Peter Pan & Wendy (Live-Action)

[Patricier21]

Well, after having seen the movie, I must say that I`m torn about it. It wasn`t a particularly bad remake, as it did have some genuine moments of magic now and then. It was visually stunning, the effects were nice and the score was fine. But it still was a flawed movie as a whole, since it suffered from many structural faults. Sure, many of the choices were mandatory and expected: To make Tinker Bell more sympathetic and less callous, making Wendy a feminist and giving Tiger Lily more screentime and making her a more fleshed-out character. And most of the actors were fine (especially Wendy, who looks like a younger sister of Susan from Narnia). With the exception of Alexander Molony as Peter Pan, who was completely dull and bland. But it suffered from a what (in my opinion) most of the remakes have suffered from: Of rushing the story. But most of all, Peter Pan and Wendy suffered from a cluttered screenplay.
First of all, it introduced Wendy the worst way possible, of having her blaming her brothers for the game (despite truth to be told, Wendy became more tolerable afterwads). The backstory of Peter banishing Hook for missing his mother was just insipid and dumb, as it make Peter more unlikable than he needed to be. Even the final scene between Peter and Hook was not satisfying, since there was no real closure between them. Besides, to have the Lost Boys leaving NeverLand for London was also contrived: Since the movie never gave them a real reason for wanting to grow up and their arc was non-existent. So overall, not a bad remake. In fact, I found it superior to last years Pinocchio. But it`s still a flawed and uneven one.

First of all about Tinker Bell, well it makes perfect sense that she wouldn’t be the way that she was before in the original and other adaptations because with there being Lost girls,Then there would be no reason for her to be as jealous with other girls being around Peter plus with Tiger Lily having such a substantial rule, which BTW actually kind of brings up an issue with the original animated movie as why wasn’t Tinker Bell jealous with her there?

As for the lost boys (and girls) at the end, Well, it’s actually kind of subtly established and I think even briefly mentioned that they are Missing home and are not wanting to keep repeating the same things over and over again like they’ve constantly established throughout the movie unlike Peter himself, hence HIS choice as well at the end. It also helps his overall arc for accepting them to go off and move on/grow from what happened with Hook......

[DisneyFan09]

First of all about Tinker Bell, well it makes perfect sense that she wouldn’t be the way that she was before in the original and other adaptations because with there being Lost girls,Then there would be no reason for her to be as jealous with other girls being around Peter plus with Tiger Lily having such a substantial rule, which BTW actually kind of brings up an issue with the original animated movie as why wasn’t Tinker Bell jealous with her there?

To be honest, I didn`t mind those changes. In fact, regardless of all the criticism these remakes currently gets for fixing the issues of their predecessors, I thought it was a nice change. Yes, Tinker Bell did what she did for human reasons in the animated version, but her arc was vague and poorly mapped out in Walt`s classic.

As for the lost boys (and girls) at the end, Well, it’s actually kind of subtly established and I think even briefly mentioned that they are Missing home and are not wanting to keep repeating the same things over and over again like they’ve constantly established throughout the movie unlike Peter himself, hence HIS choice as well at the end. It also helps his overall arc for accepting them to go off and move on/grow from what happened with Hook......

Fair enough. But I still think it wasn`t explored as much as it should`ve been.

[Sotiris]

I checked Rotten Tomatoes, and I was very surprised to see that critics actually liked it. What was there to like? It was a mess, from start to finish.

Critics the past decade have lost all credibility. They often give bad movies good reviews if they align with their politics and vice versa. I wouldn't pay any attention to them if I were you.

[Vlad]

I checked Rotten Tomatoes, and I was very surprised to see that critics actually liked it. What was there to like? It was a mess, from start to finish.

Critics the past decade have lost all credibility. They often give bad movies good reviews if they align with their politics and vice versa. I wouldn't pay any attention to them if I were you.

I generally don’t.

[Mooky]

Saw the movie, it wasn't bad (definitely nothing that warrants the "ZOMG the worst movie ever" reactions), but it wasn't great either. I was expecting a better movie given that I really liked the director's Pete's Dragon and find it not only one of Disney's finest live-action films, but also a superior adaptation in every way conceivable. PP&W's worst crime is that it's mostly boring and lifeless, and that it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, or at least nothing that either the 1953 version or the 2003 version haven't done already and haven't done better. It does have its charms and highlights, and those are Ever Anderson who was wonderful as Wendy, and the movie's cinematography.

Regarding the supposed wokeness, apart from some of the Lost Boys now being girls (which I don't know why it ended up being a big deal -- girls can be runaways too), it's not more or less ~woke~ than any other adaptation. In fact, with Tinker Bell's diminished presence, I'd argue it's less feminist than previous versions. Tiger Lily's more fleshed out role is supposed to make up for the racially insensitive tropes of the original, but in doing that it plays up a couple of other controversial tropes, those of a Noble Savage and a Magical Native American. So yeah, that wasn't really thought out. If it's Wendy's prominence people have issues with -- well newsflash, it was always more of her story and not Peter's.

I didn't mind the Hook's backstory -- it makes him more sympathetic and I wished they explored that angle more. Peter Pan always seemed like a smug little bastard to me and I wish more adaptations leaned into the idea of PP as the antagonist. Doesn't he kill Lost Boys when they get too old? The kid who played him wasn't that great, and his aloof and wooden performance made me dislike him even more lol. Maybe I'm the wrong audience for this film, as I never really found Peter Pan appealing as either character or the story, and the 1953 version is the only version I genuinely like.

In conclusion, it's a mid-tier Disney remake and a generally pointless adaptation. 5.5/10.

But the worst thing, in my opinion, is something others have also mentioned; that there aren't many moments when the characters have fun and are just enjoying Neverland, and I think that was something important to show. Otherwise, what's the point of going to this magical place where children don't have to grow up? They barely even explore the land. The mermaids, for instance, just appear in the shot shown in the trailer. Same with Tiger Lily's tribe. They kids are just thrust into the adventure since the moment they arrive and don't have many moments to relax.

Well put. That's what I noticed myself. The kids get to Neverland, get shot at, and Wendy immediately regrets the decision to come. It all happens too quick. They're never shown enjoying Neverland and just exploring its many locations. In the original this sense of imagination and adventure is conveyed through the "You Can Fly! You Can Fly! You Can Fly!" sequence, but with the song absent from the remake, you never get the idea why kids would enjoy their time in Neverland. I don't see why a quick instrumental montage couldn't have been put in its place.

[Patricier21]

Saw the movie, it wasn't bad (definitely nothing that warrants the "ZOMG the worst movie ever" reactions), but it wasn't great either. I was expecting a better movie given that I really liked the director's Pete's Dragon and find it not only one of Disney's finest live-action films, but also a superior adaptation in every way conceivable. PP&W's worst crime is that it's mostly boring and lifeless, and that it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, or at least nothing that either the 1953 version or the 2003 version haven't done already and haven't done better. It does have its charms and highlights, and those are Ever Anderson who was wonderful as Wendy, and the movie's cinematography.

Regarding the supposed wokeness, apart from some of the Lost Boys now being girls (which I don't know why it ended up being a big deal -- girls can be runaways too), it's not more or less ~woke~ than any other adaptation. In fact, with Tinker Bell's diminished presence, I'd argue it's less feminist than previous versions. Tiger Lily's more fleshed out role is supposed to make up for the racially insensitive tropes of the original, but in doing that it plays up a couple of other controversial tropes, those of a Noble Savage and a Magical Native American. So yeah, that wasn't really thought out. If it's Wendy's prominence people have issues with -- well newsflash, it was always more of her story and not Peter's.

I didn't mind the Hook's backstory -- it makes him more sympathetic and I wished they explored that angle more. Peter Pan always seemed like a smug little bastard to me and I wish more adaptations leaned into the idea of PP as the antagonist. Doesn't he kill Lost Boys when they get too old? The kid who played him wasn't that great, and his aloof and wooden performance made me dislike him even more lol. Maybe I'm the wrong audience for this film, as I never really found Peter Pan appealing as either character or the story, and the 1953 version is the only version I genuinely like.

In conclusion, it's a mid-tier Disney remake and a generally pointless adaptation. 5.5/10.

But the worst thing, in my opinion, is something others have also mentioned; that there aren't many moments when the characters have fun and are just enjoying Neverland, and I think that was something important to show. Otherwise, what's the point of going to this magical place where children don't have to grow up? They barely even explore the land. The mermaids, for instance, just appear in the shot shown in the trailer. Same with Tiger Lily's tribe. They kids are just thrust into the adventure since the moment they arrive and don't have many moments to relax.

Well put. That's what I noticed myself. The kids get to Neverland, get shot at, and Wendy immediately regrets the decision to come. It all happens too quick. They're never shown enjoying Neverland and just exploring its many locations. In the original this sense of imagination and adventure is conveyed through the "You Can Fly! You Can Fly! You Can Fly!" sequence, but with the song absent from the remake, you never get the idea why kids would enjoy their time in Neverland. I don't see why a quick instrumental montage couldn't have been put in its place.

But they did include an instrumental version of “you can fly” when they were flying, could you not hear it? With the darker and more serious take on the story, it is meant to show that Neverland ONCE was a place of wonder, But with all the repetitiveness and cold and stiffness from Peter Pan and hook doing the same kind of thing over and over again, which is a more realistic way of how it would be in real life, then that’s probably why yes along with most of the rest of the movie probably feels that way, it’s just the reality nature of the story.

Still, it does feel like a place that I would want to go and visit because of how naturally and realistically beautiful it is, and not a complete cartoon like the overrated mess that is the 2003 movie That literally has not aged well in any kind of way at all!

[Sotiris]

I stumbled across this video review of Peter Pan & Wendy and I thought it made some interesting points, especially about how characters are portrayed in the remake as opposed to the original.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuREaFVr-Vc

[carolinakid]

Terrific and hilarious review, Sotiris!
Thanks for sharing!

[Vlad]

Did anyone else think it was strange when Tiger Lily spoke a foreign language that clearly no one understood? I thought that was so weird...

[Patricier21]

Did anyone else think it was strange when Tiger Lily spoke a foreign language that clearly no one understood? I thought that was so weird...

Well, she IS Indian after all, and it is clear that Peter and the lost boys could understand her, so why is that “weird”? [\spoiler]

[Vlad]

From what I remember, she never spoke to them in that language, only to Wendy. And she clearly didn't understand her.

[Patricier21]

From what I remember, she never spoke to them in that language, only to Wendy. And she clearly didn't understand her.

She would speak to Wendy that way because That is her native tongue, And therefore clearly everyone else in Neverland from Peter to the lost boys can truly understand her, all we need to speak in English because Wendy can’t understand her.[\spoiler] How is that an issue?

[Vlad]

I didn't say it was an issue. It just didn't make any sense. She would say a few sentences in English, and then a few words in her native tongue. What was the point of doing that? I just thought it was cringe.

To be honest, I thought she was the most useless character in the movie. If you were to take her out, safe for one scene, the movie would be the same.

[Patricier21]

I didn't say it was an issue. It just didn't make any sense. She would say a few sentences in English, and then a few words in her native tongue. What was the point of doing that? I just thought it was cringe.

To be honest, I thought she was the most useless character in the movie. If you were to take her out, safe for one scene, the movie would be the same.

Well, she did that because she was first speaking to Wendy and then speaking to another character. And I wouldn’t call her completely useless, as she was there to help with Wendy’s development when she left them at the hideout, and obviously would’ve had to introduce her before the final scene, And she was used and acted in the way that she would be used within this context which is also true to her character, so I wouldn’t call her “useless”, if nothing else to also show a contrast and consideration for Wendy between two different (good/“child”) Leaders in regards to growing up and living in Neverland [\spoiler]

[Disney's Divinity]

SPOILERS GALORE

This wasn't as bad as I expected--the benefit of extremely low expectations, I guess? I thought it was "okay." I mostly loved the beginning of the film up until Hook's first scene. I really liked the moment they freeze as they're going to Neverland (reminded me of Enchanted when Giselle falls through the well--like a crossover into another dimension), and even the first couple of scenes of them in Neverland looked very nice. I also liked that the logo looked very similar to the original's. I think it's really dumb the original songs weren't included (other than "What Makes the Red Man Red," that one was a cut that was deserved, imo), but I did like the mother's lullaby, it was very pretty. Both Wendy and the mother as well as John and Michael were perfect casts, although Wendy seemed much more bratty than in the original in these first scenes.

As soon as we cut to Hook's ship, I was like--no. The ship alone was so drab and lifeless when it should've been a big splotch of red. Honestly, Hook and Smee were the part where the film failed the most. I guess I'm one of those people that thinks a lot of these older movies sink and swim by the villain--they sort of liven it up and keep them from being boring. I don't hate Jude Law, but wouldn't say I'm a big fan or anything--either way, I thought he played Hook way too serious. He did get the whole ugliness right, although maybe they went overboard. At times, he looked like Gollum to me. And Smee wasn't very funny at all. If anything, I thought he was too competent...whereas in the original he's more of a happy drunk who seems barely present (as far as keeping up on what's happening at any given moment) most of the time. I loved Tik Tok and his scene was great, other than the close up of the eyes at the end that made me think of something or other out of Ice Age 2: The Meltdown / The Croods (I'm not sure which it is I'm thinking about). I was disappointed he didn't show up again. EDIT: It was The Croods--this.

Overall, Hook is the biggest weakness to me (too serious for what I think of as a mostly comic character, as well as the ship not looking quite right and Smee not getting to have any fun moments), but the second worst thing to me is that the film moves too fast. Like it goes from A to C. Wendy and all have barely been there two minutes when they've jumped straight to "I miss my mother!" And it was such a huge miss not to include "Your Mother and Mine"--the lullaby didn't sound very good when Wendy was doing it, and I would've preferred that original there, hands down. (In fact, the lullaby original song here when it's being sung by the mother is the only good song in the movie for me... Such a bizarre move to not use the original's music and instead have new musical numbers? It would've made more sense if there was no music at all.)

The moment at the ending when Wendy is trying to think of happy moments and she sees a vision of her potential future life was very strange to me. I thought there was no build-up at all to that--like why would she think of something like that at all? I did get a laugh out of the mermaids looking just as ugly here as they do in the upcoming TLM. They almost looked a bit like Monstro in the Pinocchio remake, as far as verging on looking as if they're aliens. Tinker Bell--eh. I was glad she wasn't a would-be murderer here over jealousy for a prepubescent, but I think they went a little overboard trying to make her so friendly with Wendy. I would've been fine with her still not liking Wendy, just to not that degree. I didn't mind the climax being sort of different with Peter falling or whatever rather than Tinker Bell possibly dying with the bomb. Peter's actor was fine even if it didn't really feel like the Disney version of the character. To me, he felt like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. I know that's so random, but it was more his line delivery (awkward, clipped) that gave me that impression more than anything else.

I'm not sure where I'd rank this one among the other remakes. Better than Mulan, Alice, Cinderella, Dumbo, and Christopher Robin. Probably around the same area as Mary Poppins Returns for me, I suppose, and a touch below Maleficent.

[Disney Duster]

Vlad is no racist.

[Vlad]

Thanks, Duster. I didn't even notice I was called a racist.

[carolinakid]

You’re definitely not a racist, Vlad.

On the other hand, that slur is flung around so freely today that it means absolutely nothing!

I always assumed personal attacks against fellow posters were against guidelines.

[Sotiris]

I hadn't seen it either given it was hidden under spoiler tags. For future reference, when one notices a post that violates forum rules, the appropriate response is to report the post in question, not to make posts about it discussing it.

[Marce82]

A few comments about this movie and Peter Pan in general:

Regarding Tigerlily's use of her native tongue... ridiculous.
I am fully bilingual, and I have been in groups where everyone was bilingual. We may switch from one language to the other occasionally, but I have NEVER been in a situation where each speaker stuck to a different language.
That said... it is basic courtesy (and logic) that if I am bilingual, and the other person speaks only one of the languages I speak, that I will use that language with them, so we can communicate. Tigerlily would have stuck to English when a) she realized Wendy didn't speak her language and b) when she was WAY outnumbered by characters whose first language is English.

So it seems that the Lost Boys being brought to the real world is from the original book. And this is something that I think Disney improved upon in the '53 version. Putting in the idea that kids from the past (and from the future) will be taken to Neverland to enjoy an adventure and then be brought back home when they realize they cannot stay a child forever. But in this new version (and the book, it seems), if any other kid were to be taken to Neverland after the events of this movie, they would encounter a sulking, lonely Peter Pan. No more adventures with the Lost Boys.

I think Peter Pan was always somewhat unlikeable (even in the 53 version)... arrogant, conceited, self centered incosiderate... but also fun and charismatic. He represents the arrogance of youth... and this is a story of letting go of the carelessness of childhood and taking on starting to become an adult.
And it shows the other side of adulthood too: the fear of our time alive running out (Hook, the ticking crocodile).
We inevitably move on from childhood to adulthood, knowing the our days are numbered. Pretty heavy theme, but very true.

Something missing from the new version is the idea that it's all a game: Pirates vs Lost Boys vs Indians (the 53 movie states the Indians let them go when captured)... not in this new version.

As for the depiction of Neverland... it's just a bare, grassy land in this new version. The film Hook is hardly perfect, but look at that fun, imaginative version of Neverland! Plants that move and sneeze, several moons, beautiful mermaids, the ability to manifest food from imagination... I wanna go THERE!!!