JohnHowardReid When Sir James M. Barrie died in 1937, he left the copyright of Peter Pan to the Ormond Street Children's Hospital, who proved rather tough to deal with when Walt Disney approached them in the late 1940s. To placate them, Disney proposed to deal constructively with the three main criticisms leveled against Herbert Brenon's 1924 production: (1) He would use the same actor to voice both Darling and Hook; (2) He would not countenance Brenon's ill-advised change of setting from London to New York; and (3) He would give far more color and attention to the key role of Tinker Bell (rather inadequately played by Virgina Brown Faire in the Brenon version-which fortunately didn't matter a great deal as the role was rather small, in both senses of that word).True to his word, Disney delivered-and delivered magnificently on these three issues: (1) Hans Conried does supremely well by Hook and makes an excellent stab at Darling (even though hampered by the screenplay's tendency to make the character far too blustery and slapstick a figure). (2) It's good to see Big Ben back in the limelight, rather than a somewhat incongruous Old Glory. (3) The highly attractive yet supremely malicious Tinker Bell emerges as one of Disney's most inspired creations. Unfortunately, on other (and even more important issues) Disney has chosen to compromise. It was to be expected that Nana would become a Disney dog -= a Pluto clone-because there was no way you could picture a man dressed up as a dog (and a bitch at that) in a cartoon. Okay, even steven.Peter Pan is no longer a girl playing at being a boy, let alone an extremely sexy young lady who seems blissfully unaware of her provocativeness. That also was inevitable, even though you have now eliminated from the pantomime both the Dame and the Principal Boy. But even taking this into account, Peter Pan himself distills only a tiny fraction of the charisma that Betty Bronson so superlatively lent the character. Bobby Driscoll, who was so brilliant as a youngster and deservedly received a prestigious Hollywood award in 1950, seemed to lose his ability as he grew older. Here his performance is adequate at best, just tolerable at worst. So, two minuses for Disney. As might be expected, Wendy is no longer an adult playing at being a very young teenager. On the other hand, Disney obviously does not see her as a fresh-faced kid either. In fact, her age tends to vary a bit. She looks much older in some scenes than in others. And she's inadequately voiced by Kathryn Beaumont (who did such a good job with Alice). The main problem for me, however, is that Wendy's worried-looking, overly mature face makes her look so unattractive. This focuses my attention on Tinker Bell instead. But Wendy is supposed to be a main character (and a highly sympathetic one at that), so another two minuses for Disney. I found the songs a mixed bunch. In my opinion, the liveliest were "What Makes the Red Man Red?" and "Never Smile at a Crocodile." So, it's even steven on the songs. But speaking of the crocodile, I loved him. He came over with far more spirit and a hundred times more personality here than in the Brenon film. So there's a definite plus to Disney. Many critics didn't take to Mr. Smee, but I enjoyed his antics, so one more plus to Disney.Loathed in Britain, and received with indifference in Australia, this is a Peter Pan aimed squarely at Americans. Although it bears a considerable resemblance to Barrie's pantomime, it is in fact a pantomime no longer but an unsatisfactory compromise between a cartoon and a stage play. True, a fair amount of Barrie remains, but it's mostly superficial stuff. Just about all Barrie's important ideas and the majority of his telling lines are omitted. Disney made a large issue of the fact that he had restored Barrie's plan by casting the same actor as Hook and Darling. But what's the point of restoring the casting if the whole point of this relationship has been lost? AVAILABLE on DVD through Disney. Quality rating: Ten out of ten.

ElMaruecan82 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.

Jawbox5 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.

Anssi Vartiainen For me Peter Pan is one of the lesser movies of the so-called post-war restoration era of Disney. It's not the triumphant return of Cinderella, nor the bizarre fun of Alice in Wonderland, nor does it have the warmhearted atmosphere of Lady and the Tramp nor the technical quality of Sleeping Beauty. It's still a marvelous adventure film and heads and shoulders above most of its animated peers. It just means that by Disney standards it's not near the top.A few reason for this. First of all, I don't think that Captain Hook is a very good villain. He has the visual appeal and a great voice actor in Hans Conried who, following the proper Peter Pan tradition, also voiced Mr. Darling. But I think he's way too slapsticky, which takes away all the menace most other version of the character have. Then again, the crocodile is awesome.The songs are also of poorer quality than in many other Disney films. You Can Fly is of course a classic, but other than that I cannot remember any other song. Except of course What Made the Red Man Red, which is problematic for other reasons.Plus Wendy is something of a step back from Alice, the previous Disney heroine, who was also voiced by Kathryn Beaumont, by the way. And I have absolutely nothing against Beaumont, she's amazing, but the character herself is a lot less activate and personal than Alice.But, it stills has that Disney charm. The animation is unsurpassed, Tinker Bell is one of Disney's finest characters for a reason, the actual plot is a lot of fun and as a whole it's over an hour's worth of fun, excitement and good family entertainment. It's not one of the strongest Disney films in my opinion, but is definitely worth a watch no matter your age.