movies section

Peter Pan


How thoughtful of the movie studios to give away the plot in the trailer

s menu - click a section what's new at www.eadon.com philosophy movie reviews cartoons - garden of eadon cartoons bible satire pics, images and poems about nun whipping bishops etc :) philosophy wars discussions and battles on religion and many other maddening topics Jim on diets, daft names and other musings Feng Shui Hippo's zodiac - a spoof of astrology and feng shui here is info about me, jim eadon and more read my novel madpole - the maddest but truest philosopher on this planet coincidences of readers etc read and sign my guestbook links s
body frame image body frame image
s



Peter Pan
Directed by P.J. Hogan
Review by Jim Eadon
2003 PG 13/12A

This divine movie took me by surprise. I very nearly bypassed it, assuming it was a movie for kids. The reality is different, indeed, Peter Pan is too violent/disturbing for little 'uns. Circa 16 year old males may dislike this movie because it's not "kewl". At that age you're bored with anything that doesn't contain explosions, sex and action, not a movie swarming with bratlets, and there's nowt wrong with that!

But, for me, being a stately (i.e. way too ancient) 35 right now, I eventually twigged that this movie may be interesting, so I have it a spin. And the wager paid off. The Peter Pan story was nebulous to me, I've not read the book or seen any PP movies (though there exists a silent version that is magical, apparently). All I remember is a scene or two from the cartoon of the once-great Disney from when I was a diminutive brat myself. So the plot twists in this movie were, to me, unexpected events - which means I probably got more out this movie than most, for the very reason that most of the time I didn't have a clue what would happen next.

I later learned that there had been some grumblings, by righteous do-gooders no doubt, that this movie somehow pandered to paedophilia. Absurd! It's a shameful reflection on any society that mistakes the child-like innocence that this movie delights in as perversion. This is another sign of the lack of perspective in supposedly advanced quarters of our world. It is a deep irony that this blind paranoia is exactly the type of corruption of the adult mind that Peter Pan is opposed to! The magical world of childhood is right here, in this movie laid before us! A world where medicine is feared more than death, a microcosm where fairies are as natural as bees.

If indignant adults seriously want to protect kids, then obviously they should they protect them from sexual predators, but likewise we should NOT permit a society that encourages kids to grow fat and ugly on health-wrecking fast food and coke! It's all in the name of profits you know. If that isn't perverse, I don't know what is!

I love the look of Peter Pan: it brims with the cosy nostalgia of a lost world. The casting is also perfect. OK, so PP didn't quite come across as a skilled actor, but few would compared to Wendy, more on her in a bit. But somehow he was fine, he got the tone right, and that matters the most. It seemed apt that he's a bit aloof, his role is that of an alien figure from a parallel universe forever elusive and out of reach. He is puck-like, rather than sugary-cutesey.

Jeremy Isaacs tackles both Mr Darling and Hook and the contrast draws attention to the fact that he can A-C-T! Another display of thespian virtuosity is by the lass that plays Wendy. She defies the law that teenagers in Hollywood-produced movies are tedious, annoying brats. She is one of the few actresses that can steal scenes in a movie, let alone in a scene-stealing festival such as this! Her ecstatic smile as she gazes upon fairies: that's an unforgettable smile! It is the smile of one that smiles at things with innocence, something that I think I, and perhaps nearly all 'Grown-ups', have forgotten how to do!

Fairies! O the ethereal Tink, a dainty sprite of joi de vivre! I only realised afterwards that she is Ludivine Sagnier, the gorgeous seductress in Swimming Pool.



s s s

spoilers corner


Spoilers!!!!
Warning: this box contains a movie post-mortem analysis that freely gives away important plot twists and details. If you have not yet seen this movie and intend seeing it, avoid this spoilers box until afterwards. Bookmark the page, see the movie, see if you agree with my review then write an arsy comment saying I am talking total b*ll*cks :-)


 

The "I believe in fairies!" montage could have been so naff, yet the chant was effective on the big screen. Chants are used a lot in religion and spiritual pursuits, and it's easy to see why. I fell for this movie - my brain must be going soft :)

Smee (Richard Briers, I didn't recognise him) proved that the best comic side-kicks don't babble frenetically like a stand-up comedian on whizz. The parrot alarm clock scene was genius. The way Hook managed to combine pathos and menace was just incredible, the regret on his face at the end was not just about the matter of his imminent doom, but about something yet sadder. Or am I just talking horse shit? It's just a movie right!



 


There are no more spoilers below this point, except maybe in any user talkback comments.

End of spoilers corner


s




Jim's preferred ending: I'm Peter-Pan-ed, and never have to see the inside of an office ever again. Make it happen, Ludivine!

Rating: 5/5
score


Do you think this movie is any good?

Click on one of the buttons below

12 3456789 10
Ghastly OK Fantastic
s View Results


Add your comment to this page

add a talkback

no talkback comments yet
Add your comment to this page (it is a bit like adding a guestbook entry)

help: how to add your comment

Page hits: 11171



body frame image body frame image
s


www.eadon.com home sweet home contents: more stuff Next uninformed movie review


www.eadon.com