JohnHowardReid When Sir James M. Barrie died in 1937, he left the copyright of Peter Pan to the Ormond Street Children's Hospital, who proved rather tough to deal with when Walt Disney approached them in the late 1940s. To placate them, Disney proposed to deal constructively with the three main criticisms leveled against Herbert Brenon's 1924 production: (1) He would use the same actor to voice both Darling and Hook; (2) He would not countenance Brenon's ill-advised change of setting from London to New York; and (3) He would give far more color and attention to the key role of Tinker Bell (rather inadequately played by Virgina Brown Faire in the Brenon version-which fortunately didn't matter a great deal as the role was rather small, in both senses of that word).True to his word, Disney delivered-and delivered magnificently on these three issues: (1) Hans Conried does supremely well by Hook and makes an excellent stab at Darling (even though hampered by the screenplay's tendency to make the character far too blustery and slapstick a figure). (2) It's good to see Big Ben back in the limelight, rather than a somewhat incongruous Old Glory. (3) The highly attractive yet supremely malicious Tinker Bell emerges as one of Disney's most inspired creations. Unfortunately, on other (and even more important issues) Disney has chosen to compromise. It was to be expected that Nana would become a Disney dog -= a Pluto clone-because there was no way you could picture a man dressed up as a dog (and a bitch at that) in a cartoon. Okay, even steven.Peter Pan is no longer a girl playing at being a boy, let alone an extremely sexy young lady who seems blissfully unaware of her provocativeness. That also was inevitable, even though you have now eliminated from the pantomime both the Dame and the Principal Boy. But even taking this into account, Peter Pan himself distills only a tiny fraction of the charisma that Betty Bronson so superlatively lent the character. Bobby Driscoll, who was so brilliant as a youngster and deservedly received a prestigious Hollywood award in 1950, seemed to lose his ability as he grew older. Here his performance is adequate at best, just tolerable at worst. So, two minuses for Disney. As might be expected, Wendy is no longer an adult playing at being a very young teenager. On the other hand, Disney obviously does not see her as a fresh-faced kid either. In fact, her age tends to vary a bit. She looks much older in some scenes than in others. And she's inadequately voiced by Kathryn Beaumont (who did such a good job with Alice). The main problem for me, however, is that Wendy's worried-looking, overly mature face makes her look so unattractive. This focuses my attention on Tinker Bell instead. But Wendy is supposed to be a main character (and a highly sympathetic one at that), so another two minuses for Disney. I found the songs a mixed bunch. In my opinion, the liveliest were "What Makes the Red Man Red?" and "Never Smile at a Crocodile." So, it's even steven on the songs. But speaking of the crocodile, I loved him. He came over with far more spirit and a hundred times more personality here than in the Brenon film. So there's a definite plus to Disney. Many critics didn't take to Mr. Smee, but I enjoyed his antics, so one more plus to Disney.Loathed in Britain, and received with indifference in Australia, this is a Peter Pan aimed squarely at Americans. Although it bears a considerable resemblance to Barrie's pantomime, it is in fact a pantomime no longer but an unsatisfactory compromise between a cartoon and a stage play. True, a fair amount of Barrie remains, but it's mostly superficial stuff. Just about all Barrie's important ideas and the majority of his telling lines are omitted. Disney made a large issue of the fact that he had restored Barrie's plan by casting the same actor as Hook and Darling. But what's the point of restoring the casting if the whole point of this relationship has been lost? AVAILABLE on DVD through Disney. Quality rating: Ten out of ten.

Nick Holland Peter Pan is directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske, and is a post war Disney animated film about a young man named Peter Pan that lives in Neverland, a place in the sky in which no one physically grows up. When Wendy, a teenage girl living in late 19th century Britain, decides she doesn't want to grow up, Peter escorts her and her two younger brothers to Neverland, where an evil pirate named Captain Hook is out to get revenge on Peter Pan.Many older Disney films are considered classics, and Peter Pan is definitely one of them. From the characters, to the top notch animation, Peter Pan is one of the most iconic animated films of all time. Even 60 years later, most everyone has seen Peter Pan, from people who grew up with it when it came out, to children who are growing up with it today. Rewatching Peter Pan, however, I found a few problems with it that stand out along with all of the great aspects of the film.To start, the animation in Peter Pan is absolutely timeless. Every hand drawn fame of the characters or environment looks amazing, and engulfs the viewer into the bright, whimsical place that is Neverland. All of the characters are also excellently animated, especially when in action. The two characters that stand out the most are that of Peter Pan and his rival, Captain Hook. This particular aspect demands that, in each scene, the viewers' eye is drawn to either of the two enemies, which was a very smart move on the filmmakers' part.On the subject of characters, all of the voice acting is very good, with great performances being given by, specifically, that of Bobby Driscoll (as Peter) and Hans Conried (as both Hook and Mr. Darling). These two play off of each other brilliantly, washing away all suspicion of two men recording in a studio. The other actors also do very well, and aren't necessarily outshadowed by that of Driscoll or Conried.One big issue I did find with Peter Pan was the pacing. It may be confusing to read, but the pacing in Peter Pan is so good that it makes a 77 minute film feel like 45 minutes. Each and every scene is so necessary that the film flies by very quickly. One blink could cause major confusion with how a character got from point A to point B, or where the characters even are. It may be hard to comprehend, but, once seeing the film, this problem is understandable.Another issue I found with the film is the writing for Peter Pan himself. Peter Pan, as written in the original play, is a fun loving child that never grows up. He is supposed to be free- spirited, and a caring person. However, the script for this film seems to portray Peter as a cocky, selfish jerk. He feels as if he's above the Darling children, and, at points in the film, is pretty close to being hated by the audience. He begins to get a bit annoying, and has the viewer rooting for Wendy and her brothers, therefore indirectly rooting for Peter, rather than having us root for Peter himself.Overall, Peter Pan isn't as fantastic as I had remembered it to be. Is it a good, timeless film? Yes, it is, but it has a few more problems that I see more clearly now than I used to. Anyone who isn't too hard on films will enjoy Peter Pan, and others will, too, because it is a pretty good movie.

adonis98-743-186503 Peter Pan is a good film no doubt about that but it has some really stupid things in it first the crocodile reminds me of the shark from Jaws: The Revenge it just gets annoying at some point, everyone tries to kill Wendy for some reason because they think she loves Peter and that shaving scene was laughable but in a bad way and the film is not as funny as other Disney films. But Peter Pan still has the magic of Disney some good laughs and the Hook v.s Peter Pan is still a great battle not the best Disney movie ever made but not a terrible one either. I give it a 8 out of 10 it's a good film and still entertaining.

Anssi Vartiainen For me Peter Pan is one of the lesser movies of the so-called post-war restoration era of Disney. It's not the triumphant return of Cinderella, nor the bizarre fun of Alice in Wonderland, nor does it have the warmhearted atmosphere of Lady and the Tramp nor the technical quality of Sleeping Beauty. It's still a marvelous adventure film and heads and shoulders above most of its animated peers. It just means that by Disney standards it's not near the top.A few reason for this. First of all, I don't think that Captain Hook is a very good villain. He has the visual appeal and a great voice actor in Hans Conried who, following the proper Peter Pan tradition, also voiced Mr. Darling. But I think he's way too slapsticky, which takes away all the menace most other version of the character have. Then again, the crocodile is awesome.The songs are also of poorer quality than in many other Disney films. You Can Fly is of course a classic, but other than that I cannot remember any other song. Except of course What Made the Red Man Red, which is problematic for other reasons.Plus Wendy is something of a step back from Alice, the previous Disney heroine, who was also voiced by Kathryn Beaumont, by the way. And I have absolutely nothing against Beaumont, she's amazing, but the character herself is a lot less activate and personal than Alice.But, it stills has that Disney charm. The animation is unsurpassed, Tinker Bell is one of Disney's finest characters for a reason, the actual plot is a lot of fun and as a whole it's over an hour's worth of fun, excitement and good family entertainment. It's not one of the strongest Disney films in my opinion, but is definitely worth a watch no matter your age.