 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with the 2003 adaptation? I thought it was really quite good, especially Jason Isaacs in the dual role of Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. I know Peter Pan himself is cast older than his description in the book, but I don't think that's very avoidable. My wife is a huge fan of the original novel and she loves that film adaptation.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean the one with James N. Howards score...well I found it too "american"and too much cg.
Sounds like you have more an issue with the style than the content. I thought the adaptation was very faithfully done and generally well acted.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you are right it was faithful to the story...but (of course a matter of taste) it lacked soul and was too "bloated" in a way...
And felt like a big TV adaptation too me.
maybe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 15, 2022 - 6:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
What's wrong with the 2003 adaptation? I thought it was really quite good, especially Jason Isaacs in the dual role of Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. I know Peter Pan himself is cast older than his description in the book, but I don't think that's very avoidable. My wife is a huge fan of the original novel and she loves that film adaptation.
Yavar
That 2003 film is superb, very effective, entertaining, well shot, well scored, acted, gorgeous sets, visual effects. A great film, nothing bloated or TV about it, not at all, a bit.
I also quite like the Pan from a few years ago that no one say, Pan directed by Joe Wright, quite marvelous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 16, 2022 - 2:59 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Wedge
(Member)
|
On the subject of the 2003 film, critic Steven D. Greydanus put his finger on why it didn't quite work for me. Here's an excerpt from his review:
----------
Hogan seems awkward and uncomfortable with the early scenes in London and the nursery. He lets us glimpse Peter too soon, before the stage has been set, and never quite captures the whimsy of a world in which a dog could be a nursemaid and an unattainable kiss hover in the right-hand region of a mother’s sweetly mocking mouth.
Another misstep is the characterization of Mr. Darling (Jason Isaacs, Lucius Malfoy in the last Harry Potter film), who’s strangely diffident and tongue-tied rather than blustery and precipitous. ...
In the end, what keeps this Peter Pan from being a great adaptation of Barrie’s story is that it is, finally, too self-aware. As I said above, the whole point of a fairy tale is to present in imaginative form what cannot be said openly, at least not yet. A fairy tale must be about something, but it must not, in a sense, know what it is about. Hogan’s Peter Pan does know.
Specifically, Captain Hook knows — and this alters the character’s whole dynamic in the story. The only reason Peter can beat Hook is that Peter is a child’s idea of magical childhood, and Hook is a child’s idea of grown-up malevolence. The moment Hook can psychoanalyze Peter, he becomes a real grown-up, confronting in Peter the shadow of his own lost youth. No fair.
There’s also a significant kiss scene that treads too close to the heart of the story, especially in how the effects of the kiss are depicted. In the book, and in previous screen versions, there’s a moment when Peter expresses his bewilderment at what exactly it is that Wendy, Tinker Bell, and Tiger Lily all want to be to him, but Wendy can’t enlighten him: "It isn’t for a lady to tell." That’s as explicit as the story should get. (Compare to the scene in The Fellowship of the Ring in which Gandalf says "I can put it no plainer than to say that Bilbo was meant to find the ring, and not by its maker." It must not be put any plainer, or fantasy becomes transparent allegory.)
Hogan veers over the line, in doing so creating what amounts to as much a commentary on Peter Pan as an adaptation of it. It’s an interesting, enjoyable commentary, and fans of Peter Pan may enjoy it as I did, though something has been lost.
----------
Greydanus did, in fact, enjoy the film and gave it a respectable B (three stars out of four) rating. I've copied-and-pasted most of the negative bits, just because they illustrated my feelings better than I could. You can read the full review here if you want the more balanced view: http://decentfilms.com/reviews/peterpan2003
As for the upcoming film, I'm intrigued by the casting. (Love Jim Gaffigan!) I've always had a soft spot for the original animated Disney film, even with the "Disnefication" of the source material. But given Disney's track record with these live action adaptations, I'm not getting my hopes up! (I tend to be the odd man out, anyway ... I really could not stand their Jungle Book remake, for example, despite how well it was received! Nor was I a fan of Serkis' competing vision.)
After all these years, my favorite "straight" adaptation of Barrie's Pan works is still the 1927 silent film!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OST album is out where it's Friday
1. The Darling Darlings (2:47)
2. My Shadow (2:53)
3. All Grown Up – Molly Parker (1:11)
4. Neverland (2:42)
5. Never Say His Name (1:21)
6. Tea Time (2:08)
7. No Clocks (2:52)
8. Behemooth – Ian Tracey (1:34)
9. It’s Not Half Bad Being a Pirate (1:20)
10. Peter Pan Shall Perish Today (1:43)
11. Where You Go from Here Is Up to You (2:43)
12. The Very First Lost Boy (2:53)
13. The Shadow Run (1:04)
14. The Brig (2:01)
15. Ode to the Falling – Ian Tracey (2:08)
16. Did Anyone Hear a Splash? (0:49)
17. Faith, Trust and Pixie Dust (6:48)
18. Straight on ‘Til Chaos (2:32)
19. Reckoning (2:32)
20. Straight on ‘Til Morning (2:12)
21. Goodbye Peter Pan (3:35)
https://music.apple.com/nz/album/peter-pan-wendy-original-score/1683663831
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
