Peter Pan (2003)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

I was given this as a birthday gift and wasn't that eager about watching it at first, but when I did, I was blown away. The CGI and flying was incredible for a movie in 2003, and there is frequently humor, like how John got his hat or what happens to Michael's bear. I like it better than Disney's version and how it was so much closer to the original book. They brought it alive. Some of the similarities are how Tinker Bell almost dies, and people shout, "I believe in fairies!" in hope that she will live, or how a hut is built around Wendy.However, the reason I subtracted four stars is that there is an entire romance between Peter Pan and Wendy. That is a bad example for you children, especially with how Wendy kisses Peter. The only good side of it is that Peter is not growing up and does not understand love, which is interesting. The mermaids were creepy, and Hook was once shown without his hand, completely. It was not simply without his hook. It appears he has to sling something over his shoulder and around his arm to put the stub the hook is attached to there. Peter's outfit also shows a bit too much.The battles on the ship and in a castle were exciting and perfect. The movie would have been, too, if we didn't have the romance.

We only saw this movie because my 14-year-old son and a friend ended up seeing it for free at a theater's summer movie series. They thought it was cool. Turned out it was. It's more like a grown-up's Peter Pan, one that we can all recognize ourselves in at a particular point in our lives. It's beautifully filmed, and Jacob Isaacs is a splendid Captain Hook. Jeremy Sumpter and Rachel Hurd-Wood are excellent, reminding me of how Romeo and Juliet should be played, and, yet, never are. And Lynn Redgrave's character, although it wasn't in the book or any other films, is a nice addition.

This is the closest Peter Pan to the book that has ever been made-I recommend it for Adults-not exactly for kids.When I was a wee young thing my Italian Noni used to read us bedtime stories-usually not the ones with happy endings-more the dark kind. I have been read and read Peter Pan at least 100 times. This movie is possibly the closest to the intent of Barrie,it sticks to the double edge of the book closely. The acting,especially Hook/Darling double role played by Jason Issacs is superb-Who would have thought Hook could be so evil and sexy at the same time.And Lynn Redgrave was amazing. Funny I had not seen it until today.I was in tears from beginning to end.

I re watched this today,after first watching it back in 03 when it came out. My first impression was right.The movie is stinker.Well maybe not if you're a child. The sword fighting is really sub par,but I think that comes from the fact that they didn't have time to rehearse them. If they had time to rehearse properly, I think the sword scenes would have been a lot better to look at. Cause the way they come off in the film,they seem like two actors trying way too hard to make it look real. I think they have spent much of the time, practicing flying instead.Captain hook comes off pretty okay. Not too creepy-scary, just evil- scary.The way kids like it I guess.But still a lot better than Christopher walken did as CAPT.Hook. Wendy plays out okay as the slightly worrying mother figure for the boys,but still clenches on to the child in her self Peter pan looks a bit like a girl. Kind of made me wonder if they were opting for a girl all along,but got turned down by the studio exec somewhere along the road. Personally I fell for tinkerbell's acting. She did an excellent job,and I got the impression she was suppose to be the comic sidekick relief. Her acting was just brilliant and she completely steal the show whenever she was on screen. She manage to be both mischievous,with a hint of evil meanness to her, and funny and likable at the same time.What I felt was wrong though, was the sudden use of narrator midway through the movie.I can accept the use of it in the beginning of a movie,but not when they start reusing it midway.Than it just annoys me