Djeta Thernadier
First Post
I think we're going to see it tonight. Has anyone seen it yet? Any reviews (with no spoliers). All the ones I found online are all over the place...
Thanks!
Sheri
Thanks!
Sheri
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Has anyone seen Peter Pan?
- Thread starter Djeta Thernadier
- Start date
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Djeta Thernadier said:
Took the kids to see it yesterday. Overall, it is a good movie, but in no danger of being considered a great movie. Reviews I've read prior to going were also all over the place. Some thought Wendy was very well done. Others found her totally unconvincing. Et cetera. The only point of agreement was that Tink was horrible.
I think this is because, well, the movie itself is all over the place. The acting was uneven. Pan's smile, which doesn't change in form, varies in substance from whimsical to creepy, for example, but I'm not sure that it was supposed to vary. It seems as if the writers and director couldn't quite make up their mind about the tone: slapstick, adventurous, threatening, introspective.
But the kids enjoyed it and there was nothing in the movie I found to be morally objectionable, so that's all that really matters.
Oh: Tink was horrible.
Last edited:
Djeta Thernadier
First Post
Well,
We saw it last night. I personally was wide eyed and feeling 10 years old through most of it and Chris had never seen Peter Pan before in any form. I really liked it. It's not the best movie of the year but it's pretty darn good. Here's a few points:
The visuals , while not LOTR , were still pretty cool. The fairies, in particular were very well done.
Hook was awesome.
Hook's various outfits were even more awesome.
The crocodile should have had more screen time.
Tink didn't speak which made me happy because she's not supposed to talk. I liked that they explain how she's too small to feel more than one emotion at a time, and I personally liked that her expressions were exaggerated. There were only a few points where I thought she looked 'silly'. I mean, she's not a human in the story, she's a fairy.
The kid who played Peter , I thought did a great job of acting like a whiny and somewhat arrogant kid who refuses to accept growing up. I like how when Wendy mentions her brothers he says "Who?"
Wendy was well cast and I thought perfect.
The director did not go all PC and cut out any of the "objectionable" scenes.That is a plus in my book.
The mermaids were creepy as they are in the story.
All in all, I thought it stayed pretty accurate to the original story and it was nice and refreshing to get the story minus the annoying musical numbers.
Almost all of the complaints I read from bad reviews before I went were focused on a few things.
1.The sexuality between Peter & Wendy.
They are little kids (12, if memory serves). They kiss innocently and dance innocently and it's basically implied that they are little kids playing house.
2.Peter constantly looks aroused. Peter has a crush on Wendy the same way most 12 year olds develop crushes. When she kisses him he is probably about to pass out for pete's sake. It's sweet.
3.But we've seen this story before... You've seen it before as a musical, as a Disney-fied cartoon and as a comedy with Robin Williams. This is the closest to the real book. I think a lot of the people who gave it bad reviews are not familiar with the original work.
4.But they took away the music! Originally there was no music.
5.The children are practically nude and this story was clearly directed by a child molester. I guess thats a matter of opinion. I thought Peter was dressed like a kid who lives alone in the woods and hangs out with fantasy creatures.
That's just my opinion though. I liked it.
The text of the real story can be read here : http://www.literatureproject.com/peter-pan/index.htm
We saw it last night. I personally was wide eyed and feeling 10 years old through most of it and Chris had never seen Peter Pan before in any form. I really liked it. It's not the best movie of the year but it's pretty darn good. Here's a few points:
The visuals , while not LOTR , were still pretty cool. The fairies, in particular were very well done.
Hook was awesome.
Hook's various outfits were even more awesome.
The crocodile should have had more screen time.
Tink didn't speak which made me happy because she's not supposed to talk. I liked that they explain how she's too small to feel more than one emotion at a time, and I personally liked that her expressions were exaggerated. There were only a few points where I thought she looked 'silly'. I mean, she's not a human in the story, she's a fairy.
The kid who played Peter , I thought did a great job of acting like a whiny and somewhat arrogant kid who refuses to accept growing up. I like how when Wendy mentions her brothers he says "Who?"
Wendy was well cast and I thought perfect.
The director did not go all PC and cut out any of the "objectionable" scenes.That is a plus in my book.
The mermaids were creepy as they are in the story.
All in all, I thought it stayed pretty accurate to the original story and it was nice and refreshing to get the story minus the annoying musical numbers.
Almost all of the complaints I read from bad reviews before I went were focused on a few things.
1.The sexuality between Peter & Wendy.
They are little kids (12, if memory serves). They kiss innocently and dance innocently and it's basically implied that they are little kids playing house.2.Peter constantly looks aroused.
Peter has a crush on Wendy the same way most 12 year olds develop crushes. When she kisses him he is probably about to pass out for pete's sake. It's sweet.3.But we've seen this story before...
You've seen it before as a musical, as a Disney-fied cartoon and as a comedy with Robin Williams. This is the closest to the real book. I think a lot of the people who gave it bad reviews are not familiar with the original work.4.But they took away the music!
Originally there was no music.5.The children are practically nude and this story was clearly directed by a child molester.
I guess thats a matter of opinion. I thought Peter was dressed like a kid who lives alone in the woods and hangs out with fantasy creatures.That's just my opinion though. I liked it.
The text of the real story can be read here : http://www.literatureproject.com/peter-pan/index.htm
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Djeta Thernadier said:
Admittedly. I loathe mime, and I found Ludivine Sagnier's performance very distracting. Struck me as less fairy than an actress desperately trying to be a fairy.
That's an odd, possibly libelous thing for reviewers to say. Has P. J. Hogan been in trouble of this sort before? I mean, if the director had been Victor Salva, the entire movie would have been decidedly creepy.
Djeta Thernadier
First Post
Mark Chance said:
Well, most of the reviews I read were from the public, since I tend to disgaree with most professional film critics so I'm not sure, but yeah, it's not very cool to go saying the director comes off as a child molester or porn producer.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Djeta Thernadier said:Well, most of the reviews I read were from the public, since I tend to disgaree with most professional film critics so I'm not sure, but yeah, it's not very cool to go saying the director comes off as a child molester or porn producer.
Quite right.
Of course, parts of the movie did have an icky vibe to them. Hook's fascination with Wendy was decidedly unwholesome, but he is the villain. The amorality of the story can also be seen as distressing, given that Hook desires to be a child murderer and Pan thinks severing body parts for croc food is quite amusing.
But those elements are supposed to be there. Peter Pan (the real book, not the Disneyfied versions) is often dark and distressing, just like any good children's story must be to be good.
