The NEW Peter Pan

[Legacy]

I just got back from seeing Universal's live-action Peter Pan and all I can say is, 'Wow'. This movie is the most magical movie I have ever seen. I can say that if dreams were externally visual, this would be it. Hook is actually scary instead of a comic character as normal, and the movie tackles the themes of love and growing up more so than Disney ever attempted. It's a shame this one is seems to be dissapearing under the Rings, but this movie is amazing.

5 Hooahs

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

shame disney didn't make it.

 

[Sir Hiss527]

I'm glad to hear it got a good review. I will definetley got see it soon.

 

[Maria]

Originally posted by mkepcotmgmak
shame disney didn't make it.

How was that possible? :veryconfu :veryconfu

 

[EchoOfOphelia]

Oh I'm so glad to hear that its good!! I just love the Peter Pan story and this looked really good!!! Looks like a really good scary spin on it. Can't wait to see it, will probably go over the weekend. Thanks for the report!

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by Maria
How was that possible? :veryconfu :veryconfu

Same thing I said...and notice how they keep any references to the company that made it out of the title in promos...I wonder why....

:animwink:

 

[EchoOfOphelia]

Originally posted by Maria
How was that possible? :veryconfu :veryconfu

........what do you mean???? Disney did not create the story of Peter Pan, nor do they own the exclusive rights to it. It was written in 1904 by J.M. Barrie. This new Peter Pan was done by Universal and I don't think they are deliberately keeping their name from the previews. If you look at others, the movie co.'s name isn't plastered all over the place.

 

[NemoRocks78]

I plan on seeing it Monday, would've seen it last night but my family wanted to see Cheaper by the Dozen, so I had to settle with that (incredibly stupid and boring to me, only good Steve Martin movie out there is Bringing Down the House). This new version of Peter Pan looks incredibly amazing, hopefully it will do great at the box office.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Originally posted by objr
Same thing I said...and notice how they keep any references to the company that made it out of the title in promos...I wonder why....

:animwink:

Disney didn't make Peter Pan...well...they made a movie based on the STORY...but they didn't "make" Peter Pan.

People mistakingly think that it's a Disney thing because Disney made Peter Pan into the well-known character...but the Disney version is based on a previously existing story.

 

[Lil'mermaid]

I cannot wait to see this one!:sohappy:

 

[Tigggrl]

I thought there were 3 studios behind the new Pan movie...
And I am amazed no one has mentioned Big Fish. THATS the one I cant wait to see!

 

[kal1484]

Hey, I saw it tonight, and it was AWESOME. There were a few corny parts, but it was still good.

As for the disney owning part, the film was most likely based around a play, my school did it for their musical last year. I knew half of the words that were going to come next. The names of the characters were the same in the play, I'm guessing disney stole them from the original story.

 

[EthylCooper]

Disney was a part of this one early on, but pulled out because they didn't want to pay double royalties.

I was a bit disappointed with this movie. Anyone who's been noticing my avatars this past month knows how much I've been looking forward to it, but I think the director dropped the ball a bit. The good parts of this movie were really really good, but the bad parts were really bad.

The bad parts:

* The nursery scene just had me cringing. I know he could have gotten a better performance out of those actors in that scene--they have talent.
* The little gags they threw in for cheap laughs. They really lowered the tone of the movie. This made the biggest difference in my opinion of the movie as a whole.
* Tink. She was overly clownish. When she wasn't making stupid faces or doing pratfalls, she was very good.
* Some of the very best moments from the trailer were missing from the final cut of the movie.
* Spelling out the subtext. Thank goodness they didn't involve charts and diagrams.
* The long, drawn-out, poorly-imagined effects at the climax.

The good parts:

* Hook. Whenever he was onscreen, the silliness of the rest of the movie vanished. He was both sinister and enchanting, both brave and fearful, just as he should be. Isaac's performance was as perfect as the trailer promised.
* Smee. Not enough screentime, but well-performed.
* Neverland. Perfect! The sky was too blue, the clouds were too pink---everything was just as it should have been.

I expect to enjoy it much more when I see it again on Monday since I know now where its weaknesses are.

 

[Sir Hiss527]

Alright i'm going to go see it today...I'll give you my review shortly. I can't Wait :king:

 

[MicBat]

I'm off to see it later tonight! I have high hopes for this one.

 

[Sir Hiss527]

Sir Hiss's Review:

It was an ok movie. The movie has awesome special effects. And Tink was the best!!!

 

[disnyfan89]

Man that was a good movie!!! They also keept little traditions from when it first debuted in its play form (ex. the person who played the dad also played Hook and he did a realy good job too) Its a sham that Disney didn't want to play dubble royalties!!

 

[Abercrombie Kid]

i havn't seen t yet, but it looks pretty tight. the only thing i worry about is that because it is a darker version it really dosn't have a good target audience. Too young 4 adults/teens and too old 4 kids. it looks like it captured the fellin of all the movies/plays really well.

 

[darthdarrel]

I just got back from see Peter Pan and I have to say that it was great!
Not as good as Return of the king, but good just the same! :sohappy:

 

[MicBat]

It was good, but, IMO, I wouldn't say it was great. It had it's moment's... but then it had it's moments where all I could say was "?!" Overall, though, I'd say it was good.