Peter pan (1953)

Peter Pan is a live-action adaptation of the fantasy classic Peter and Wendy directed by P.J.Hogan. The movie debuted in December 2003 and was penned down by Hogan and Michael Goldenberg together. The film is inspired by the play “Peter Pan or the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up” written in 1904 by J.M.Barrie, who also published an epilogue to the play in the form of a novel known as “Peter and Wendy”.

The story follows a young Edwardian girl, Wendy Darling (Rachel Hurd-Wood), and her two younger brothers John and Michael. The night she is to ‘grow up’, she is visited by a fairy-like boy named Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter) along with his sassy fairy Tinkerbell. Upon learning that Wendy narrates captivating stories, Pan decides to take Wendy and her brothers to an enchanting island called Neverland where you don’t ‘grow up’ and adds Wendy into his collection of children called the Lost Boys. In Neverland, she dances with fairies, meets mermaids, fights with the evil pirate Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs), and falls in love.

The family connections I have are very intertwined with Peter and Wendy of J. M. Barrie. My great, great uncle Nico was one of the sons of Sylvia Llewelyn Davies. J. M. Barrie adopted him and his other brothers known as the ‘Lost Boys’, which in turn inspired him to write Peter Pan. I met his daughter Laura, who is my cousin, a few years ago. She recounted being flown to Australia for the filming of P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan because she is J.M. Barrie’s goddaughter. Laura told me she was ecstatic about the cast, especially Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook and Mr. Darling. She also mentioned that Jeremy Sumpter, the boy who played Peter Pan, was lovely. But she was very disappointed and sad because the film wasn’t very successful. Personally, I think they did a wonderful job with the story. I have loved the fairytale of Peter Pan from a young age and learning that I am literally part of the family that inspired the story was like a dream. I have only begun to internalize it more as I’ve grown older.

Design drawing of ‘Tiger Lily’ from Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie as it first appeared in the London by the Original Theater Company in 1920.

Once I received a diagnosis of a very high form of Autism at the age of 25. Very high form means the symptoms are ageless, which in layman’s terms means one part of me is still stuck in childhood. Personally, I struggle to do things that many adults would, for instance, driving, handling my finances, taking care of myself and so on. When I am excited I tend to flap my hands. I bounce, exercise, sometimes talk in a baby voice. And possibly most importantly, I overeat when it is something I like. Accepting diagnosis was challenging for me at first, I think most would agree, but eventually I learned to believe that both can exist together in a healthy manner. I have come to the conclusion that I am an adult who is capable of maturing and evolving while still carrying a child within me and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe Peter and Wendy represent that idea.

I watched P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan adaptation a few years after it came out which was around the time I was 9 or 10 years old. My first impression of the movie was amazing, as it quickly became one of my favorite films. As a child, the thing I remember being the most surprised about was how dark the movie truly was. The amount of underlying sexual tension was brutal. It shocked me. Even today, the film itself holds a special place in my heart. I mean, it is so clear that the creator incorporates so much love and passion towards the original piece of literature that seamlessly flows within the movie. This makes me reminisce the story. After watching it as an adult, I was inspired to reach out for my copy of Peter and Wendy. I will go so far and say that the movie is better! Having said that, there is part of me that wishes it was less violent and scary. The grotesque parts of the film adaptation were incredibly powerful and perhaps, this explains why some critics and viewers struggled to classify it.

Nevertheless, I tend to compare P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan to Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice (which starred Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen and came out in 2005). Both films seem to have a dream like quality to them. They are whimsical, romantic, and full of color while still being dark at times.

I often find myself leaning towards P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan over the 1953 Disney Animation, even though that was the version I grew up watching. I find the Disney version more simplistic. In addition, the 2003 version of the film is more faithful to the book that I enjoyed in my teen years and to J.M. Barrie’s original ideas. The film captures the magic and wonder of the novel while still incorporating thought provoking elements.

Peter Pan was a great mixture of fantasy and reality. Nowadays, almost any form of media “realism” to an extreme extent and their sets and CGI look simple and lifeless. At this point, it seems like the general consensus is that people do not fancy whimsy or imagination at all and for some reason, it’s considered over the top. In this case, a large part of the fantasy magic usually present is completely lost. However, with this version of Peter Pan, the set design and cinematography was much more colorful and infused with imagination. Everything was so stunningly and vibrantly lit. Most fantasy films nowadays, even the recently released live-action rendition of Peter Pan and Wendy on Disney+, all seem to be so grim and dark in tone. In these films, you practically have to brighten up the screen to distinguish between the actors’ facial expressions or what is going on in the scene. However, this movie knows that a viewer who tunes in to watch a fantasy film wants to escape but requires a bit of realism too. Although the film did have a fair share of dark moments, it far from shy away from being childish (which I think was inspired by Disney to a degree), so characters blushing, bouncing on clouds, etc.

The island’s design was stellar, with the CGI giving it a more dreamy and fantasy vibe. Even though it was criticized by some, I feel like it gave the island and its creatures a more magical look. This was even more impressive considering the mixture of real life backdrops with CGI real backdrops set the right tone for the actual story. The CGI used for the Lost boys’ hide beneath the trees made use of down to earth green and brown colors to balance off the bright colored landscapes that were created. The same was done by the costume department, where red and black dominate the colors worn by the pirates, featuring blue and red for the Native American earth people, while Lost boys costume colors are primarily green and brown. The colors were set in contrast with Edwardian London, which is why I found the colors used in Neverland extremely interesting.

One aspect that caught my attention is that unlike Earth’s naturalistic lighting, the lighting on Neverland changes according to the mood of the scene. It was as though the island was alive. For instance, when there was a fight on the ship, the lighting was red. The color scheme went dark blue, when Peter took Wendy to the scary and frightening mermaids. This created a surrealistic atmosphere, almost like a nightmare or a fever dream.

Sometimes the environment changes to suit the character’s mood, for example, Peter Pan. I particularly enjoyed the way Pan changes the weather on Neverland. Just the sight of him flying to the island changes the whole atmosphere. His emotions dictate whether it’s summer or winter. In other words, it is suggested in the film that the more time he spends on the island, the more he becomes a part of it, until he reaches a point where he can never leave. It’s as though the island transforms him into some kind of magical creature.

I will never forget the vibrancy of the score by James Newton Howard. The first time I remember appreciating a movie’s score was when I heard it. The soundtrack ‘Flying’ gives me goosebumps even today and perfectly conveys the joy, magic and whimsy that ‘Peter and Wendy’ encapsulates. I loved that there were always different variations. One of my favourite pieces from the movie is ‘Fairy Dance’, which starts off cheerfully but changes mood up and down based on the characters and their dialogue.

The cast of this film adaptation was magnificent. Mischievous children who loved to play pretend and Mrs. Darling, the elegant mother, to whom the book has been dedicated is perfectly dressed in the Assimilation. For example, Mrs. Darling was played by Olivia Williams and she was one of the best. She was able to show us the gentleness of the role. Also, I enjoyed so much Aunt Millicent played by Lynn Redgrave. She integrated herself perfectly into the storyline that it was a shock to not see her in the novel. She had the perfect amount of ridiculousness and hilarity that suited J.M.Barrie’s style.

One of the cast members that we can all agree was perfect is Jason Issacs who played both Mr Double and Captain Hook. I cannot even think of who else could have played the role of Mr Hook better than him. When I first watched the movie as a kid, I thought Mr Darling and Captain Hook were played by different actors. However, my dad told me that they were the same person and I could not believe it. That is how great the acting was in the movie. To be honest he was quite skillful in that Captain Hook role. Likewise, I appreciate how they casted her father as reserved and shy rather than overly flamboyant and sinister like Captain Hook. Each of them are mirrors of one another in different realities. It is abundantly clear that Jason Isaacs as captain Cook was needed to perfectly embody the essence of fierceness, cruelty and savagery that is fundamental for the character, but also the utter coldness and despairing anger that is behind it all. I have seen quotes of footage that was purportedly cut from the film (and never should have been), but that gives ample reason for his contempt for Pan:

They certainly made Captain Hook look like and understand why Peter Pan despised so much.

Both Peter Pan and Captain Hook have hidden wishes – Peter wants to grow up and Hook secretly desires to enjoy his childhood. Although they have very different reasons to battle each other, their motivations are the same. For instance, my favorite scene is around the climax of the film when Captain Hook outsmarts Peter during the fight. It becomes clear that there is great symbolism of the inevitable obstacle of adulthood and the demise of childhood. Jason Isaacs definitely showed us his range of acting skills. I appreciated that he was not made out to be a “dumb villain”, which is very easily done to most characters like these.

Among the grown-up cast, some also did quite well. It showed how diverse their backgrounds are, for Richard Briers as the ‘pirate’, Smee was also notable. But the child actors, especially the lost boys, really held the movie together. It was so believable that the island was ruled by children. Theodore Chester as Slightly was wonderfully charming and funny in that role and I must say, he was indeed delightful.

Another cast member that I found impressive was Carsen Grey, a Mohican speaker and indigenous Haida actress who portrayed Princess Tiger Lily. I appreciate the decision to allow her to speak her ancestral language in this movie. For the early 2000s, this version of Peter and Wendy is unique in that it neither erases nor white washes Native Americans, although the representation is still very poor. Given how they are portrayed in the book, it might be for the best that they cut some of their scenes. But in this case, unlike the animation brought to us by Disney, I was pleased to see her hands on the screen and not simply as a damsel in distress. Additionally, removing infatuation with Peter Pan was the right call, as it would have added unnecessary drama to a story that was best simplified. I cringe at the thought of all the female characters loathing each other.

They also reduced Tinkerbell’s jealousy into her trying to guard Peter’s youth from romantic advances, something that was alluded in the book, and further into her being sad that Wendy is stealing all of Peter’s focus. In my opinion, Ludivine Sagnier has succeeded in making Tinkerbell both equally as detestable and attractive as the character is supposed to be. Herself.

Rachel Hurd-Wood is the ideal actress for the part of Wendy Darling. I was quite shocked to find out this was the first film she ever did because she looked and acted the part perfectly. She possessed that caring aspect and charm that Wendy has that makes her lovely. She truly is the way I picture the character while reading the story. When people talk about Peter and Wendy, they always talk about the rest of the cast, Tinkerbell, Pan, or even Hook, but I am always somehow attracted towards Wendy. She is the true leading lady of the story. I mean, she is the principal reason as to why Peter took her and her brothers to Neverland.

One of the astonishing things to me about Wendy in the story is that she literally does not spend much time being a ‘child’ while she is in Neverland. When she is not fleeing from death at the hands of mermaids or pirates, she serves as a mother to her brothers and the ‘lost boys.’ She oftentimes reflects on what she wants in life. In the former, she is permitted to act more like a child in Edwardian London unlike now. Neverland is not a place where you never grow up. It is a place where she decides to grow up. A lot of people say that Neverland is Wendy’s manifestation of trauma, and in this particular adaptation, I have never found it to have more truth than this.

A reason I think that P.J. Hogan’s film adaptation of the novel is the best one is that it focuses on Wendy’s coming of age. I liked that they seemed to explore her passion for storytelling and also allowed her to be a tomboy. Rather than being a mere spectator, she actively participates in combat against the pirates while still being quite feminine in her maternal and romantic affection for Peter. She makes mistakes and often gives herself a bit too much credit. In the end, she wins.

Wendy is, more often than not, absent or only a secondary character in most productions of Peter and Wendy I have come across. It has always baffled me that characters like Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, and Captain Hook are always in the spotlight. They are part of Wendy’s story and not vice-versa. Peter Pan is supposed to symbolically portray the childhood she is unwilling to give up (which is why in the original, he is always played by a woman, since he is the counter replica of Wendy). And Captain Hook represents the opposite side of her father, or what she fantasizes adulthood to be. This is especially strong in this film adaptation since he is one of the major reasons as to why she has always been commanded to grow up. The father, the concept of adulthood, and Peter Pan, her childhood, are in constant conflict with one another.

“In this case, you were not made to be like Peter, who can neither recognize the joys nor the troubles of being a child, and so gets muddled in everything. Nor are you meant to be like Hook, who threw away every positive aspect of love and kindness, which turned him into a resentful and evil old man. You are meant to take a little bit from each of them. You are encouraged not to forget the perfect parts of childhood remembering can be a delightful experience, such as imagination, wonder, and innocence, while adjusting to adult like morality and responsibility. You’re not meant to Peter Pan. You’re not meant to Hook. You’re meant to be Wendy Darling.” — maybe-this-time}

Visually, the 2023 live-action adaptation took a different path, casting Wendy as some type of superhero who outshines Peter Pan much to my disdain. In my opinion, the 2003 adaptation did highlight that Wendy truly is a balanced character very well. She can be picked up, saved, and even a romantic figure. Equally, she has the right to control her life and fight for herself. That is what this adaptation’s arc is about. Her life is filled with adults telling her to grow up, which is quite suffocating.

Allowing herself to be seduced by the never-ending childhood that Peter Pan offers feels easy at first. But that semblance of complete self-fulfillment is quickly snatched away. Then self-temptation in the form of Captain Hook’s character trying to woo Wendy throws the idea of adulthood at her. Ultimately, she learns to integrate the two extremes which is quite fascinating. Wendy reconciles the mystique of growing up while keeping a child’s heart by the end of the film. A reality that we all know requires strength of mind is power. And it’s a power we should absolutely strive for.

Most renditions of the movie such as Hook and Syfy’s Neverland bears down on the character of Peter, while in more recent film adaptations such as Peter Pan and Wendy, the attention shifts to the character of Wendy. However, this film adaptation of Peter and Wendy, on the other hand, seems to pay more attention to the source as it focuses on the relationship between Peter and Wendy. I sometimes wonder about the other renditions and the reason behind this is because these two characters are not meant to exist independently. They are undoubtedly in a relationship and interchangeable on many levels, which makes them one and the same, but they are so different at the same time.

In the original novel and play, Peter and Wendy do not have any romance. However, in the movie, Wendy develops romantic feelings for Peter very quickly. Prepubescent boys like Peter, as a general rule, do not consciously reciprocate those feelings. He cares for her deeply, but to him, she mainly longs to be the motherly figure that is missing in his life. There is an argument to be made for the symbolism in that Peter and Wendy were one and the same, and this was an expression of Wendy learning to love herself. In more literal terms, Barrie had created something very powerful between those two characters without actually meaning to. And for J, if you intend to adapt Peter and Wendy, I feel that, as a bare minimum, that potential should be explored, even if it’s not romantic.

Hogan appreciated this possibility and crafted the romantic components, for instance the ‘thimble’ from the book, into a plot that feels contemporary. In some other versions, the bond between Peter and Wendy is rather shallow. In Hogan’s adaptation, though, this is absolutely the case. By the end of the movie, Peter and Wendy are hopelessly in love.

Rachel Hurd-Wood and Jeremy Sumpter had a remarkable on-screen chemistry for young actors, which aided the adaptation in developing a life of its own. Every time they came in contact with one another while portraying Peter and Wendy it was — to borrow Tinkerbell’s glittering pixie dust — really magical. So did their off-screen relationship which, one can safely assume, contributed to the believability of the romance. From a childhood perspective, I never appreciated romantic relationships in family movies. They, in my view, deluded the main story line because the romance was usually very shallow- but the 2003 version of Peter and Wendy was stunning and captivating.

J.M.Barrie hinted in the original novel that there might be a romance between the two. In the film version, they take it a step further. Their love story was crafted so beautifully, yet so deeply which absolutely followed the original text and themes of J.M.Barrie. This made the conflict hinted at in the novel “choosing between staying in Neverland with Peter or growing up on Earth with Wendy” even more poignant and relevant because in reality there was only ever one option. They couldn’t find a way to have both. I found the ending even more “heartbreaking” for me as a child because although they had the chance to be happy together, she couldn’t give up on growing up to stay, and he couldn’t give up being a child to leave even though it was a natural progression for him. That made the story even more heart wrenching.

Jeremy Sumpter best known for his role as Peter Pan gave a stellar performance in the movie. He was on point in every detail, even the whimsical and charming little boy in the novel looked just like him. Most importantly, of all the versions I have seen, he is by far the most accurate. He got everything right from the clothes made of skeleton leaves, the feral fingernails, the dirtied hands, the traumatic soul that lay behind his charming gaze, and even the disturbing hints.

A grown man who intentionally refrains from acting like an adult would pass as Peter Pan by today’s standards. However, now that I have watched the movie again as an adult, I understand why he was and is reluctant to grow up in Edwardian England and prefers to remain a “child” in Neverland. Most of us at this point are aware of the fact that we have endless choices as we grow older. However, Peter states in the movie, “Would they send me to school? And then to an office?” which indicates that it was not so easy back in the day. Attempting to stay in tune with the endless pleasures of life to be enjoyed in that rigid, “heterosexist” society was much harder. Now I can understand the reason Michael and John first reacted to Peter in the way that they did: to begin with, he must have appeared shocking to many. People at that time would regard the bright colors, shocking dress sense and misbehaviour of the boys as disgusting, but Wendy could not get enough of how appealing she found it all.

The creative decision that stands out to me the most is choosing to make one character speak with an American accent. This accent is a distinguishing feature that sets the character apart from the rest of the cast, and it helps to depict the personality of the character as untamed and non-conforming to the Edwardian London society. This choice adds depth to the character’s persona.

Equally captivating is the notion that the Lost Boys lived in a constant state of fear towards Peter, contrary to most adaptations where they worship him. The narrative of him trying to kill them on more than one occasion in the movie serves to justify that fear. In the movie, what the audience was able to grasp perfectly about Peter’s personality is how horrible of a person he truly is. Peter Pan is a hero when he goes on epic quests and battles pirates. One could further question this characterization, “Leave Hook to me,” which is a phrase Peter says to her in the movie. In my mind, the best interpretation of that is that Peter is Wendy’s dual self, meaning the part of her that is willing and able to fight her father (aka Captain Hook) on her behalf, just as antibodies do with germs when we’re too weak to face them.

Much is highlighted in Peter Pan from a child’s perspective but it is critical to note Wendy’s character too. While it is easy to judge her for abandoning both her brother and her childhood bubble, one must consider how she has had to come to terms with everything around her. When someone has spent their entire life bound to a single fantasy and then wakes up to face reality, it must be incredibly overpowering. Wendy was seduced by Peter’s life but came to understand that losing one’s fantasy is equally as daunting. The adventure that accompanies losing a person or thing one so dearly cherishes is unfathomable, and in doing so, life can end up becoming a lukewarm void. Daily interaction without Peter seems to me entirely worth the void. Once he freezes, I know he will never remember, and maybe that is what makes him, or rather, his past life gentleman, fulfilling. Wendy’s reality is slowly slipping away and so is the rest of her prerogative. Finding oneself is considering far more empowerment than being stuck in neverending fantasy. Peter Pan does portray powerful ideas but unfortunately so much meaning has been lost in over simplified animations.

Good adaptations of Peter and Wendy are notoriously elusive in this modern age, and this is not only because of the complex layers of the source material’s subtext, but also due to the protagonist’s inability to undergo changes of any nature. (Even The Right One In’s child vampire Eli undergoes character development.) Otherwise, Physically, mentally, emotionally, and mentally, Peter Pan does not change in any way. He exists solely to serve a purpose in someone else’s story. Ironically, it is built around the outline of a fairy tale. While it may seem so, it does not adapt well on screen because more often than not, it results in oversimplified narratives.

In any case, modify this so that Peter Pan is able to grow. The writers built upon a minute detail of the book; when Wendy joins Peter’s life, he starts to feel. Not merely love, but anger, fear, sadness, pain, disgust, and most importantly – self-awareness. It’s as if there’s a version of puberty that happens in fast forward, and the body catches up to the changes. When Wendy tries to discuss any of it, Peter dreadfully rejects. Most of us can likely relate to this when we were somewhere in the transition of shifting gears into young adults. We encounter feelings that are jarring, foreign, and something we do not know how to deal with. For Peter Pan, falling in love is the last thing he wants because that would mean growing up and not being a child anymore. This leads to some very interesting conflict between the two when she prompts him to leave with her.

, “The thing about Peter Pan is, he’s a coward. Had the chance of a lifetime and he bottled it. Just fucked off back to Neverland. All alone, forever he was, by his own hand. Poor old Wendy, she had to grow old without him.”

From the original novel, we see Wendy is unable to take Peter Pan with her precisely due to the same reasons where he would not grow up, along with Lyra in His Dark Materials where she could not take Pan, the animal manifestation of her soul, on the boat to the land of the dead. To move on, a part of her has to be left behind. To grow and move on, she can’t keep both. I don’t always get to side with the ending either, in which Peter remains a child and, along with taking Wendy’s descendants, resorts to Neverland and back to tons of children to look after him. The tiny addendum, it leaves in an icky aftertaste, but at least it fits in seamlessly with the tale J. M. Barrie wanted to narrate.

Similarly, the adaptation retains the same message, that Peter Pan is the incarnation of Wendy’s youth, even all the way to the end. In this version of Peter Pan, that is no longer the case. The way he carries himself at the end of the film is different. The wistful way he gazes through the open window and solemnly declares, “To live would be an awfully big adventure,” while Wendy gleefully embraces the rest of her family indicates self-awareness. Tinker Bell pulls him by his hair to stop him from jumping out and reconsidering his decision. Peter is old enough to know that he loves Wendy. Perhaps he is mature enough to understand what he is missing, but he knows he cannot have her the way he wants, so he decides to do the most selfless thing he has ever done in the whole film: he lets her go.

In fact, there isn’t really any conflict in the 1953 Disney animated film Peter Pan. As Wendy puts it, “He is wonderful”. The truth is, everyone else gets their happy end except for him. That is in his case, he makes an active decision to not have a happy ending. In a sense, Peter Pan is a very tragic figure in that he is completely afraid of the most natural thing in the world. Life. And I feel like this version of the story knew that and tried to express it strongly, which makes me conflicted now as an adult. I’ve watched Peter Pan-esque episodes where the ending is that two people love each other deeply and yet they do not end up together simply because they grow apart, or are they are set out to accomplish different things. This particular ending is perhaps very close to reality and serves as a nostalgic piece to a young first love. The kind of love that never truly goes away. The kind that reminds you of this simpler time even when you’ve grown up and moved on. It leaves you nostalgic for the part of you that is still that age when you look back on it. These endings happen solely because people grow and evolution is the only constant, which, unlike many of us, seems to be the issue with Peter Pan.

Peter, from the book, lives in horrific bliss. He may bloomer where he is deeply unhappy, but he tends to push it aside… this Peter never does. Wendy leaves the house and becomes wife to another man, and this is his angry thought… It is him quite losing his innocence as Peter could not forget this. Child abuse, mistura por querer. All to say that Peter Weir’s film is written in the characters arc of Peter accepting that he must, and can indeed, grow up to be happy.

All things considered, I think that this is the reason why his character is the strongest and the weakest adapted part in the novel. The assumption that Peter Pan forgets is far too ambiguous for the audience. In his novel, Peter Pan remembers nothing, which allows him to live in limbo between childhood and sanity. However, as noted above, this version of Peter Pan is old enough to remember and more importantly to feel. Unlike the character in the book, he is capable of changing. That is the reason as to why the ending is often strange as an adult viewer. That’s why as an adult that ending is strange to me. At first, I could not comprehend why I felt vague and peculiar, but I realized that the film adaptation capturing the essence of the book stirred those mixed feelings. In this version, Peter Pan does fully reciprocate Wendy’s love and that is why this character is different from the book. In this version, I disagree with the novel’s decision to keep the original ending instead of letting him live with Wendy.

This shows that a person can be both a child and an adult, which means one doesn’t have to abandon himself or herself. Being true and complete to oneself is achievable by striking a balance between these two extremes.

In its own bittersweet way, the original ending still works. I understand what it means and what it stands for. Wendy basically says goodbye to her childhood and promises she will never forget it. I get why it made such an impression on me when I was younger. Oh it could be simply because I’m desperately trying to collect all the broken pieces of my shattered heart from the floor. But as an adult I just find it weaker in comparison to the novel. I sometimes like to put myself in this version of the story and imagine what happens after Peter Pan comes back after quickly realizing he has outgrown Neverland but doesn’t meet Wendy until they are much older, at a time when she is coming to terms with being a woman and the concept of marriage. Or she meets his real counterpart on earth (if we delve into the psychology of Neverland being Wendy’s dream). And her relationship with him is subjected to the ordinary test of time and growth.

Peter Pan is, without a doubt, the closest adaptation in terms of visual and audio interpretation of Barrie’s story. Nevertheless, it is understandable why the film flopped in the box office. The competition within the month of its release, especially the film Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King, was quite excessive. Now as an adult, I understand quite well why it’s not the film that most people recall when discussing their favorite Peter Pan adaptations. And it’s not just because it doesn’t match the fairy, cheerful prankster image that Disney has tried to build.

The film adaptation suffers more not from what it does but what it does not do: preserving a stable tone and maintaining a reliable system of editing. It is one of those movies that would be better off with a lot more runtime. The inconsistencies in the tone and the rushed parts of the movie could have been much better balanced had it been longer. It seems that it is missing about twenty minutes. For one thing, the older Wendy’s narration is unsatisfying because, apart from the deleted ending, it doesn’t get clear why she tells the story. Tim Burton’s version of The Series of Unfortunate Events gives you a lot of reasons to talk, but at least the audience never questioned where the movie was narrated from. I feel that knowing that ending was unsatisfactory, they could have removed the narrator, and the film would have worked better for them. That truly is a shame since there were so many classic scenes that work well in a novel but do not in a film.

They should have extended some scenes so the parts of the movie like the introduction did not feel rushed, and it could have been made more interpretive in nature since there was no voiceover.

P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan may have its flaws, but it is still extremely underrated twenty years later. This film is remarkable as it deeply engages the viewer’s emotions. The film adaptation has certainly lived on, maintaining the essence of the story whilst adding a twist to it. Quite simply, it is magical wonder and heart. It is honest and incredibly sophisticated. This is a film that clearly means something to its creators, who loved knowing where the origins of the story came from and sought to re-evaluate the character arcs in a uniquely sophisticated way. They portray J.M.Barrie’s intention accurately which is, growing up is simply a phase, not a complete lifestyle switch. In fact, growing up should serve as a reminder of the joys of life. Like the need to take responsibility without completely detaching oneself from any fun. From the bright color choices to the skin-tingling score and the captivating performances, to the amazing chemistry between Jeremy Sumpter and Rachel Hurd-Wood. My love for this adaptation will never die, irrespective of how old I grow..

To watch more movies like visit Peter pan (1953) 123movies.