Peter Pan2 And A Half Out Of 5Peter Pan is a Disney Animated feature that focuses on its protagonist that contrary to writers' belief, is uninteresting for the audience to invest in it. It derails quickly from its track into a scattered and shallow emotions that are neither impressive in its bits and pieces nor on the bigger picture. It is surprisingly short on technical aspects like songs and background score, although is rich on editing and cinematography along with its amazing animation which it never fails on delivering. The script ruptures its earlier acts in its latter ones on narrowing it down to a repetitive slog that seems overstretched for the commercial aspects as it clearly didn't have much to say with its characters especially not for around 80 minutes. The characters are undercooked and one dimensional and despite offering enough space to its side characters, the enthusiasm and passion is the missing puzzle that comes off as a major disappointment for the viewers as these are the key elements that usually defines the Disney Animation. The writing is weak and full of redundant sequences that are written to draw the laughs and its younger audience which may work but the vacancy of the poetic or metaphorical theme isn't something that can be replaced no matter how entertaining.Peter Pan flies high only to fall flat on its self-created bumpy path that it had previously too fumbled.

I don't hate it, I just find certain things unappealing. To get it out of the way. I can't stand Tinker Bell, and I really don't know why a character this cruel and selfish has become a Disney icon!? Heck, she tries to kill off Wendy more than once and is stupid enough to believe Captain Hook! And I really don't like the indian stereotypes in this movie. I hope parents of today will take the talk with their kids about such things in movies and media in general. Besides that we get wonderful animation as usual (the flight scene over London towards Neverland is one of my favourite scenes from any Disney movie) and mostly highly enjoyable characters. Captain Hook and Peter Pan are just hilarious together. The crocodile and Hook make some great slapstick comedy worth a fortune. And a couple of memorable songs like "You Can Fly" and "Following The Leader". The ending should be a reminder to every parent who blame their children for being children. It's a wonderful lesson to learn for the parents.

My parents took me to see Walt Disney's "Peter Pan" in 1953 when I was 5-years old. I was completely hooked. I was imprinted with this movie the way future generations would be imprinted with "Star Wars". For months after, my anxious parents wished they had opted for deep-pile carpet rather than highly-polished floorboards as I leapt from every piece of furniture in the house aided by imaginary pixie dust.Disney's take on the story of the boy who never grew up and his adventures with the Darling children in Neverland may have been even more influential, because I ended up earning my living as an artist for the last 50 years.It wasn't until 25 years later that I saw the film again and I must admit I was apprehensive. Would I be disappointed and see flaws that were not apparent to an overawed child? Well, that didn't happen. Instead, I was overawed all over again with the mastery of the whole thing.But of course, the film was more that just stunning visuals; there was also the story that was adapted from J. M. Barrie's famous book. And the film has copped plenty of flack over the years - racism and sexism being a couple of the heavier charges laid against it.The depiction of the Native Americans probably wouldn't get off the drawing board these days, but back in the 50's just about every race and creed had their own cinematic stereotypes, which were repeated in movie after movie. To be totally fair, Disney was actually following the lead of Barrie himself who refers to the Indians as 'Redskins' throughout his story and deals with them in the broadest of stereotypes with a surprising amount of violence thrown in.As for being sexist, possibly Tinkerbell has come in for the most attention with her voluptuous figure and occasional hip wiggling - she is referred to as Twerkerbell in one critique of the film. But again, rather than just the Disney artists over-vamping an innocent fairy, here is J. M. Barrie's description of Tink: "exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to embonpoint". That archaic word means a plump, hourglass figure. I rest my case.To see how good this film is, you only need to compare it with the sequel, "Return to Neverland" made in 2002. With bigger eyes and individual shading, the characters seem more cartoony, lacking much of the warmth and style of the earlier version.There have been plenty of stage and film versions of the story over the decades, but my favourite is still Walt Disney's 1953 film; even after 62 years, it has lost none of its magic for me.

For me Peter Pan is one of the lesser movies of the so-called post-war restoration era of Disney. It's not the triumphant return of Cinderella, nor the bizarre fun of Alice in Wonderland, nor does it have the warmhearted atmosphere of Lady and the Tramp nor the technical quality of Sleeping Beauty. It's still a marvelous adventure film and heads and shoulders above most of its animated peers. It just means that by Disney standards it's not near the top.A few reason for this. First of all, I don't think that Captain Hook is a very good villain. He has the visual appeal and a great voice actor in Hans Conried who, following the proper Peter Pan tradition, also voiced Mr. Darling. But I think he's way too slapsticky, which takes away all the menace most other version of the character have. Then again, the crocodile is awesome.The songs are also of poorer quality than in many other Disney films. You Can Fly is of course a classic, but other than that I cannot remember any other song. Except of course What Made the Red Man Red, which is problematic for other reasons.Plus Wendy is something of a step back from Alice, the previous Disney heroine, who was also voiced by Kathryn Beaumont, by the way. And I have absolutely nothing against Beaumont, she's amazing, but the character herself is a lot less activate and personal than Alice.But, it stills has that Disney charm. The animation is unsurpassed, Tinker Bell is one of Disney's finest characters for a reason, the actual plot is a lot of fun and as a whole it's over an hour's worth of fun, excitement and good family entertainment. It's not one of the strongest Disney films in my opinion, but is definitely worth a watch no matter your age.