|
Published on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:08am |
|
Studio Plant asks, Why another PETER PAN movie'
Harry here... here's the first review I've seen anywhere for the P. J. Hogan PETER PAN, and the author, going by the clever alias... "Studio Plant" seems to be asking the question, "Why another Peter Pan movie?" Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the Barrie subject at hand, but I will say this rhetorical answer... "Because it is a timeless tale for every generation and time?" I say that, because I do love the Silent 1924 PETER PAN which I have on DVD and am in particular quite fond of Anna May Wong's portrayal of the silent Tiger Lily. Then there's that Disney PETER PAN, which was and is a favorite of my father's and as a result a fave of mine... In particular, the musical cues that trumpet Pan's arrival rule. Never been a fan of the Mary Martin version. It just didn't do it for me. But then there was HOOK, which save for a scant few moments of pure elation... it killed an awful lot of the magic of Peter Pan for me. But gosh golly if I don't love those few moments so much that I don't hate Spielberg for letting me down. Now there's this P.J. Hogan thing... #1, we finally have a real boy as Pan. #2 Ludivine Sagnier as Tinker Bell is just enough to make me smack my lips and wait for that faerie dust trail to land on my head, cuz if you can't think a happy thought looking at Ludivine... then, I'm really sorry for you. #3 - I've never seen an accurate adaptation of PETER PAN told on the big screen in color and given all the magic that modern cinema can muster. SURE - I would've loved to have seen Victor Fleming direct a Technicolor telling with Mickey Rooney as Peter Pan, Judy Garland as Wendy... Basil Rathbone as Hook, Guy Kibbee as Smee and Jean Harlow as Tink... and a young Ida Lupino as Tiger Lily... BUT... the world sucks sometimes when it misses it's calling, so instead... this will be my color fanciful telling to see... I hope...
Hey Harry:
Those of us lucky enough to live in the O.C. seem to
get an awful lot of test screenings lately. I guess
with our surfing, Land Rovers, rich girl beach
parties, and ragging on Chino, we're just a perfect
little slice of America. So, when we got handed an
invite to a test screening of Peter Pan over at the
Block, I was bored just enough to go.
The theater was packed mostly with families and I was
quite amused to see the NRG goons running the metal
detector over each little kid just to make sure Peter
Pan didn't wind up on the streets of Hong Kong before
the credits rolled. What they didn't save us from was
yet another movie about Peter Pan. The crowd laughed
at times, gave a smattering of applause, but the kids
seemed really restless. After seeing the film, with
many very rough fx shots, I just can't answer: Why
another Peter Pan movie?
I don't think there are any spoilers really because
you know the plot. The parents are cracking down on
Wendy & her brothers childness at the same time Peter
Pan shows up chasing his shadow. The kids fly off to
Neverland and Capt. Hook begins the chase. In the
best scene of the movie, he captures Wendy's brothers
who are then rescued by Peter Pan without much of a
fight (and with the help of an always well-timed
crocodile). Hook dispairs, tries to turn Wendy
against Peter Pan with the help of a scorned
Tinkerbell. He tries to poison Peter Pan but
Tinkerbell takes it instead. Fortunately everyone
starts chanting "I believe in faeries" and she's okay.
Then the final battle between Capt Hook and Peter Pan
goes down, again aided by a wel-timed croc. And most
everyone lives happily ever after.
The kid who played Peter Pan annoyed me. His
character isn't spritely, mischeivous, or anything
other than flat. I guess he's supposed to look good
wearing leaves. Wendy is a lovely young lady, more of
the central character than Peter Pan, and performs
quite well on screen. Hook is okay, properly menacing
at times, however he does kill many of his own men for
little reason and can't ever seem to finish the job
when it comes to Peter Pan.
Mainly its the story that is the problem. It's very
choppy, hard to follow at times, and fairly dull.
Some of it seems a little like Masterpiece Theater
which I think made the kids restless. The best scene
takes place about halfway through the movie so there's
lots of downtime. Not enough surprises to warrant a
new Peter Pan. Stick with the cartoon.
later dude,
Studio Plant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reader Talkback
What's the name of that techno
song they play during the
trailer by PacinoHatersGoHo | Oct 13th, 2003 06:15:53 AM | Sorry, trying to be clever.
Failed. by Rain_Dog | Oct 13th, 2003 06:18:24 AM | Why, you ask? by Silvio Dante | Oct 13th, 2003 06:21:15 AM | PacinoHaterGoHo by Silvio Dante | Oct 13th, 2003 06:24:36 AM | music by fletchwins | Oct 13th, 2003 06:50:53 AM | worrying by lampoon | Oct 13th, 2003 06:52:51 AM | Haven't heard the piece of
music in question, by Rain_Dog | Oct 13th, 2003 07:02:39 AM | With Smuckers Grape, of
course..... by ChickenGeorgeVII | Oct 13th, 2003 07:11:19 AM | I am a first poster. by ZeedarTeretz | Oct 13th, 2003 07:28:28 AM | Moriarty's script review gave
me hope but after watching the
tra by godoffireinhell | Oct 13th, 2003 07:30:22 AM | "blew it" by godoffireinhell | Oct 13th, 2003 07:33:27 AM | I really really really wanted
this to be a great film. by virkku | Oct 13th, 2003 07:35:05 AM | Wanna see Keanu as
Constantine? by Human Tornado | Oct 13th, 2003 07:45:46 AM | Peter Potter and Harry Pan by MyWord | Oct 13th, 2003 07:49:16 AM | The music is... by Orange Brat | Oct 13th, 2003 08:22:04 AM | The trailer for this was
pretty awful by godric | Oct 13th, 2003 08:27:19 AM | Jason Isaacs by FloydGandoli | Oct 13th, 2003 08:47:43 AM | k.d. lang by JAGUART | Oct 13th, 2003 08:49:50 AM | The trailer music in full is
... by taxman2001 | Oct 13th, 2003 09:07:16 AM | If you read the original
book... by nottoo | Oct 13th, 2003 09:33:31 AM | what another repeat? by name-name-name | Oct 13th, 2003 09:38:06 AM | Actually another Peter Pan
movie was neccessary by Terry_1978 | Oct 13th, 2003 10:12:18 AM | Thanks for all "Clocks"
responses by PacinoHatersGoHo | Oct 13th, 2003 10:22:09 AM | Isn't Tinkerbell played by
that naked, French chick from
Swimmin by Osmosis Jones | Oct 13th, 2003 10:29:03 AM | another version by VibroCount | Oct 13th, 2003 11:01:42 AM | PLANT! by AICN CatchPhrase | Oct 13th, 2003 11:49:55 AM | Wendy, Michael,
John...Tinkerbell, c'mon!! by McLuvin | Oct 13th, 2003 12:26:22 PM | Not the target audience by LewMoxon | Oct 13th, 2003 01:14:35 PM | I have never met anyone named
Pan. by Fred | Oct 13th, 2003 01:19:12 PM | A far more positive review at
IMDb. by nottoo | Oct 13th, 2003 01:30:57 PM | Too bad but by Maiden | Oct 13th, 2003 01:57:03 PM | AICN loosing credibility? by veins | Oct 13th, 2003 03:00:29 PM | Basil Rathbone as Hook, Guy
Kibbee as Smee!!! by RenoNevada2000 | Oct 13th, 2003 03:02:59 PM | cant wait by PolyesterRage | Oct 13th, 2003 03:29:48 PM | Get on the Peter Pan bus kids
-- coz we're gonna take a trip
bac by Bregalad_ | Oct 13th, 2003 04:10:58 PM | well... by Bourne GreyElf | Oct 13th, 2003 04:11:44 PM | Ludivine Sagnier by Bourne GreyElf | Oct 13th, 2003 04:16:35 PM | For a moment, I thought this
movie was called Peter Pan
Over At by Fizzy Cherry | Oct 13th, 2003 04:49:56 PM | oscar is HOOKED on peter pan! by drudgejr | Oct 13th, 2003 04:57:07 PM | LOVE YA PLANT! by emeraldluxury | Oct 13th, 2003 05:04:35 PM | To Bregalad : kudos by nottoo | Oct 13th, 2003 05:59:46 PM | Enjoyed your post, Bregalad by daughter of time | Oct 13th, 2003 06:03:59 PM | Harry Peter by NicholasWolfwood | Oct 13th, 2003 07:36:56 PM | Jack from Will and Grace is
Peter Pan by super Cucaracha | Oct 13th, 2003 07:39:14 PM | After the awful Spieberg
version,a Peter Pan story that
isn't Am by Noell | Oct 13th, 2003 07:59:44 PM | Lost Boys Redux by dr.cornelius | Oct 13th, 2003 07:59:47 PM | The next upcoming Harry Potter
Porno will be entitled "Harry
Pot by Rusty_Ball_Sac | Oct 13th, 2003 08:09:28 PM | Who actually cares if the
Peter Pan franchise was
americanized? by Rusty_Ball_Sac | Oct 13th, 2003 08:30:32 PM | I don't buy the argument that
"this movie was meant for
kids, no by JohnnyTremaine | Oct 13th, 2003 08:39:16 PM | Yes all that is fucking
hilarious. But you forgot one
key elemen by Rusty_Ball_Sac | Oct 13th, 2003 08:49:38 PM | And two more thing I forgot.
Midgets, and "CHICKS WITH
DICKS"!!! by Rusty_Ball_Sac | Oct 13th, 2003 08:50:56 PM | I guess every generation's
entitled to it's own version
of PETER by FrankDrebin | Oct 13th, 2003 08:54:56 PM | Go here for trailer music
info:
http://www.soundtrack.net/trai
le by FrankDrebin | Oct 13th, 2003 08:56:09 PM | And here for TV commercial
music info:
http://www.songtitle.info by FrankDrebin | Oct 13th, 2003 08:58:41 PM | Fuck your an idiot Creepy. by Conan_the_Humble | Oct 14th, 2003 12:04:21 AM | I spent a bit of time on the
set of this... :) by TheGinger Twit | Oct 14th, 2003 07:43:57 AM | Isn't there another Peter Pan
flick in the pipeline? by jimmythesaint | Oct 14th, 2003 08:48:31 AM | I can't really argue with you
there Creepy, by Conan_the_Humble | Oct 14th, 2003 10:29:30 AM | Harry Potter and Peter Pan are
to team up with Hannibal
Lecter f by Drath | Oct 14th, 2003 11:46:05 AM | You missed the point, Tremaine by LewMoxon | Oct 14th, 2003 11:46:27 AM | It's not a remake... by daughter of time | Oct 14th, 2003 12:14:09 PM | I can't take this anymore! I'm
so sick of you fuckers!! What
the by TheGinger Twit | Oct 15th, 2003 01:00:45 AM | Why dont you all... by KittenCrazy | Dec 29th, 2003 12:46:38 AM |
|
|