That was an excellent one.

Overrated and overhyped

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

...but don't do it halfway in between. Peter Pan the musical has survived all sorts of "interpretations" over the years, starting back in the 1950s. Peter Pan has traditionally been played by a woman. It doesn't matter why since audiences apparently have accepted it. But if you're going to update the show, don't use a female. It doesn't work any more. And the rest of the young cast doesn't need to be too old any more either. There are plenty of wildly talented kids and teens who could have pulled this off. Then there is the music. The original score was a mish-mash of contributions by a variety of people (not an uncommon practice in those days), so adding songs to this version could have worked. It doesn't primarily because the added music, while coming from the same era, doesn't fit the original music's style. In the same way, the updated/added dialogue sounds out of place with the more traditional dialogue. Interesting casting/directing decisions: Young Allison Williams was acceptable as Peter, given the women-playing-boys tradition. After all, the beloved Mary Martin was already over 40 when she did it. Christopher Walken as Hook for some reason was playing the role as a cross between RuPaul and Fu Manchu - and a tired one at that. Since he began his career as a song-and-dance man on Broadway, this was strange choice. The very obviously "chorus boys" as the Lost Boys and the barely-clothed Indian braves, all doing a lot of what can only be described as prancing around, probably would have fit the 50s interpretation, but it looked very weird here. The pirates also had some very un-pirate-like dancing. Taylor Louderman sings beautifully, and she almost gets away with being Wendy, except that she is - ahem - rather well-developed. This makes her attraction to the obviously female Peter disconcerting. A younger Wendy can pull this off; it's just kind of skanky here. The use of a real dog as Nana robbed the show of Nana's lovely humorous and bittersweet moments. The narration was okay but seemed needlessly intrusive. The settings were very cartoonish. Again, this would have worked with a 50s interpretation; updated, they should have been more substantial. In short, the problems with Peter Pan Live! came with the original concept - or lack of one. Are you doing this as originally conceived, or are you doing it more modern? The producers never made up their minds, and it looks like it.

I am surprised at all the negative reviews. This was live television. It is not supposed to be perfect. Many theater plays do not always go well and this is the same thing. It is precisely that spontaneity that comes with a live performance that makes it so much fun to watch. There is no post-production work when you do live, so that can't fix the occasional crew member or light that gets in the picture.Most of the cast did a great job. If you know the history of Peter Pan productions, you would not be surprised at a young woman playing the title role. Allison Williams pulled it off beautifully, with a great singing voice and the guts to hook up to a wire on live TV.As far as the stone-faced Christopher Walken, he played the role as he saw it. It worked, but it wasn't Dustin Hoffman or Cyril Ritchard. They saw it differently. It is called artistic license and Walken kept to his own style. I gave it a 7 out of 10 because I thought the lost boys and the Indians were too old. They were extremely talented as dancers, actors and singers, but they looked almost perverse as they attempted to act like kids. Had they cast kids in those roles, the dancing and singing may have suffered, perhaps, but it would have looked better.Some reviewers also complained about the sets. With very little CGI and only sparing use of green screen, the set designers did great! Neverland is a product of a child's imagination...it should be colorful.I grew up watching Mary Martin play Peter Pan on our 9" black and white television. This was a modern tribute to that legendary performance. Watch the original again and you will see how archaic it looks. The performances are why it is a classic, and I hope time will show that this is no different. Other than the too old ensemble to bring it down just a little, live television is something we need to see a lot more of.

NBC's adaptation of Peter Pan live I thought would be something cool. In my assumption before watching it, I thought the whole production was going to be filmed front of a live audience. But unfortunately, this is not the case. The whole thing is filmed on a cheaply made sound- stage that is easily forgetful in the end.Allison William's Peter Pan is all good fun and she is actually trying the best she can to make this performance work. But Christopher Walken....Jesus. Christopher Walken is terrible! But it's laughably terrible. It's obvious he was miscast in the role and it could have gone to other better performers. His so called "Singing" is basically him talking normally, with rare occasions of vocals being visible. A weird running gag is that at the end of a song, he holds a note, then the commercials come on, then we get a 5 second snippet of him still holding the note! I don't get how this is suppose to be funny unless they cut to it after the song was over.The sound-stage is super cheap. It is not what I imagined a Peter Pan musical to be. It feels like I am in more of a Dr. Suess storybook than I am in a Peter Pan musical (but that's just me) now think of the Disney Version. Look at all the sets they could have done. But instead, there are four main sets. The Darling's House, Neverland, The Lost Boy's Hideout and Captain Hook's Ship. You will be seeing so much of these sets throughout the entire production. But It does not necessarily mean its a bad production. The whole musical is full of good moments that will certainly bring smiles to faces. I like the musical numbers a lot, the characters while uneasily performed are most of the time forgivable and it helps that they are trying to make something good.Peter Pan Live is a cheap production and it shows because you can obviously see wires holding the actors together and it looks like a elementary school production. But there is obvious faith going on that keeps them holding the musical together. I might be interested in getting the DVD, but not now.65/100 C+

I thought it was good not great but good. I thought Allison was a good pick for Peter Pan considered she's wanted to play the role since she was 3. I honestly would have picked Tim Curry or Jason Issacs to play Hook . Christopher Walken had no energy behind his interpretation of Hook. Sad really. The One thing I LOVED about Walken and Williams together was the duet "Duel" SO GOOD! The actress that played Mrs. Darling was also GREAT. My favorite version of the musical was Cathy Rigby's version. I have seen her twice live in 1997 and 2005, I have also seen Mary Martin and Sandy play Peter as well. I'd give Peter Pan Live! a 6/10. Allison was the best part of it honestly. I would see her on Tour if she goes on tour with it.