WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

mharah ...but don't do it halfway in between. Peter Pan the musical has survived all sorts of "interpretations" over the years, starting back in the 1950s. Peter Pan has traditionally been played by a woman. It doesn't matter why since audiences apparently have accepted it. But if you're going to update the show, don't use a female. It doesn't work any more. And the rest of the young cast doesn't need to be too old any more either. There are plenty of wildly talented kids and teens who could have pulled this off. Then there is the music. The original score was a mish-mash of contributions by a variety of people (not an uncommon practice in those days), so adding songs to this version could have worked. It doesn't primarily because the added music, while coming from the same era, doesn't fit the original music's style. In the same way, the updated/added dialogue sounds out of place with the more traditional dialogue. Interesting casting/directing decisions: Young Allison Williams was acceptable as Peter, given the women-playing-boys tradition. After all, the beloved Mary Martin was already over 40 when she did it. Christopher Walken as Hook for some reason was playing the role as a cross between RuPaul and Fu Manchu - and a tired one at that. Since he began his career as a song-and-dance man on Broadway, this was strange choice. The very obviously "chorus boys" as the Lost Boys and the barely-clothed Indian braves, all doing a lot of what can only be described as prancing around, probably would have fit the 50s interpretation, but it looked very weird here. The pirates also had some very un-pirate-like dancing. Taylor Louderman sings beautifully, and she almost gets away with being Wendy, except that she is - ahem - rather well-developed. This makes her attraction to the obviously female Peter disconcerting. A younger Wendy can pull this off; it's just kind of skanky here. The use of a real dog as Nana robbed the show of Nana's lovely humorous and bittersweet moments. The narration was okay but seemed needlessly intrusive. The settings were very cartoonish. Again, this would have worked with a 50s interpretation; updated, they should have been more substantial. In short, the problems with Peter Pan Live! came with the original concept - or lack of one. Are you doing this as originally conceived, or are you doing it more modern? The producers never made up their minds, and it looks like it.

Hitchcoc I really wanted to like this. I thought that "The Sound of Music" was better than many said it was. This, however, doesn't work at all. Allison Williams is decent in the title role and there are a couple of troopers who make it work, but how Christopher Walken was chosen to play Captain Hook stretches the limits of credulity. He is terrible. He can't dance. He is a nervous wreck. And he can barely sing. Think of all the possibilities. For goodness sake, the put an embarrassed Christian Borle in the role of Smee. It must have killed him to do his usual classy job next to the stiff Walken (by the way I love Christopher Walken). It just never got off the ground. It begins with some decent stuff, but dies on the vine. There is no clean movement through the plot. It is jerky and endless. I wonder if this is the death knell for these productions. If the only reason to do this is the novelty, it may be time to stop. How about some high quality stage productions of some of the classic musicals, only recorded ahead of time.

trylontheatre1 PETER PAN (Live) was suppose to be a big event for NBC. What we got was a production poorer than some high school plays I have seen. Alison Williams was so blah as Peter Pan. She brought no excitement to the role. Than we have the biggest shocker Christopher Walkens as Captain Hook. He slept-walked through the entire show. He spoke his lines like he was holding the script in his hands. Walken seemed totally bored with the whole thing. Now we come to lost boys who were played by grown men. I'm surprised we couldn't see any hair on their chests. The dance numbers were nothing and the sword fight between Pan and Hook was laughable. If you can, watch the Mary Martin version or the Cathy Rigby production of PETER PAN. They will make you forget this truly awful presentation of a classic musical play.

chrissytwo I thoroughly enjoyed this production. I am not a critic so I will not comment on lighting etc., as some others have. As a 57 year old who refuses to grow up, and who also saw the Mary Martin production, I thought this one was great! I was very impressed with Allison Williams and the whole cast. Christopher Walken was entertaining and the two boys who played John and Michael were very good. I was impressed with those two, as the younger boy had no prior acting experience. I did not notice any lip syncing as someone else mentioned, and I wouldn't have cared if they had. The sets were colorful and beautiful. The voices were great and the production went very smoothly, which was great for a live performance. Peter Pan live was a wonderful, entertaining, and welcome distraction from the garbage and news that is on television now. I hope that NBC continues with the live productions every December.