"...a dazzling feast for the eyes, but leaves a bittersweet aftertaste."
Peter Pan is a bag of mixed nuts. While the film looks and sounds good, underneath it all, there's not much to hold on to. As with any work of classic literature that's been put to screen several times, it's not whether or not you can tell the story, it's how you do it. P.J. Hogan's Pan is a dazzling feast for the eyes, but leaves a bittersweet aftertaste. The film can be tepid at times, as we get the feeling of "been there, seen that done a whole lot better by Disney." Some scenes are downright cheesy, and the acting at times feels like a sideshow rather than a main attraction.
The film seems well cast. Peter Pan himself is played by Jeremy Sumpter, who looks the part, but comes across as too arrogant and uninteresting for his own good. I wanted to slap him and tell him to grow up, but I guess that's the point, right? Rachel Hurd-Wood makes her film debut lavishly as Wendy Darling and feels exactly right, on the verge of an emotional rollercoaster known as adolescence. She has a strong future in film. That much I promise you. Jason Isaacs is superb, capturing the tortured alienation of Captain Hook. (You will diealone. Just like me.") I was disappointed, however, with the treatment of his dual characters. Seeing that he was playing both Mr. Darling and Hook excited me, because I considered it a great way to explore the inner psyche of Wendy and the negative tensions in the relationship between her and her father. Alas, the film doesn't delve that deep, and the opportunity is wasted.
That's really the main problem with the film, is that it never puts as much effort into the characters as it does in the visuals. It aims at children, but speaks as if it's aimed at adults, while never having enough depth for adults to truly enjoy it. The sophistication of the original written work is passed over for a "fun romp" through Neverland, and this causes it to suffer. The film looks like it should be dark and intelligent, and even teases us with that at times, but Hogan treats it too lightheartedly, and the potential for a mature and poignant movie is wasted. The pacing of the film is all wrong, and some scenes are so ridiculous that they border on ruining the movie entirely. I only wish the film would have looked as good as it did, but tasted as sweet, also.
But the film definitely looks good. The visuals are mouth-watering. Environments leap from the pages of a storybook in vibrant colors that look like meticulously crafted paintings, capturing the feel of imagination and youthful exuberance beautifully. The skies are filled with animated clouds that look like cotton candy, and Tinkerbelle the faery looks exactly like she should. Costumes are spot on, and Hook looks perfect. The first time we see him, awakened from a dream and looking like a melancholy and worn out man, he is convincing and captivating in his longing to destroy happiness.
The movie sounds good as well. James Newton Howard has outdone himself with a score that might well save his floundering career. He creates music that feels much more stark and epic than the film itself ever does, and acts as the auditory sensory equivalent to the film's amazing visuals.
While it's certainly not a bad film, Peter Pan treads waters of familiarity without offering anything fresh enough to make the film memorable. It left me with a feeling of wasted potential, but not so wasted that the film wasn't worth my time. Hogan's movie is fun to watch, but should have been so much more, if only he had decided to aim it at adults, which is what it looks and feels like it should be. It never goes that extra length to escape being a kids' movie and become a sophisticated take on a classic work that adults can fully appreciate, and that's a shame.
See it, but not at full price. And don't expect it to be as good as the trailers would lead you to believe.
Movie News
4 Comments
0 Comments