MOVIE REVIEW

Peter Pan  (2003)

Starring: Jeremy Sumpter, Jason Isaacs, Olivia Williams
Director: P.J. Hogan

Rating: PG

Studio: Universal

Release Date: 12.25.03

Review Posted: 12.25.03

Spoilers: Minor

By Sara M. Fetters

Newest "Pan" Splendid Family Entertainment

J.M. Barrie’s timeless story of “Peter Pan” has been told on stage and screen numerous times, most recently in Steven Spielberg’s over-the-top, under-appreciated 1991 gem “Hook.” Of course, the most famous version is Disney’s wondrously magical animated masterpiece, a hallmark of good versus evil that ranks as one of the studious finest achievements.

So what need is there, then, for director P.J. Hogan’s latest live-action incarnation of Barrie’s tale? Not much, really, but I’m sure glad that didn’t stop him from making it. For even though I knew backwards and forwards everywhere this latest version was going to go, that didn’t make it any less entertaining. And with special effects as astounding as any put on film this year, “Peter Pan” is a frolicsome family tale sure to delight children of almost any age.

The basic story is still the same: Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood), John (Harry Newell) and Michael Darling (Freddie Popplewell) are whisked away to Neverland by an elfin visitor named Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter). There, they encounter a menagerie of adventures featuring mermaids, Indians, a pack of children known as The Lost Boys, a mischievous fairy named Tinkerbell (Ludvine Sagnier) and a murderous group of pirates led by the loathsome Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs). Through these adventures, the trio learns that life as a child is splendid, but the allure of growing up with a loving mother and father can be an equally big adventure.

While this latest version of “Peter Pan” is unquestionably a slight affair, it is nonetheless a highly enjoyable one. While I can’t really comment on the filmmaker’s claims that their version is the most faithful ever put to film – I haven’t read Barrie’s book since I was ten – it certainly has the feel of reverential authority. Much like “The Harry Potter” films, Hogan and co-screenwriter Michael Goldenberg treat Pan and the rest of the characters with a careful diligence, going out of their way to make sure all the literary hallmarks people have grown to love are there for all to find.

Even better, the duo make sure to not over-amp the proceedings, carefully balancing the movie so as to make it palatable for even the youngest viewers. While weighty issues are discussed; life, death and the perilous waters of youthful romance are gently canvassed; Hogan shows a gift for making these themes understandable for all, yet without watering or dumbing them down in the process. Never a huge fan of the director’s previous films “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “Muriel’s Wedding,” I was still impressed with his visual style and obvious ease behind the camera. If anything, I’m even more impressed now, Hogan’s work here fleshing out a story most viewers know by heart very impressive.

By and large, the actors do a superb job of bringing “Peter Pan” to life. Hurd-Wood brings just the right touch of youthful longing and burgeoning sensuality into Wendy, while young Newell could not help but win my heart what with his face full of seductively rapturous loathing after receiving a winsome first kiss from Princess Tiger Lily (Carsen Gray). Isaacs – also playing a rather frazzled Mr. Darling – is wonderful as the pompous showboat Hook, gallivanting around with a sneering jaunt that borders on seductive. For the older members of the audience, it’s a passionately sexy performance sure to get the pulse racing, while for the kids he’s a toweringly scary villain sure to give goosebumps until his justifiably earned comeuppance. Olivia Williams (Mrs. Darling), Richard Briers (Smee) and Sagnier all shine as well, each having at least one moment where they get to bring their respective characters to vividly marvelous life.

Poor Sumpter, he has the movie’s hardest task playing the emotionally vacant Pan. The young actor has the look, and he’s perfectly pleasant every time the young hero’s blood starts to boil, but there is just something about his portrayal that never quite sat right with me. There is a void in the center of Peter hard to pin down and in the end it is difficult to see what really attracts Wendy to the young man and his youthful ideals. Of course, part of that is because as a boy, who will never grow up, Pan is an emotionally stunted soul trapped by an eternal web of youthful over-exuberance. Even the most gifted of actors would have trouble nailing such a part down. While Sumpter does his best, he is still the movie’s weakest link, a central character devoid of any chemistry with the picture surrounding him.

Still, “Peter Pan” is marvelous in so many other ways, and finally just so blissfully enjoyable I’m more than willing to forgive this problem. From James Newton Howard’s friskily anachronistic score to Donald McAlpine’s soaring cinematography, so much in this movie is so rapturously beautiful I couldn’t help but leave with a smile. Above it all is the splendid production design and art direction by Roger Ford and Michelle McGahey. The movie is like watching a multifaceted watercolor painting spring to life before your eyes, the worlds of Neverland and early 20^th century London sketched together with heavenly precision. Only "The Lord of the Rings” can boast such a richly detailed and textured palate, and while this movie may not boast the emotional resonance or depth of that series, it still achieves a lyrically haunting quality singly its own.

As holiday entertainment, “Peter Pan” radiantly succeeds. While it may not reach the timeless classical status of Disney’s animated masterpiece, Hogan’s film nevertheless holds its own against the numerous other interpretations of Barrie’s story. It does the author’s tale proud, no higher praise I can think of more apt for this fine piece of family entertainment.

Rating: êêê  (out of 4)

TOP