johnstonjames What can I say. BRILLIANT!!!! and I love the Peter Pan stories by James Barrie. I feel very protective about the Peter Pan legacy and don't like to see it ruined. that's why I hated Steven Spielberg's horrid film version 'Hook'. Spielberg missed the whole point. ALL CHILDREN GROW UP EXCEPT FOR ONE. 'Hook' didn't take liberties with the story, it missed the whole point and ruined it. plus Robin Williams silly ass was too big and fat to be flying around in that green Peter Pansy costume.My favorite version is the one with Cathy Rigby. she is much better than Mary Martin,and the Rigby production is so beautiful and faithful.Cathy Rigby owns the role. the 1953 Disney version is adorable and the Universal/Columbia studios version is quite good too.That brings us to the Damon Dietz version. iconoclastic, with lots of liberties taken but still a amazing interpretation. much of James Barrie's original dialogue from the play and book are here intact which only makes this whole thing seem more surreal. this is a good adaptation. it knows the story and understands it well.The characterizations here are very funny. Peter,Wendy,John,Michael and the Lost Boys are all appropriately sweet and endearing. Tinkerbell is a bitchy potty-mouthed meth dealer. Tiger Lilly is a beautiful transvestite,(and I do mean beautiful, for a moment I wasn't even sure that was a guy) and Hook is a scary creepy predator that no self respecting parent would want around their kids. and the croc is a filthy low-life perve who needs to get a real job.The music is first class. especially the musical number that Tiger Lilly sings in the Native American Musical Revue.This wonderful film should be commended for achieving such brilliance on such a low budget. like the incredible Cathy Rigby, this film flies you to the second star to the right and straight on into space. I wonder what the Great Ormond Sreet Hospital for Sick Children in London thought of this film? oh well, anyone that doesn't like it can kiss Tiger Lilly's BIG FULL MOON.

danbagel This movie never promises to be anything that it isn't. The description basically tells you that it's low budget and shot on DV tape. If you were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings - then yes, you will be very disappointed.If you go into it knowing that it's an independent film that was done on a minimum budget by someone just getting started in the business, then it's really not that bad.Being someone who is just starting out in the world of movie making, I could appreciate the effort and work put into it.So if you like weird, cult, independent, low-budget movies (and who doesn't?), then check this movie out. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best), I'd give it about a 6 or 7. My friend thought it was totally weird and didn't like it at all.

dougprinz An ambitious and smart modernization of the oft-told Peter Pan tale. I'm convinced this is almost what Baz Luhrmann would do if he got his hands on the material. (Of course he would have 1000 times the budget!)Some standout performances and a great soundtrack make up for the choppy and at times migraine-inducing editing.Overall, highly watchable and addictive. I'm hoping someone at the WB or HBO sees it and requests a pilot for a series! Looking forward to more magic from the talents involved.

lisarenee3505 Amazing retelling of J.M.Barre's classic tale of a boy who didn't want to grow up, and a girl who was growing up too quickly. Peter is a bipolar juvenille deliquent, Tink is an alcoholic "fairy dust" addict with Borderline Personality disorder, and Neverland is a sad, run-down amusement park, with Hook as it's "Director of Guest Services", which is a fancy title for Head Janitor.Director Damion Dietz's vision was to "un-Dinsnefy" Barre's original tale, which is quite bizzare and disturbing, unlike the Disney version. He did an excellent job. You should definately try to catch this film at a festival or art-house, if for no other reason than the excellent performances of Kari Whalgren as Tinkerbell and Gary Kelly as Hook.