Here is another story that I love after I read it in a book - Peter Pan: The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up. Peter Pan has appeared in numerous adaptations, sequels, and prequels since then, including various stage musicals, live-action feature films like Hook (1991) and Peter Pan (2003), and also the authorized sequel novel Peter Pan in Scarlet, that came out in 2006. Out of the adaptations that are the best, I would say...I love Disney's and the new live-action film (I not one to choose side you know).

Disney's version is the widely known film version of the story; so popular that Peter's fairy friend Tinker Bell because the mascot of The Walt Disney Company, and the centerpiece of it's Disney Fairies media franchise including the direct-to-DVD film Tinker Bell, the film also shows that Tink acutally speaks (she dosen't in the original film). Yes, I love this film. The animation and backgrounds are excellant and the casting is very good too, which reprises Kathryn Beaumont, who was the voice of Alice in Disney's 1951 film Alice in Wonderland as Wendy Darling. And I love 5 of the out the 8 songs from the film, especially "Second Star to the Right." So overall, I would say this film is an excellent film for young and old alike.

Peter Pan is an iconic part of Disney’s classic film line-up, that is very much true. Filled with beautiful, at times spectacular animation and backgrounds, it is a truly wonderful film from a purely artistic point-of-view. Yet it has never been a particular favourite of mine; some of this has more to do with the Mouse house’s recent arrogance concerning ownership of the characters – who are still copyrighted to The Great Ormond Street Hospital in the UK* – rather than anything exactly to do with the film itself.

Disney really needed a pickup after the trashing that Alice in Wonderland had received; particularly in England, where the film was viewed as being extremely unfaithful to the book and criticised as a film in its own right. Peter Pan also came under fire in England, again for its omissions and changes (more on this later), though on nowhere near a scale as its immediate predecessor.

Thankfully Peter Pan was a mostly complete return to their usual good form, being both enjoyable and memorable.

Perhaps one of the strangest of all the changes to the original story is the fact that Hook’s hook is now on his left arm rather than the original right. A little scoping and it is revealed that the animators apparently found it difficult to animate him with a right hooked arm. The Americanisation of the characters might also annoy; yet I suppose the biggest change is that nothing remains of the original dialogue whatsoever. However, the Americanism of Peter is something I can live with in this film, as is the rewrite; neither really ruins the essence of the story.

As to the portrayal of native American Indians, well it helps to recognise that this was a fact of the times and this sort of thing was more accepted back then; consider that the Indians are notably absent in the DTV sequel, times have changed, but that doesn’t mean that the cutting board should start chopping whole sections of films up and thankfully the film is still intact as intended.

The film does suffer a little from character overkill, at times most of them are there to take up space and make up the numbers. Few are as well developed as the main characters. This is nevertheless understandable seeing as to how many characters inhabit Neverland. Of course if you need more in depth characters, then there’s always the novel – or Peter Pan & the Pirates.

With a simple well-written, cohesive story and some of the more iconic songs that the Mouse House has created, Peter Pan stands as an iconic, at times charming and even beautiful piece of Disney’s history. And if it isn’t a perfect film then it is still a pretty darn enjoyable one.

*Due to an Act of Parliament, Peter Pan: the play, book and characters, have remained in perpetual copyright in England.

Peter Pan sends mixed signals to me. I'm thiiiiis close to giving it a 2.5, actually. On one hand, the animation is bright and confident, and the pacing of the movie is brisk and fun. The songs are cheerful, and there are many fun sequences overall. Sometimes I love pouty little Tinkerbell. Sometimes I hate her.

On the other hand. . . well something about the portrayal of Indians in this movie just doesn't sit right with me, but this movie WAS made before everything had to be PC. That can't be helped. The villains can be, though. To be blunt, I think they're ridiculous sops. I just can't identify with them when they're such bumbling fools. But. . . the segments where Captain Hook captures the kids and tries to tempt them and where he lowers a bomb to blow up Peter Pan are just scenes of pure genius and evil.

On the whole, I'll just give it a fair grade and call it even.

*strain* - how to watch this film without thinking about Michael Jackson?!

After a long break from single-story animated features after 'Bambi', Disney returned in 1950, ushering in their second great age, which peaked with the double-whammy of 'Peter Pan' and 'Lady and the Tramp' in 1953-55.

I realised, when watching it, that of all Disney's movies, this one is probably the most iconic, has seeped into our culture more than any other - from Jackson's 'Neverland' ranch to the 'Hook' remake, the 'Lost Boys' horror flick of the 80's, Tinkerbell and fairy dust.. you name it.

I'm giving this one 3.5 stars, but it was a tough call. Nearly a 4.0. Perhaps I'm being unfair to it. It's very, very tough for a film this old to crack the 4.0 stars. There's no doubt that it's a classic. It's just that it's over 50 years old, and in a few spots its age is distracting. But surprisingly few spots. 'Nana' and 'Smee' are the only characters who really look old-fashioned (Smee looks a bit like he escaped from 'Snow White'). Other than that, the film is startlingly modern, considering its antiquity. The animation is good enough to have come out in the 80's or even 90's, and the backgrounds too are better than anything Disney would do in the 60's or most of the 70's and 80's.

It's oozing with classic scenes, like the flying over London sequence, the ship in the clouds... all of these things burned into the minds of baby boomers - which I'm sure is why that crocodile is the spitting image of Don Bluth's, from 'All Dogs go to Heaven'.

It's a fun movie, but also quietly poignant. Wendy seems just a little old, but I guess that's the whole point - she's on the cusp of growing up. Tinkerbell and Peter are fabulous characters. So is Hook. So is Smee, really. I think I missed the bit where it was explained why the croc swallowed a clock, or why The Lost Boys wear fursuits, but it doesn't really matter. This movie operates at an unconscious level to a large degree, manipulating emotions you probably aren't aware of.

There are a couple of slightly run of the mill scenes - the bit with the Indians is a bit embarressing, but you could hardly blame them for not being politically correct in 1953.

To really do this film justice, I think I would have to be transported back 50 years, and watch it when it came out. I can only imagine what it would have been like, and I suspect it must have blown everyone's minds. Today it looks just a little old-fashioned, but it's still a damn fine piece of art, and probably the most iconic movie Disney ever made. And I can feel just an echo of it in Ghibli's 'My Neighbour Totoro'. Miyazaki would have loved the flying scenes, I bet.

--

PS: Perhaps one of the most ironic and tragic obituaries in animation is that of Bobby Driscoll, who voiced Peter Pan, still in his teens. He died - depending on who you believe, discovered in an abandoned tenament, or in an alley by a bunch of children (the lost boys?), having succumbed to hepatitis from heroin abuse. He was 31. You tell me if he ever grew up.

PPS: I had some feedback along the lines that I was appearing to give too much credit to Disney for a very old story which they didn't write, and which plenty of people identify with other versions of. My argument is simply that millions of people of a certain generation who were kids in the 50's do indentify Peter Pan specifically with the Disney film, and with those very specific animated images from that particular movie, and that those people have grown up and their memory of the Disney imagery has infused our culture. Actually in Australia I would say that virtually nobody would associate Peter Pan with any version other than Disney's, but that may be different in other countries.