Peter Pan

نقدها از TMDB

• CinemaSerf7 از 10

  An ideal subject for Walt Disney this one - a charming, humorous adventure with great characters. Before you start watching, do bear in mind that JM Barrie created the "Peter Pan" character at the very start of the 20th century, so some of the language and roles are a touch on the stereotypical side - but that ought not to unduly spoil this experience. The "Darlings" are a loving, but pretty dysfunctional family with a huge great dog "Nana" whose three children all share the nursery in the attic of the family home. "Peter" visits and with the help of his friendly sprite "Tinker Bell" takes the youngsters on a series of magical adventures in "Never Land" where nobody ever grows up. The legendary "Captan Hook" is his local adversary, hell bent on repaying "Peter" for causing him to lose his hand to a crocodile who is equally determined to eat the rest of him! There's a bit of depth to the characterisations - the story might be a "love" story; but it is certainly one that introduces loyalty, trust, jealousy and comradeship to youngsters in a thoroughly engaging, plausible way. There is plenty of action too - a wonderful sword fight; lots of flying and the carefree attitude of the children is really quite contagious. The animation is once again, expertly hand-crafted, with vivid colours that help convey a lot of the joy of the film. Bobby Driscoll does a super job with the title role, too - it's a smashing film.

  ادامه‌ی نقد
• Kamurai6 از 10

  Good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend for fans of Peter Pan that have seen other versions. Wow, I feel as if I've never seen this movie before: this is something that happens when you learn to watch movies critically and rewatch childhood favorites. I'm continuously enlightened to how awful Walt Disney was. This movie is filled with insensitive nonsense, particularly to Native Americans, and the majority of the characters are just awful people, to include Peter Pan and Tinkerbell. Wendy is the only "pure" character in the entire movie, and I feel as if I'm reaching there. Tiger Lily might be a competitor, but she doesn't DO much, so it's hard to tell. With such a wonderful premise, and Disney's level of production value, you would think this would hold up, even after 70 years, but I honestly am beginning to think this was so widely accepted for a lack of options. Don't get me wrong, the actual story is both "close enough" to the original story, and well enough structured that a reboot would probably be very close to this version. It's all stylistic choices in both animation, dialogue, and character presentation that could easily be cleaned up, and likely should have been. While I could probably rant for an hour just on the "love" triangle happening in this (I am completely in camp Tinkerbell), this is supposed to be "boy who never grew up". While that lends to the jealousy factors, the amount and inconsistency of details on everything about the place being magical tends to distract from it. You'll notice that Peter no longer has human ears, he has pixie ears, and the boys supposedly killed and skinned giant animals so they could wear their skins as pajamas: where are the rest of the animals? The pirates have been there long enough to get restless, though there are enough of them left, despite Hook just shooting them dead on occasion, but not long enough to mutiny or properly search the one island, but long enough to have a weirdly specific history between Peter Pan and Hook and the crocodile. It's a weird movie: it's still worth a watch, but I'd watch it with your kids as opposed to just on their own.

  ادامه‌ی نقد