SPOILERS Should tales be constantly remade? It's a tough one. In a Hollywood where remakes are endless, it's a strange feeling to actually see another retelling of a Victorian Children's tale. Unfortunately, just like any remake, what actually is the point? If you want a definitive tale of Robin Hood, you watch Errol Flynn, if you want most of the traditional comedies, you watch the original from the 60s or earlier. As Hollywood gets more and more money obsessed, and apparently writers get more and more lazy, so we get more and more remakes of both classic stories and classic films. At the rate we are going, by 2010 the entire Spencer Tracy back catalogue will have been remade, and truthfully it cannot be long before 70s gangster movies enter the recreation arena. It's one of those annoying facts of life that this happens, but what makes it worse is when the remake is not only pointless, but unbelievably dire.
PJ Hogan's "Peter Pan" is yet another take on the age old story of the boy who wouldn't grow up. Featuring a live action cast of youngsters who are barely held together by the magnificent Jason Isaacs as the evil Captain Hook, the film has no soul. It is a dire affair with weak special effects and some truly vomit inducing moments. There is little reason to feel any love for this film.
In the Darling children bedroom, Wendy, John and Michael (Rachel Hurd-Wood, Harry Newell and Freddie Popplewell) sleep. When the mysterious flying boy Peter (Jeremy Sumpter) arrives one night, the children are amazed. Taking them far away to the mystical place of Neverland, he introduces them to a whole new world. With pirates, mermaids and Indians, this is a world of wonder and the children are drawn in. Their happiness is not constant however, for around the corner lies Peter's nemesis, the evil Captain James Hook (Isaacs).
Let's not be too harsh on the acting of the child cast. Led by the irritating Sumpter, they are mostly awful. Irritating and annoying, they grate on the skin like chickenpox. It is for most however, their first real experience of cinematic life, and like the Harry Potter kids, they deserve time to really show that they have talent.
It is never harsh to criticise an adult actor though, but sadly that proves harder than expected here. Out of the novel collection of well known faces involved, the stand out performance in Jason Isaacs. Capturing the menace and despair of Hook perfectly, he rescues the film from being a complete travesty. He snarls, he scratches, he does everything he should, and truthfully he aught to be in pantomime.
Away from the actors though, and the film falls apart. With special effects more at home in the 1980s, we have visible strings, we have incredibly bad crocodiles, we even have a Tinkerbell that looks more like a lit flame in a jar. It's a good thing that the story of Pan is meant to be so magical, because the special effects really aren't.
The biggest flaw with this film though, and this is hard to get past, is just how pointless it's whole existence actually is. The tale of "Peter Pan" is hardly a new concept and has been dealt with brilliantly before. Disney did a near perfect edition of the tale, and we've had alternatives ever since. So why oh why did PJ Hogan even bother. Trying to capture the magic once more, he'd failed magnificently and done nothing to add to the tale. The whole notion of the film is a joke, and it really shouldn't have got past the drawing board.
Why bother to remake an already successful story? Like so many films in recent years, 2003's "Peter Pan" is an unnecessary remake. Badly shot, mostly acted by amateurs, it is a pointless production with little redeeming features. Jason Isaacs might be excellent as Captain Hook, but that really isn't enough to save the film. The special effects are lousy, the whole concept is pointless. Please, stop trying to make unnecessary re-tellings.
PJ Hogan's "Peter Pan" is yet another take on the age old story of the boy who wouldn't grow up. Featuring a live action cast of youngsters who are barely held together by the magnificent Jason Isaacs as the evil Captain Hook, the film has no soul. It is a dire affair with weak special effects and some truly vomit inducing moments. There is little reason to feel any love for this film.
In the Darling children bedroom, Wendy, John and Michael (Rachel Hurd-Wood, Harry Newell and Freddie Popplewell) sleep. When the mysterious flying boy Peter (Jeremy Sumpter) arrives one night, the children are amazed. Taking them far away to the mystical place of Neverland, he introduces them to a whole new world. With pirates, mermaids and Indians, this is a world of wonder and the children are drawn in. Their happiness is not constant however, for around the corner lies Peter's nemesis, the evil Captain James Hook (Isaacs).
Let's not be too harsh on the acting of the child cast. Led by the irritating Sumpter, they are mostly awful. Irritating and annoying, they grate on the skin like chickenpox. It is for most however, their first real experience of cinematic life, and like the Harry Potter kids, they deserve time to really show that they have talent.
It is never harsh to criticise an adult actor though, but sadly that proves harder than expected here. Out of the novel collection of well known faces involved, the stand out performance in Jason Isaacs. Capturing the menace and despair of Hook perfectly, he rescues the film from being a complete travesty. He snarls, he scratches, he does everything he should, and truthfully he aught to be in pantomime.
Away from the actors though, and the film falls apart. With special effects more at home in the 1980s, we have visible strings, we have incredibly bad crocodiles, we even have a Tinkerbell that looks more like a lit flame in a jar. It's a good thing that the story of Pan is meant to be so magical, because the special effects really aren't.
The biggest flaw with this film though, and this is hard to get past, is just how pointless it's whole existence actually is. The tale of "Peter Pan" is hardly a new concept and has been dealt with brilliantly before. Disney did a near perfect edition of the tale, and we've had alternatives ever since. So why oh why did PJ Hogan even bother. Trying to capture the magic once more, he'd failed magnificently and done nothing to add to the tale. The whole notion of the film is a joke, and it really shouldn't have got past the drawing board.
Why bother to remake an already successful story? Like so many films in recent years, 2003's "Peter Pan" is an unnecessary remake. Badly shot, mostly acted by amateurs, it is a pointless production with little redeeming features. Jason Isaacs might be excellent as Captain Hook, but that really isn't enough to save the film. The special effects are lousy, the whole concept is pointless. Please, stop trying to make unnecessary re-tellings.