Sorry, this movie sucks

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

This is a great classic for all ages. I recommend this film to everyone.

Haven't you ever wanted to get away from the world around you and go to a far away land with the excitement of a child and the enthusiasm of going on an adventure? I certainly have, which is why I love the classic animation Peter Pan. What I like most about this movie is the fact that it's not only a children's movie, but a great movie for adults too. Watching this movie makes you wish that you were a kid again. It displays our innocence as a child, which we lose as we grow up. That is why the film is so refreshing to watch. The music is another part I really enjoy. It makes the movie more interesting to watch and it fits perfectly with plot of the story. The writers also did a marvelous job at developing characterization through most of the characters. As a whole, the film is easily understood, it is well put together, the characters are unique and fun, and just the story itself is wonderful and creative. As you can see, I do recommend this movie for all children and adults because it's very entertaining, but most of all it re-kindles the child innocence within the ones who've lost it and it adds to those who still have it.

Peter Pan has pretty much everything you could want from a Disney fantasy. There's adventure, romance, swordplay and comedy all mixed together to create a film that effectively captures your imagination. Based on the play and novel by J. M. Barrie, Disney plays the film more as a wide-eyed adventure with the darker and more psychological elements played down. Peter Pan is the boy that never grew up who whisks Wendy and her brothers off to Neverland for the journey of a lifetime. Numerous events take place including meeting mermaids, Indians and of course battling Peter's arch- nemesis Captain Hook. The films narrative is quite straight-forward, the children explore various regions of Neverland and Captain Hook repeatedly tries to get defeat Peter.The characters are the true focus of the film and they are a mixed bag. Peter himself is very assured, confident and a resourceful leader, while his relationship with Wendy does feel genuine. The problem I have with him is that he is somewhat unlikeable. In the original Barrie novel he was egotistical and unpleasant so Disney were accurate, but it means that he isn't an engaging lead because he appears so unsympathetic at times. Tinkerbell suffers exactly the same issue. Her jealousy is understandable and her reactions can be funny, but going as far as trying have Wendy killed is simply too much and it is difficult to get you to care for a character who would go to such vicious extremes. Wendy is nice enough but she's just kind of bland. Kathryn Beaumont gives her a lot of energy, but she doesn't do or say anything of note and is just a dull character in general. The same goes for John and Michael. John is enjoyably geeky and Michael is a cute innocent, but they don't have much character beyond that and they end up feeling like more a side note than the main characters. The Lost Boys are simply forgettable. Giving them their own animal skins is a nice touch, but if it wasn't for that it would be hard to identify them. It is difficult to give so many characters identities, but it's difficult to care about them if they're so bland. The sequences with the Indians are now notorious for the borderline racist portrayal, it never bothered me but I can see how it might offend. Where it does succeed is with its villains. Both Captain Hook and Mr. Smee are brilliant. Hook is the perfect balance of threatening and hilarious, blending both seamlessly at certain times. There's a real intensity and menace to him when he plots against Peter, he shows his cunning in tricking Tinkerbell and we even see him shoot one of his own men for singing at one point. Yet he is just as quick to turn into a quivering mess once the crocodile shows up, cowering at every opportunity and verging on a breakdown. Smee is extremely enjoyable and Bill Thompson does a wonderful job voice wise, he's just too gentle and bumbling to be a pirate. His dialogue and reactions are always funny, while its comedy gold when the two of them are together.The animation for the most part is excellent. It always amazes me at how flowing it is as the characters are always on the go or there always seems to be something taking place, yet everything moves very smoothly and the animation is more restrained whilst retaining the brighter elements of earlier work. Neverland does look like a magical place and I do enjoy the sense of location you get with it. The comedic pieces are fantastic. As said whenever Hook and Smee are together it's funny, but the scenes with the crocodile and Hook are some of the best animated slapstick I've ever seen, everything from how quick the movements are to the sound effects are hysterical. The music is also excellent. The score by Oliver Wallace features a number of effective melodies, whilst songs like 'You Can Fly!' and 'Following the Leader' are very memorable.So on the whole I'd say Peter Pan is something of another flawed masterpiece from Disney. Its only real weakness is its main characters and it's a shame that its sole issue happens to be an important one, Peter is difficult to root for and the Darlings are just a little too dull. With that said I think it excels in every other area. The story is laid-out well, Hook and Smee are great fun, the animation is excellent, it can be very funny at times and the songs stay with you. These stronger elements definitely outweigh the issues with the main characters. It's not Disney's strongest, but it is memorable and can be easily be enjoyed upon repeated viewings.

My parents took me to see Walt Disney's "Peter Pan" in 1953 when I was 5-years old. I was completely hooked. I was imprinted with this movie the way future generations would be imprinted with "Star Wars". For months after, my anxious parents wished they had opted for deep-pile carpet rather than highly-polished floorboards as I leapt from every piece of furniture in the house aided by imaginary pixie dust.Disney's take on the story of the boy who never grew up and his adventures with the Darling children in Neverland may have been even more influential, because I ended up earning my living as an artist for the last 50 years.It wasn't until 25 years later that I saw the film again and I must admit I was apprehensive. Would I be disappointed and see flaws that were not apparent to an overawed child? Well, that didn't happen. Instead, I was overawed all over again with the mastery of the whole thing.But of course, the film was more that just stunning visuals; there was also the story that was adapted from J. M. Barrie's famous book. And the film has copped plenty of flack over the years - racism and sexism being a couple of the heavier charges laid against it.The depiction of the Native Americans probably wouldn't get off the drawing board these days, but back in the 50's just about every race and creed had their own cinematic stereotypes, which were repeated in movie after movie. To be totally fair, Disney was actually following the lead of Barrie himself who refers to the Indians as 'Redskins' throughout his story and deals with them in the broadest of stereotypes with a surprising amount of violence thrown in.As for being sexist, possibly Tinkerbell has come in for the most attention with her voluptuous figure and occasional hip wiggling - she is referred to as Twerkerbell in one critique of the film. But again, rather than just the Disney artists over-vamping an innocent fairy, here is J. M. Barrie's description of Tink: "exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to embonpoint". That archaic word means a plump, hourglass figure. I rest my case.To see how good this film is, you only need to compare it with the sequel, "Return to Neverland" made in 2002. With bigger eyes and individual shading, the characters seem more cartoony, lacking much of the warmth and style of the earlier version.There have been plenty of stage and film versions of the story over the decades, but my favourite is still Walt Disney's 1953 film; even after 62 years, it has lost none of its magic for me.