewhat cliched and racist.

TEMPO: While not as crazy as "Ichabod and Mr. Toad," it's the same frenetic quality

CINEMATOGRAPHY: For an animation, well-done, but not great

DIRECTING / WRITING: I can't get a handle on the directors and writers as there are no patterns I can identify. Weird ...

Is it a good film? OK

Should you watch this once? Maybe

Rating: 7.0.

Peter Pan has pretty much everything you could want from a Disney fantasy. There's adventure, romance, swordplay and comedy all mixed together to create a film that effectively captures your imagination. Based on the play and novel by J. M. Barrie, Disney plays the film more as a wide-eyed adventure with the darker and more psychological elements played down. Peter Pan is the boy that never grew up who whisks Wendy and her brothers off to Neverland for the journey of a lifetime. Numerous events take place including meeting mermaids, Indians and of course battling Peter's arch- nemesis Captain Hook. The films narrative is quite straight-forward, the children explore various regions of Neverland and Captain Hook repeatedly tries to get defeat Peter.

The characters are the true focus of the film and they are a mixed bag. Peter himself is very assured, confident and a resourceful leader, while his relationship with Wendy does feel genuine. The problem I have with him is that he is somewhat unlikeable. In the original Barrie novel he was egotistical and unpleasant so Disney were accurate, but it means that he isn't an engaging lead because he appears so unsympathetic at times. Tinkerbell suffers exactly the same issue. Her jealousy is understandable and her reactions can be funny, but going as far as trying have Wendy killed is simply too much and it is difficult to get you to care for a character who would go to such vicious extremes.

Wendy is nice enough but she's just kind of bland. Kathryn Beaumont gives her a lot of energy, but she doesn't do or say anything of note and is just a dull character in general. The same goes for John and Michael. John is enjoyably geeky and Michael is a cute innocent, but they don't have much character beyond that and they end up feeling like more a side note than the main characters. The Lost Boys are simply forgettable. Giving them their own animal skins is a nice touch, but if it wasn't for that it would be hard to identify them. It is difficult to give so many characters identities, but it's difficult to care about them if they're so bland. The sequences with the Indians are now notorious for the borderline racist portrayal, it never bothered me but I can see how it might offend.

Where it does succeed is with its villains. Both Captain Hook and Mr. Smee are brilliant. Hook is the perfect balance of threatening and hilarious, blending both seamlessly at certain times. There's a real intensity and menace to him when he plots against Peter, he shows his cunning in tricking Tinkerbell and we even see him shoot one of his own men for singing at one point. Yet he is just as quick to turn into a quivering mess once the crocodile shows up, cowering at every opportunity and verging on a breakdown. Smee is extremely enjoyable and Bill Thompson does a wonderful job voice wise, he's just too gentle and bumbling to be a pirate. His dialogue and reactions are always funny, while its comedy gold when the two of them are together.

The animation for the most part is excellent. It always amazes me at how flowing it is as the characters are always on the go or there always seems to be something taking place, yet everything moves very smoothly and the animation is more restrained whilst retaining the brighter elements of earlier work. Neverland does look like a magical place and I do enjoy the sense of location you get with it. The comedic pieces are fantastic. As said whenever Hook and Smee are together it's funny, but the scenes with the crocodile and Hook are some of the best animated slapstick I've ever seen, everything from how quick the movements are to the sound effects are hysterical. The music is also excellent. The score by Oliver Wallace features a number of effective melodies, whilst songs like 'You Can Fly!' and 'Following the Leader' are very memorable.

So on the whole I'd say Peter Pan is something of another flawed masterpiece from Disney. Its only real weakness is its main characters and it's a shame that its sole issue happens to be an important one, Peter is difficult to root for and the Darlings are just a little too dull. With that said I think it excels in every other area. The story is laid-out well, Hook and Smee are great fun, the animation is excellent, it can be very funny at times and the songs stay with you. These stronger elements definitely outweigh the issues with the main characters. It's not Disney's strongest, but it is memorable and can be easily be enjoyed upon repeated viewings.

'Peter Pan' is undoubtedly one of the best of Disney's films. The story isn't too deep or meaningful, as, say, 'Bambi'. The power behind it is the familiarity. Every little kid yearns to haveadventures like Peter, so everyone identifies with the story. To tell the truth, the film is kind of episodic, like an extra-large TV cartoon special. The climax is fittingly climactic, but the final defeat of Hook isn't really powerful enough, which makes it disappointing after all the flashy swordplay. Speaking of Hook, he and Mr Smee are inevitably the scene-stealers, no matter how beloved Peter may be to children. The same way, in Hook/Smee scenes, if you throw in a hungry crocodile, the monstrous reptile will overshadow even Hook. Wendy really looks too old to be horrified about growing up, though, except for the sequences in which she fantasizes about Never Land with all the authenticity of a three-year-old. Never Land is beautiful, to say the least. The lush jungles and the mermaid lagoon is wonderfully brought to life, as is the eery Skull Island. This is the best showcase for the art direction. Also excellent is the detailed, meticulous design of the wooden hideout of the Lost Boys.

'Peter Pan' is one of my all-time favorites. It has humor, great animation, and the best part of it is a simplistic story that revolves around the desires of the child within all of us (I'm still twelve, so I never had to look too deep). A must-see for any animation fan, particularly Disney buffs, the young and the young-at-heart.

9/10

There are better Disney films to be seen; among them are Finding Nemo, Snow White, and Beauty and the Beast. However, this IS among their best, and one of my favorites. While entirely politically incorrect, this work retains the heart and love typically demonstrated by early Disney films.

This is a grand adventure which provides you with superior animation, a beautiful soundtrack, well defined characters, and-for many-fond memories.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

My parents took me to see Walt Disney's "Peter Pan" in 1953 when I was 5-years old. I was completely hooked. I was imprinted with this movie the way future generations would be imprinted with "Star Wars". For months after, my anxious parents wished they had opted for deep-pile carpet rather than highly-polished floorboards as I leapt from every piece of furniture in the house aided by imaginary pixie dust.

Disney's take on the story of the boy who never grew up and his adventures with the Darling children in Neverland may have been even more influential, because I ended up earning my living as an artist for the last 50 years.

It wasn't until 25 years later that I saw the film again and I must admit I was apprehensive. Would I be disappointed and see flaws that were not apparent to an overawed child? Well, that didn't happen. Instead, I was overawed all over again with the mastery of the whole thing.

But of course, the film was more that just stunning visuals; there was also the story that was adapted from J. M. Barrie's famous book. And the film has copped plenty of flack over the years - racism and sexism being a couple of the heavier charges laid against it.

The depiction of the Native Americans probably wouldn't get off the drawing board these days, but back in the 50's just about every race and creed had their own cinematic stereotypes, which were repeated in movie after movie. To be totally fair, Disney was actually following the lead of Barrie himself who refers to the Indians as 'Redskins' throughout his story and deals with them in the broadest of stereotypes with a surprising amount of violence thrown in.

As for being sexist, possibly Tinkerbell has come in for the most attention with her voluptuous figure and occasional hip wiggling - she is referred to as Twerkerbell in one critique of the film. But again, rather than just the Disney artists over-vamping an innocent fairy, here is J. M. Barrie's description of Tink: "exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to embonpoint". That archaic word means a plump, hourglass figure. I rest my case.

To see how good this film is, you only need to compare it with the sequel, "Return to Neverland" made in 2002. With bigger eyes and individual shading, the characters seem more cartoony, lacking much of the warmth and style of the earlier version.

There have been plenty of stage and film versions of the story over the decades, but my favourite is still Walt Disney's 1953 film; even after 62 years, it has lost none of its magic for me.

When it comes to pre-CGI animation from Disney Studios' heyday (1942-1958) - "Peter Pan" is (IMO) one of the top-of-the-line productions (on all counts).

But, of course, since "Peter Pan" comes from the early 1950s - The viewer cannot harshly judge its story-line by today's "politically correct" standards. 'Cause, otherwise, if they do - Then - This children's picture will be completely ruined for them once the characters have entered into the fantastic realm of Neverland.

This classic contains adventures , imagination , astounding as well as gorgeous sets and brilliant images . The picture mingles action , feats , humor , tongue-in-cheek , fantasy and a lot of entertainment . The film centers about Peter Pan (voice by Bobby Driscoll) , a nice adolescent who doesn't want grow up , Wendy , and brothers , all of them form a motley group going to Neverland , the wonderful and enchanted island . As they are whisked away to the magical world of Neverland on a magical flight . Peter Pan , Tink and Lost Boys , a gang of rag-tag runaways (they were boys who fell out of their prams while the nurses weren't looking , whereas Peter Pan is a permanent resident of Never Neverland, the lost boys are only temporary lodgers , if they seem to grow up, Peter Pan sends them home) will take on captain Hook , Smee and pirates henchmen . Meanwhile , Pan fights enemies and attempts to save his friends from scheming Captain Hook , Smee and his hoodlums .

The film contains emotion , humor , fantasy , a lot of fun and songs from Sammys Cahn and Fain . Here Peter and friends undertake several adventures in Neverland ; as Pan with the help of her and the Lost Boys battling Captain Hook and Smee . All ingredients are well presented and and correct and directors Clyde Geronimi , Wilfred Jackson , Hamilton Luske inject much excitement into the many boisterous action scenes . From the beginning to the end the amusement and entertainment is interminable . An entertaining movie that turns out to be colorful and delightful , though a little tiring when the characters are singing , but is still shines . The highlights film are the marvelous images when Peter Pan and Jane are flying throughout Neverland , as they fly over clouds , Tipis , Indian tribes and skull monument . Due to controversy over their appearance in this original movie , as Disney attracted negative comments for their stereotypical depiction of Indians, as indeed did J.M. Barrie with his original play . Marvelous and hilarious scenes carried out by the Disney animators , including extreme comic possibilities when happen "Hook vs. the Crocodile" , adding the unforgettable " Tick Tock!" sound heard from the crocodile.

Although original author J.M. Barrie is credited , this film was the only major version of "Peter Pan" to use little of his original dialogue . A great cast of actors to be used to shoot this classy including Hans Conried (Hook) , Bobby Driscoll (Peter Pan) , Bill Thompson (Mr. Smee) , Heather Angel (Mrs. Darling) , among others . Disney went on to exasperate purist fans (similarly to cartoon rendition ¨Alice in Wonderland¨) using American boy star Bobby Driscoll's voice for Pan and modelling Tinkerbell on Marilyn Monroe . Many Peter Pan purists were very upset by the characterization of Tinker Bell as a petulant and voluptuous young woman as old film ¨Peter Pan¨ as its sequel titled ¨Return to Never Land¨ . The fable will appeal to adventure and classic tale fan . Rating : 8/10 above average . It's a terrific familiar amusement that will appeal to vintage tale fans .

Other films and stage productions dealing with this classic personage are the followings : The original Broadway production of "Peter Pan", or "The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up" by J.M. Barrie opened at the Empire Theater on November 6, 1905 , it ran for 223 performances, closed on May 20, 1906, and starred nineteenth-century stage actress Maude Adams, who never made any films ; silent film ¨Peter Pan¨ (1924) starred by Virginia Brown Faire as Tinker Bell , it uses much of Barrie's original dialogue ; Peter Pan (1953) with voice by Bobby Driscoll, Kathryn Beaumont, Hans Conried ; ¨Hook¨(2001) with Steven Spielberg with Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook , Robin Williams , Freddie Highmore , Julia Roberts , Bob Hoskins as Smee , Maggie Smith and Caroline Goodall ; ¨Finding Neverland¨ (2004) by Marc Foster with Johnny Depp as James M Barry , Kate Winslet , Kelly McDonald as Peter Pan , Julie Christie , Radha Mitchell , and recent version ¨Peter Pan¨ by JP Hogan with Jeremy Sumpter , Raquel Wood and Jason Isaac . And the official sequel to classic history with an enjoyable Peter Pan , ¨Return to Never Land¨(2002) by Robin Budd and Donovan Cook , though it was originally planned as a direct-to-video release in which the protagonist of the story results to be Wendy's daughter and is set in London during World War II , she is abducted by Captain Hook and Peter Pan must come to the rescue in order to challenge his old enemy once again .

The classic is retold.

This delivers everything we expected from animated Disney at the time. The songs are catchy, people and animals alike move in smooth natural ways except for when that's the joke, there are cute sidekick characters, there's a sense of adventure and magic, the action is exciting, the climax is appropriately swashbuckling, there is a message. I remember thinking the pirates were utterly badass as a child. Peter Pan is the picture of fun-loving refusal to grow up. Captain Hook is an effective villain, legitimately sinister and threatening.

Given when it came out, it is unsurprising, though obviously frustrating, that it does have some very hateful stereotypes. I do agree with the decision to show it uncensored on Disney+, and allow for discussion. There's some racism in how it shows Native Americans, saying that they attack on sight, as if colonising forces have not also done that. Mocking their speech is quite ironic coming from Americans who mangled the English language. Treating their identities as something that's fun for young white people to cosplay as, encouraging cultural appropriation. There's sexism and misogyny in the depiction of girls. Claiming they talk too much, don't listen, and are so jealous that they will physically attack their rivals and are easily manipulated - at times, it even drives the plot. As if those things are not true of us men as well. It is mighty rich to suggest that the only way for such conflict to be resolved is for males to get involved, when it's really more the other way around in real life. I do appreciate that it shows clearly that it's not only boys who love adventure.

I recommend this to every fan of the original story. 7/10.

Don't get me wrong I love Alice in wonderland but Peter Pan is better.. this is always compared to alice but I seriously am team Peter Pan. Just imagine going to neverland and having the time of your life! The movie was beautiful the characters are charming and neveland is just magical <3

Well, even a lesser Disney movie like "Peter Pan" will still be a first-rate animated movie as far as, you know, animation goes. If the 1953 movie didn't break any particular ground, it was still good enough to provide one of the most iconic and instantly recognizable characters: Tinkerbell. Remember, it was Tink who provided the finale of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" by magically turning the screen to black after Porky Pig stuttered out his "That's all, folks!" catchphrase.

Tink belongs to the Pantheon of iconic Disney characters and it is appropriate that in one scene she's used as a saltshaker to supply fairy dust to Wendy and her bewildered brothers, she gives the film a certain flavor and even a little sassy touch in what would have been predictable and conventional entertainment, despite the cocky personality of Peter Pan and his interesting rivalry with Captain Hook. It is a fascinating bit of irony that the sidekick of the embodiment of childhood spirit is jealous and worried about the length of her hips.

The film has indeed enough innuendo to content the amateurs of psychological and sexual readings in Disney characters but if you want to judge the book by the cover, the film has all it takes to make a passable Disney film, it has that blissful energy and quick readiness for adventures that characterize children and a little touch of fairy dust that became the trademark of Disney films. And Peter Pan isn't a one-dimensional hero, he's a larger-than-life boy who's a both an immature kid and an alpha-male with a harem of mermaids and every female character having the hots for him, he also happens to be a bad-ass fighter.

But it takes too long for the film to take off, the opening in the house drags for more than twenty minutes and the annoying father occupies so much screen time that any viewer would need more than a little vacation day on 'Never Land' to forget about him. At the end, there's just something that leaves you hanging on, you know you're supposed to have a little glee in the eye somewhere in the film, but all the masterful animation, the wonderfully staged fights and crocodile sequences, the animation of Pan who spends most of the time not just flying but floating and the interactions between Hook and Smee fail to connect with the story.

And there are too many Lost boys so that you don't really care for them, Michael and John are only sidekicks but they don't do much in the film. It's all in Pan, Tinkerbell and Hook with Wendy as a passive and rather dull observer. It doesn't capture the essence of JM Barrie's novel but it does fill all the requirements of a Disney movie, and nothing else. When you finished it, you're just spent a nice moment but then there's nothing that really stands out, what are you going to talk about after watching the film? What did the kids learn from their adventure, that they need a mother and Wendy can't play the surrogate mother anymore because she's got to think of her own future as a mother? The ending was bittersweet with the emphasis on bitter.

Maybe I'm biased because I didn't get to see the film when I was a kid, I saw many movies of the same Disney period but only excerpts from "Peter Pan". However, I grew up watching the episodes of the anime based on JM Barrie's novels and they were more faithful to his spirit, the kids were all fully developed characters and the relationship between Pan and Wendy was really captivating on a love-and-hate level, but it's like the animators tried to condense the whole story in one-night event like a dream so the whole thing seemed a bit rushed. There's not the warmth of "Lady and the Tramp", the fast-paced rhythm of "Alice in Wonderland" or the swingy catchy vibes of the "Jungle Book" time, and there's no romance, no friendship whatsoever.

I guess there's something to blame on the context, by the time "Peter Pan" was released, "Cinderella" had - three years before- consolidated the financial strength of Disney studios allowing Uncle Walt to keep on expanding his business, the studio would face a few highs and lows but never with the same stakes as those in 1950. So we're in the middle of the 50's, at the peak of Disney's career, when the animation was lead by the "Nine Old Men", they were there from 1937 to 1977, if you do the math, the 50's was right in the middle, and it was still before the Xerox device, used for "101 Dalmatians", would simplify animation but with a greater focus on the story, the music, the characters, elements that seems to lack in 'Pan'.

"Peter Pan" is a true product of its era, a classic Walt Disney movie that has been made with confidence and dreams, and how appropriate that it tackles a story of a young boy who doesn't want to grow up. It is like the essence of Disney to make dreams possible, and in the case of "Peter Pan", there was a lot to say about this, but it never quite clicks. Maybe because it was met at a time where the master was too focused on his Disneyland project, on his work on TV and that animated features became a sort of a milk cow.

I remarked a strange pattern, it's only where the future of the studios are at stakes that Disney make terrific movies, they're never as good as when they're pivotal and necessary, I can see why "Peter Pan", while a good film in its own right, isn't as good or memorable as the other features.

Barrie's "PeterPan" is a highly complex story.There are strong elements of social satire,moral ambiguities,deep psychological issues,and emotional traumas investigated in this play.Almost all these aspects have been eliminated in the animated version.Topics such as: dealing with our parents,abandonment,mixed feelings toward our loved ones,and developing a mature adult libidinal attitude have all been erased.Hook's escape at the end,and the return of Peter AND the Lost Boys to Neverland violate some of the core elements of the story.Those criticisms aside,this is really well done.The animation is excellent;the characterizations are first-rate;and by actually having Peter done by a boy,an element of a (benign )sexual rivalry between Wendy and Tiger Lily is introduced.The boys,pirates,and Indians are marvelous,and the crocodile is a masterpiece.(He does act more like a dog than a reptile;Nana come back in disguise,maybe?He reminds me of a miniature dachshund I owned for 13 years.)This is probably the best way to introduce anyone to Peter Pan.