at first, i was slightly unsure what i thought about this movie. i saw right away that it was charming, exciting, adventerous, etc, but i couldn't decide whether or not i liked it.
Rachel Hurd-Wood was a pleasant surprise. she has talent, though you cannot tell by the trailers. for the longest time in my younger years (no too long ago, in fact) i hated wendy and wished she had no part of the story, but in this new version, i actually liked her very much. i think it had something to do with the slight adjustments made on her character. Jeremy Sumpter was....to tell you the truth, i watched it new years day and it's now march, but from what i can remember, he definitely looked the part. his acting was at times a bit painful for me to watch, but then again, i've always been overly critical of younger actors. overall, the kids were great, fun to watch, funny, in no way obnoxious. i liked tiger-lily (i once had a cat named after her) though i'm still not sure where the little romance between her and john came from. Smee was great (his parrot irked me, though). pretty much everyone went above and beyond my expectations.
there's one charcter that deserves his own paragraph, and that is Captain James Hook. by far, the most important villian of all of my childhood adventures. in the 1953 disney version (which i watched over and over, much to the annoyance of my poor father who had to go out and rent it every weekend and sit through it with me) captain hook was my favorite. i watched and endured Hook just for him. and now, to this day, he still lurks in the back of my mind, waiting to leap out with that hook of his and make me grin. bad guys are so cool.
jason isaacs quickly rose to my top ten favorite actors of all time before i even saw this movie. but now....well, geez. i think i'm in love. he was brilliant as hook and mr. darling. we know the characters so i won't bore you with details. my fist thought when i saw the trailer was "of course! jason isaacs is perfect." and whoever designed the costume and make-up deserves special mention because he looked exactly how i always pictured the villain. i especially liked the twist that was given to his character, making you feel almost sympathetic (or maybe just sorry) towards him by the end. my my, does mr isaacs play the villian well, though he was equally good as mr. darling, a boring, penny pinching man, unsure of himself but wanting ever so much to do well. a good soul.
now, if i love the charcters so much, why was i unsure? i think it had partially something minor aspects to the story that struck me as out of place. i'm the type who loves it when a book is adapted well and this is one of those cases. from what i saw, it appeared that pretty much every aspects of J.M. Barrie's original story was there, in one way or another, even the "adult" over tones. but hollywood had a hand in it as well, trying desperately to give the movie a "message" that children would accept and parents would approve of. i'm not sure what that message was, though. it has something to do with the whole "love" theme. i admit that i am not one who gets all teary-eyed when two people profess their love for each other so, when watching those scenes in the theater, i couldn't help but cringe at the failed attempt make love the answer to all of life's troubles. but i won't start philosophising. i've already said enough.
in conclusion, i liked it. it made me want to be there, fighting pirates, running though the luscious forests and flying among the pink clouds. i an no longer unsure, and when it finally comes out on DVD, i plan to watch it over and over (skipping the more sickeningly love-oriented scenes). that is, if i ever get a DVD player. the i'll have to fast forward.
Rachel Hurd-Wood was a pleasant surprise. she has talent, though you cannot tell by the trailers. for the longest time in my younger years (no too long ago, in fact) i hated wendy and wished she had no part of the story, but in this new version, i actually liked her very much. i think it had something to do with the slight adjustments made on her character. Jeremy Sumpter was....to tell you the truth, i watched it new years day and it's now march, but from what i can remember, he definitely looked the part. his acting was at times a bit painful for me to watch, but then again, i've always been overly critical of younger actors. overall, the kids were great, fun to watch, funny, in no way obnoxious. i liked tiger-lily (i once had a cat named after her) though i'm still not sure where the little romance between her and john came from. Smee was great (his parrot irked me, though). pretty much everyone went above and beyond my expectations.
there's one charcter that deserves his own paragraph, and that is Captain James Hook. by far, the most important villian of all of my childhood adventures. in the 1953 disney version (which i watched over and over, much to the annoyance of my poor father who had to go out and rent it every weekend and sit through it with me) captain hook was my favorite. i watched and endured Hook just for him. and now, to this day, he still lurks in the back of my mind, waiting to leap out with that hook of his and make me grin. bad guys are so cool.
jason isaacs quickly rose to my top ten favorite actors of all time before i even saw this movie. but now....well, geez. i think i'm in love. he was brilliant as hook and mr. darling. we know the characters so i won't bore you with details. my fist thought when i saw the trailer was "of course! jason isaacs is perfect." and whoever designed the costume and make-up deserves special mention because he looked exactly how i always pictured the villain. i especially liked the twist that was given to his character, making you feel almost sympathetic (or maybe just sorry) towards him by the end. my my, does mr isaacs play the villian well, though he was equally good as mr. darling, a boring, penny pinching man, unsure of himself but wanting ever so much to do well. a good soul.
now, if i love the charcters so much, why was i unsure? i think it had partially something minor aspects to the story that struck me as out of place. i'm the type who loves it when a book is adapted well and this is one of those cases. from what i saw, it appeared that pretty much every aspects of J.M. Barrie's original story was there, in one way or another, even the "adult" over tones. but hollywood had a hand in it as well, trying desperately to give the movie a "message" that children would accept and parents would approve of. i'm not sure what that message was, though. it has something to do with the whole "love" theme. i admit that i am not one who gets all teary-eyed when two people profess their love for each other so, when watching those scenes in the theater, i couldn't help but cringe at the failed attempt make love the answer to all of life's troubles. but i won't start philosophising. i've already said enough.
in conclusion, i liked it. it made me want to be there, fighting pirates, running though the luscious forests and flying among the pink clouds. i an no longer unsure, and when it finally comes out on DVD, i plan to watch it over and over (skipping the more sickeningly love-oriented scenes). that is, if i ever get a DVD player. the i'll have to fast forward.