Peter Pan

2000 "Broadway musical adaptation of the fabled children's story."
Peter Pan
7.3| 1h44m| G| en| More Info
Released: 10 October 2000 Released
Producted By: A+E Studios
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The stage musical Peter Pan starring Cathy Rigby has toured the world to great acclaim. An adaptation of the famous 1954 musical directed by Jerome Robbins and starring Mary Martin, this new version is lasting proof that J.M. Barrie's tale of the boy who would never grow up is one of the kingpins of family entertainment. All the elements are in good form for this video production shot at the Mirada Theater in 2000 for the A&E Network. Some new songs have been added to the fabulous Moose Charlap-Carolyn Leigh score (which includes "Tender Shepherd," "I Gotta Crow," "I'm Flying," and "I Won't Grow Up"). But the biggest asset to this production are the spectacular flying sequences: Peter even soars over the audience at times. Martin was a stronger actress in a close-up, but Rigby is magical with her athleticism and spark, most notably in a percussion-filled song and dance number "Ugh-a-Wug.".

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

A+E Studios

Trailers & Images

Reviews

bronny Personally I can't stand Peter Pan.However, my 5 year old daughter found this at the library and asked to borrow it, and I have to admit that it is a wonderful and funny performance. The songs are great (much to my annoyance I have even been discovered humming them to myself). Cathy Rigby is extremely well suited to the role of Peter Pan, and I loved Paul Schoeffler as Captain Hook/Mr Darling.So even though I don't like Peter Pan I gave it 7/10 and am able to sit through certain bits as my daughter watches it over and over again (unfortunately I was persuaded to buy the video for her).
ralphsf Sorry, but this version, for all its slickness, athleticism, modern broadway effects, superior sound, etc. remains a poor second to the Mary Martin version. In a word, it doesn't have Jerome Robbins, Mary Martin or Cyril Ritchard. Rigby does her best and has a surprisingly effective singing voice, but her accent is awful. Neither does she or anyone else have any timing. Classic lines are just thrown away and garbled. I also found her performance to be very much on one note. She's good as a p***ed-off little boy, but that's it. It has none of the grace or whimsy of Martin's performance. The woman playing Wendy has a good voice but, again, a terrible accent and delivery. Their Hook does the best of the three. He has real power and size (everyone else in this production must be 5' tall!) and reminds me of Captain Morgan. He's got a real operatic baritone. But I thought he botched his solos, throwing away lines with poor phrasing. Tiger Lily is a good dancer (although the dances are just second rate Broadway gymnastic razz-ma-tazz) but has little to do in this version. I also thought the end of the show where Peter returns was poorly performed... it had much more emotional power in the older version. There is much to like in this version, especially if you aren't acquainted with the Mary Martin version, but it's strictly second string. The artistry just isn't there.
HLYWoodStarlett I have seen both the Mary Martin version and this version, and even though I have fond memories of watching the Mary Martin version when I was younger, I enjoyed this one a lot more. The Mary Martin version was excellent, don't get me wrong, but while watching it, you consciously think to yourself,"This is a woman playing a little boy." In many ways, this can ruin the experience. In the Cathy Rigby version, Rigby acts as a little boy would. She uses the gestures a boy would, she moves as a boy would, and when delivering her lines and singing you actually believe that she is a little boy that just did not want to grow up. Elisa Sagardia was also wonderfully enchanting in her role as Wendy. When watching it you feel as if Wendy is your own sister or mother. Everything is an improvement from the Mary Martin version-the pirates are animated and hilarious, the lost boys are also quite funny and child-like, the Indians have wonderful dance sequences and you almost feel hypnotized while watching them. I suppose it is a matter of taste and what appeals to you more-charming, quaint, heart-warming productions, or believable, spectacular, animated, eye-catching, mind boggling, rhythmic, hypnotic productions. Out of 10 stars, I give it a solid 7 1/2.
caroline-25 It must be nice to be able to afford to mount a theatrical production and cast yourself in the lead. Yes, this show looks good, but it lacks warmth - portraying the magical Neverland as a dark, almost scary place. Cathy Rigby's Peter, while technically good, comes across as an unlikeable bully with an extremely irritating (and unnecessary) English accent. Hook and the pirates did a wonderful job, John and Michael were good, the Indian dancing was great (and glossed over the fact that Tiger Lily couldn't really act). The thing that really bothered me was the fact that Wendy and the Lost Boys were played by adults. There are so many talented kids out there that could have done just as well while adding realism and genuine energy. For that matter, I'd like to see someone break tradition and have Peter Pan actually played by a young boy. Maybe if I ever find myself with a couple million dollars to spare, I'll make my own version...not starring me.