|
Review by Harvey Karten
1 star out of 4
If there's one thing to be said for P.J. Hogan's clunky, by-the-
numbers adaptation of the J.M. Barrie classic, it's that no couple
in the movies this year, not even Bob Harris and Charlotte
(played by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johanson in "Lost in
Translation") projected more chemistry than the fourteen-year-
old Jeremy Sumpter in the title role and Rachel Hurd-Wood as
the adventure-seeker and amateur fabulist, Wendy. Peter, who
allegedly is emotion-challenged because he never wants to
grow up, sees no reason to cherish the thought of kiss by the
budding Wendy, played by a gifted thirteen-year-old in a debut
performance as a girl of about eleven.
Wendy's adventures, like those of Dorothy in "The Wizard of
Oz," appear to be part of her dream, as witness the dual role of
Jason Isaacs as Wendy's dad, Mr. Darling, and Peter's
nemesis, Captain Hook. As Mr. Darling, Isaacs inhabits the pin-
stripes of a banker who even by British standards is so
repressed that he has to practice making small talk with the
president of his establishment. As Hook, however, he both
captivates Wendy's imagination and serves as her opponent in
swordplay, ultimately requiring her to walk the plank of his pirate
ship.
The adventure begins when Peter, played by the 14-year-old,
curly-haired Jeremy Sumpter accompanied by Tink (Ludivine
Sagnier) beside him, heads to the window of a spacious
house and encourages Wendy to surrender the uptight world of
adults and to fly away with him to Never-Never Land. As Peter
goes through his age-old ritual of unfreezing the pirate ship, he
thrusts his group, which now includes Wendy's brothers, into the
most exciting days of their lives. They learn to fly, they learn to
stare wide-eyed when Wendy falls into danger. All the while,
whether doing battle with Captain Hook (who introduces us with
the usual special effects as a guy missing a hand), or attempting
to convince Wendy to stay with him forever, Peter rarely
relinquishes his smile. When the tables turn on Hook, Wendy
is left with a lifetime's round of experiences to cherish and to
pass on to her children, and they in turn to their offspring.
Wendy never does convince Peter to give up his childhood,
which she insists is bereft of love and therefore doom Peter to a
live of aloneness. (So what's Tink chopped liver?)
The story comes across as thin, thin, thin, making "Peter Pan"
a movie to see only for the special effects, quite good
particularly because they're appropriately restrained. Tink
appears from time to time following a curvy, traveling line of
fairy dust, while Tink is about the smallest fairy you ever will
see, expressing envy and disgust each time that Peter makes
eyes at Wendy. Ultimately, however, the film is inadequate
because despite the special effects, there is little that is gripping
about the production, though Jeremy Sumpter and Rachel
Hurd-Wood due just fine in their respective guises.
If prosaic features like this are a sign of what can be done by a
live cast, perhaps we'd be better off renting the tape of
Hamilton Luske's 1953 Disney cartoon starring Clyde Geronimi
and Wilfred Jackson. I had not seen the 1924 adaptation by
Herbert Brenon, which Leonard Maltin calls "delightful," but
"Peter Pan" looks like the kind of fantasy that would play best in
animation.
Copyright © 2003 Harvey Karten
|