Peter Pan (2000 TV Special) User Reviews

Very Good

[bronny · 7/10 · 3 March 2004]

Personally I can't stand Peter Pan.

However, my 5 year old daughter found this at the library and asked to borrow it, and I have to admit that it is a wonderful and funny performance. The songs are great (much to my annoyance I have even been discovered humming them to myself). Cathy Rigby is extremely well suited to the role of Peter Pan, and I loved Paul Schoeffler as Captain Hook/Mr Darling.

So even though I don't like Peter Pan I gave it 7/10 and am able to sit through certain bits as my daughter watches it over and over again (unfortunately I was persuaded to buy the video for her).

Good attempt at a remake

[mike48128 · 7/10 · 27 September 2011]

Thus should have been better. The production values are far superior to the 1960 Mary Martin version which, sadly, is only available in bootleg copies of unknown quality. (Why doesn't NBC re-release it?)

Cathy Rigby does a very good job of recreating the role, but in the close-ups she looks so much older than 40, and somehow older than Mary Martin. This detracts from the "youthful" look the character should have. Too bad she didn't make it when she was much younger.

If you have never seen the 1960 Mary Martin version, you will probably like this version as the production values are first-rate and even the flying and acrobatics are better. However, NOBODY can re-create the performances of Mary Martin and Cyril Richard (as Capt. Hook)---they own the roles. Small children who have never seen the original version will probably love it.

Minor faults: 1. The "Take your medicine" scene and "clap if you believe in fairies" scenes lack the "heart" of the original. 2. Capt. Hook is far more cruel in this version, and the mermaids are evil, which is closer to the Barrie story.

Be aware that various "bootlegs" of the Mary Martin 1960 version are available. Watching them is like viewing a movie with your glasses off: The sound in good but the picture is fuzzy. Also, they are DVD-R's, which are not known to be very durable or long-lasting.

I think this one is 10 times better than Mary Martin's

[Acrosslne · 7/10 · 30 January 2001]

In Mary Martin's Peter Pan, the dances were very thrown together. This is not a bad thing when the cast can make it look like that is not the case. That WAS not the case. You could see mistake after mistake, and you could tell when even the littlest mistake was made.

Furthermore, the casting for Mary Martin's was terrible. Wendy had a piercing to the ear sounding voice, and Mary Martin in no way, shape, or form made a believable little boy. She instead made a believable little old man.

In Cathy's version, everyone sang on key, and everyone seemed prepared for the performance at hand. Cathy's performance made it easy to forget that she was an adult woman, and truly made you believe that she was that of a young boy. This is not easy for many actors/actresses out there. What's funny is that she had little training. Mary Martin had lots.

Makes you wonder who possessed the real talent.

Judge it on its own merit- it's good.

[movibuf1962 · 19 June 2003]

I only saw this production because I happened to find a VHS tape of it in a clearance rack in my local video store (and bought it for next-to-nothing). It is a new staging of the Broadway musical from the 1950's; this does not minimize its impact in any way, but there are many reviewers here who feel the need to make excessive (and in my opinion unfounded) comparisons between this production and the original one with Mary Martin- when, in fact, it is the same show. I have copies of both performances and primarily treasure the Martin production because of its historical significance as a time capsule of early television. This version with Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby version is brilliant; its presentation differs from the 1960 one as they captured an actual performance from a theater with an audience rather than tape on a network sound stage. As someone else noted below, Ms. Rigby's mannerisms and costuming better are indeed more boyish than Ms. Martin's (although I didn't care for Ms. Rigby's attempt at a British accent). The point is they each do it a little differently, Ms. Rigby opting for more exuberance. The book itself is a bit corny (doesn't matter which version), but chances are you're watching it with your own children or re-living your own childhood- and that's sort of the point. The Act 1 finale which shows Peter and the Darling clan fly out the window is stunning. Plan to lose yourself for two hours, and you'll probably believe you can fly when it's over.

A beautiful and flawless production

[Liza-19 · 10/10 · 29 September 2002]

I for one, never liked the Mary Martin version. I always thought it was too corny - good songs but BAD casting and worse lines. The mediocre sets and costumes can be forgiven because it was the 50s, but there is no excuse for casting a blonde Tiger Lily. The girl that played Wendy had the most annoying voice in the world - thank God she never appeared in anything else.

Anyway, when I found out that they were releasing the Cathy Rigby version on DVD I couldn't wait to see it. Peter Pan is a wonderful show, it really is. It deserved a much better production than was out there, and Rigby's version is splendid! All of the actors were wonderful! I was SO happy with this Wendy who, for starters, has a lovely voice (what a concept!) and just seems to love her role. She plays Wendy throughout the entire show (grown up as well - in the Martin version the same annoying girl played Jane at the end which never made sense to me) so I was happy to see that.

Cathy Rigby is superb - she LOVES her part and just brings so much energy and love to her role as Peter that you get completely swept up into her world. I wonder how many Olympians, after retiring can say that they've been able to do something like that - playing the lead in Peter Pan - she just seems to be having the time of her life up there, and it's contagious!

I could go on and on, because this is just a beautiful production. Tiger Lily is beautiful and (surprise) actually looks like an Indian! She's a beautiful dancer too, I hope to see more of her in the future. Paul Schoeffler is the best Captain Hook I've ever seen, both as Hook and Mr. Darling he just had so much great appeal and charisma. I can't stop watching this movie! Five stars, 10/10, it's perfect!

Just as great as 1955 version!

[theatre81 · 10/10 · 8 January 2001]

This version of Peter Pan is almost exactly identical as Mary Martin's 1955 version. Cathy Rigby is excellent in the role of Peter Pan. I had no idea she could even sing! The children are adorable, as they were in the Mary Martin version. There are some differences, for instance, in this version, Liza, the maid is barely in it. I loved that about the 1955 version. The acting quality by everyone in this one is superb, as is the singing. The actor who played Captain Hook has an incredible singing voice, as does the actress who played Wendy. I was amazed at the similarities these two versions had in common. Those who are used to Mary Martin play Peter Pan may not enjoy this version as much because the two (Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby) get into the parts in their own ways. The comedic moments in this version are brought out a little more than they were in the 1955 version. In my opinion, both are ideal for the entire family.

Great Improvement

[shellra · 10/10 · 18 January 2002]

I have seen several productions of Peter Pan and this has to be my favorite. It has the lighthearted appeal of the original story, with colorful and imaginative sets and costumes that are a joy to see. While children can enjoy the story as a new experience, those of us who are adults can enjoy the acting skills, as well as the stunning special effects. While they may be commonplace on most videos which were movies, the flying alone is a wonderful example.

While I know that there are those who see Mary Martin as the ONLY Peter Pan, in the spirit of Peter Pan, I just have to say "phft-ft-ft-ft!" Mary Martin was always just Mary Martin playing a role. While with Cathy Rigby, I actually found myself forgetting that it was a woman, and not a young boy playing Peter Pan.

Over The Hill

[mystic · 5/10 · 3 July 2001]

This movie was 'OK' as far as the casting that they used.

Peter Pan productions have always been a bone picker with me because for some unknown reason they have always used 'over the hill' actors and actresses in most of the main roles. The author wrote about kids and kids should be cast in the leading roles! Someday some producer and director will realize this and we will have a 'smashing' musical production of this great KIDS story.

Magnificent Broadway version of a classic story

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 13 October 2013]

JM Barrie's Peter Pan is a classic for children and adults alike, Peter is not the most likable of characters but it is very meaningful, heart-warming, dark, charming and surprisingly complex as well(especially with the character of Captain Hook). This 2000 Broadway production is magnificent and captivating all the way through, there will always be a fondness for the Mary Martin version but in my personal opinion this one eclipses it in almost every way, though the ending has more of an emotional impact in the Martin version. What is remarkable about this production is not just how charming and light-hearted it is, to the extent that older audiences will feel like a child again in a good way, but how it's not afraid in bringing out the darker aspects of the story, the mermaids are quite evil here. Very faithful in detail and spirit. Even more remarkable is how it works on its own and as a musical. The production values are lavish, the costumes are fitting for the characters and the settings for the nursery and Marauders Rock- very creepy- are really effective. The rustic setting for the underground house appeals too. The music is rousing and beautiful, Peter's song(s) in the nursery and the numbers with the pirates and Hook were particularly great. The flying effects looked magical, the special effects are well incorporated and the choreography is full of life, especially with the Indians and pirates.

The dialogue is both heart-warming and funny, you will shed a tear or two at the end and Hook and Smee's interactions are an immense joy to watch. The production is full of energy throughout, with the comedy and drama always convincing. The performances are spot on, especially from Cathy Rigby and Paul Schoeffler. Rigby is wonderfully boyish, and her performance is full of charisma, energy, comic timing and likability. She is also very athletic and has an amazing, powerful voice, all of this makes up for an accent that comes and goes(in fact a couple of the accents on the whole can sound a tad overdone), considering how so good her performance overall that feels like nothing. Schoeffler's baritone voice is rich and warm, he even hits some great top As and A flats. And his Hook from the facial expressions to how he uses his voice is hilarious without ever feeling like a buffoon. He succeeds also in bringing out some menacing aspects in the capture of Wendy, her brothers and the Lost Boys and with the poison, so while his performance is primarily on the comedy side it doesn't feel entirely done-for-laughs. Eliza Sangardia brings great charm to Wendy and gives the character great spunk, she does have a beautiful voice(much more appealing than the Wendy in the Mary Martin version) that you wish you heard more of. Wendy's brothers and the Lost Boys are full of enthusiasm and none of them show signs of fatigue or nerves, while Tiger Lily's athletic dancing is just jaw-dropping and the pirates are the very meaning of rollicking. All in all, hugely entertaining and magnificent in quality, an absolute must. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Not even half as good as the Mary Martin version

[critic-2 · 3/10 · 9 October 2000]

The Cathy Rigby "Peter Pan", which I caught on A&E last night, is a sad commentary on how far standards have fallen in the last forty years or so. This production has everything that money can buy--good photography, special effects far more sophisticated than in the famous Mary Martin version, and nice sets, although this version was taped in an auditorium rather than on full-scale TV studio sets. The songs are memorable (they are exactly the same ones as in the Martin version), the choreography is good, if not as good as Jerome Robbins's legendary original choreography, and much of the singing is excellent. And yet, it can't even begin to compare to the older version. Why not?

Because this production is shallow in comparison. No one, no matter how hard they try, seems to even get close to the tender,moving spirit of the story. Rigby is wildly enthusiastic, and has a reasonably good singing voice, but she does not LIVE the part as Mary Martin did. Those who don't think of Mary Martin as a dramatic actress, only as a musical star, only need to compare her performance with Rigby's to realize how good she was. In the Martin version, the final scene, in which Peter returns to take Wendy back to Never-Never Land,and discovers what has happened while he has been gone, was absolutely heartrending,while in this version it seems like a minor obstacle to be gotten out of the way as soon as possible.

Paul Schoeffler is a reasonably good Captain Hook, and he can sing better than Cyril Ritchard, but he does not have a trace of Ritchard's memorable prissiness that was so funny in the earlier version.

Elisa Sagardia is a reasonable improvement over Maureen Bailey in the 1960 production (I am too young to remember Kathy Nolan's portrayal in the 1955 version), but then, practically anybody would be.

But this new Cathy Rigby production was still a near-total letdown for me. (I am not relying on nostalgia; I have the Mary Martin version on tape and can play it anytime I wish.) It is a dramatic demonstration of how a classic musical can be trivialized, and of how modern technology and updated staging techniques are no substitute for depth of feeling and understanding. And no matter how well she sings, Cathy Rigby still cannot put over those songs as well as Mary Martin could.

I loved it!

[HLYWoodStarlett · 24 March 2002]

I have seen both the Mary Martin version and this version, and even though I have fond memories of watching the Mary Martin version when I was younger, I enjoyed this one a lot more. The Mary Martin version was excellent, don't get me wrong, but while watching it, you consciously think to yourself,"This is a woman playing a little boy." In many ways, this can ruin the experience. In the Cathy Rigby version, Rigby acts as a little boy would. She uses the gestures a boy would, she moves as a boy would, and when delivering her lines and singing you actually believe that she is a little boy that just did not want to grow up. Elisa Sagardia was also wonderfully enchanting in her role as Wendy. When watching it you feel as if Wendy is your own sister or mother. Everything is an improvement from the Mary Martin version-the pirates are animated and hilarious, the lost boys are also quite funny and child-like, the Indians have wonderful dance sequences and you almost feel hypnotized while watching them. I suppose it is a matter of taste and what appeals to you more-charming, quaint, heart-warming productions, or believable, spectacular, animated, eye-catching, mind boggling, rhythmic, hypnotic productions. Out of 10 stars, I give it a solid 7 1/2.

High Flying!

[johnm_001 · 10/10 · 10 October 2000]

The revival of the Broadway hit, with former gymnast, Cathy Rigby, making the role her own. This show has it all, great musical numbers, enchanting characters, and of course, flying. Rigby and company never let up the energy level, and the entire stage production is first rate. The wonderful number "I'm Flying", has got to be the greatest showstopper in Broadway history, and it never has been performed with as much gusto, as Rigby pulls out all her gymnastic stops. Many will remember the Mary Martin version, that was beloved for many years. At last, there is a production of higher video and sound quality, and performances that are the original's equal, to enjoy over and over again. The entire family will love this show. It's a great production.

No Offense To Mary Martin, But Cathy Rigby Owns This Role

[johnstonjames · 10/10 · 18 December 2010]

Mary Martin s--ks. i say it with the deepest respect because i grew up watching her version as a child and looked forward to it every year i saw it. i know m.s. Martin's possessed minions will howl and protest in utter disbelief, but this role belongs to Cathy Rigby. trust me. i am a die hard fan of Barrie's mythical fairy land.

i will give an explanation since i know this seems like iconic blasphemy. first. i'm fond of stinko Martin but...every stink'in role she originated on stage has been done better by everyone else. Julie Andrews, Mitzi Gaynor, Catherine Rigby. all better. it's a known fact. if i watch the flipp'in "Sound of Muzak", i wanna see Julie Andrews. not squeaky, nasally, cornball Mary Martin. and Mitzi Gaynor is a lot prettier and is a better singer.

ALSO. i like cheesy, rinky dink, low budget productions and retro television stuff, but the production values in the Mary Martin production are awful. they look like kindergarten class put the whole thing together with paste, and glue and scotch tape. the sets don't even look cardboard, it looks like construction paper. and even a three year old can tell Peter Pan is just some weird, middle aged broad acting like a queer pansy.

the Catherine Rigby production however, is far superior. the sets are lavish and detailed stage sets. some of the finest i've seen and i've looked at pics of many Broadway plays and have seen many on stage including 'Peter Pan'. and Lady Catherine is far more convincing as a dude than fat butt Martin who could barely fit her enormous behind in those stupid tights. sorry true. Cathy Rigby's outfit isn't gay looking like Martin's and Cat is really rather butch in her portrayal of PP. a kid is more likely to believe Rigby's a boy more than the motherly looking Martin.

look. i think cheapo retro TV is a hoot. but there is better retro TV than the original TV 'Pan' production even. The Leigh and Charlap musical is a national treasure. it deserves the best production values possible for stage. where it truly belongs. i'm also all for chicks and dudettes playing the "Peter" role. that's a classic stage tradition and it should be kept that way for this production. but a little more realism in the performance than what Martin offered won't hurt it.

and of course mostly, Cat Rigby is without a doubt the most proficient 'Peter' on flying wires ever. i have read all about all the other numerous "Peters" throughout the play's history, and not a single one of them was a gymnast like Rigby. a gold medal gymnast no less. seeing Rigby fly the wires is breath taking and an Olympic feat.

this is my favorite version of "Peter Pan". sometimes improvements are genuinely improvements. the other versions (except for the awful 'Hook') are all excellent and the Disney version is, well, Disney. it's adorable and cute. but this is in the true spirit of 'Peter Pan'. the way Barrie had intended it originally. as a pantomime and a Fariy play.

one of the best musicals ever

[UrGoingGoingGONE · 10/10 · 29 June 2007]

I have always adored Peter Pan since I was a little girl and i still do love it. When I was going to go and see Cathy Rigby preform live as Peter Pan i didn't know what too expect because Mary Martin did a spectacular job and the Disney film was excellent as well. When the music started up I knew this was going to be a brilliant performance of Peter Pan. The stunts were fantastic, the singing was amazing, and the acting did have some faults at times but you forget all about them as soon as a new song comes on. The harness stunts (in I'm Flying) and the drum stick choreography (in Ugh-a-Wugg) blew me away. to sum it all up if u love musicals, amazing choreography and a great story line, Peter pan is one of the musicals for u to enjoy.

I feel disappointed

[duranashley · 4/10 · 20 October 2023]

Maybe it's cause I saw the original 1960 version and 2014 reboot first, but this just felt like the middle child of those two. Aka, nothing special. And it's so disappointing

I'll start with the set. Say what you want about the 1960 set, but it looked big and expansive. The set here looked small and limited.

The choreography is almost nonexistent. During a good amount of songs, mainly Hooks songs, he hardly dances or moves at all during it. In a good amount of moments, he's just standing there. At least that's something I could never say for the other 2.

Cathy Rigby is fine as Peter, but I feel like she looks older than Mary Martin did when she played the role. Hell, she's older than Hooks actor. Plus she also feels a bit slower in comparison

Paul Schoeffler was a disappointing performance. He can sing, but he couldn't capture half the energy of Cyril Richard, despite both having roughly the same amount of screen time. I feel like this version was just more played for laughs. He also has way less chemistry with all the pirates. Especially Smee.

Oh boy Smee. Smee was annoying here. His whole thing was he would repeat what someone would say, but louder. I'm not exaggerating, that was his whole character. It's cute that at the end he stays with Wendy, but it would be better with literally any other version of Smee.

This doesn't have the charm of the original, but also doesn't have the ironic enjoyment of the 2014 Hook. It's just, eh.

A brilliantly captured Broadway show

[weaselgirl_rk4ever · 10/10 · 10 November 2005]

I was two and a half years old when my parents taped the Mary Martin version of Peter Pan. I adored it. "Tender Shepherd" was my lullaby when I was a child. Needless to say, when I discovered A&E had filmed the Broadway revival, I was excited but skeptical. How could it compare to my favorite childhood movie? It more than compared. It even exceeded. The Cathy Rigby Peter Pan takes what Mary Martin did to the next level. The movie is filmed directly from the Broadway performance and has a lively adrenaline rush that is absent from the Mary Martin version, which was filmed on a soundstage. The casting is brilliant. Elisa Sagardia- whom I was lucky enough to see when the show came on tour this summer- is a beautiful and spunky Wendy. Smee and Hook work together perfectly and are absolutely hilarious. Tiger Lily is athletic, believable as an Indian princess, and one of the greatest dancers I've seen in a long time. And of course, Cathy Rigby. She stepped into a very difficult role to fill- after all, Mary Martin was one of the greatest Broadway actresses, and Peter was one of her signature roles. But Cathy makes the role entirely her own, giving a new approach to the famous character. The cockney accent and athleticism never gives the audience reason to doubt that Peter is, and really is, the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up. As a rabid Peter Pan fanatic. I found this version to be as beautiful, as lavish, and as suited for the child at heart as Sir J.M. Barrie intended. Ten stars.

Are you kidding? It was great!

[watersb · 13 November 2002]

Yes, the production is lavish. But the performance is wonderful! Cathy Rigby comes across as a real boy: innocently cruel and noble in equal measure. Most kid's fairy tales are rather um, grim -- and this one is no exception.

This film is Excellent for the whole family!

[jcook-4 · 9/10 · 10 October 2000]

My 3 year old wanted me to watch this film with her - and I'm glad I did. She loved it! and I must say that Dad loved it also! Fun for the whole family. Wonderful acting, good music, nicely written, what else can I say.

slick but second rate

[ralphsf · 29 June 2002]

Sorry, but this version, for all its slickness, athleticism, modern broadway effects, superior sound, etc. remains a poor second to the Mary Martin version. In a word, it doesn't have Jerome Robbins, Mary Martin or Cyril Ritchard. Rigby does her best and has a surprisingly effective singing voice, but her accent is awful. Neither does she or anyone else have any timing. Classic lines are just thrown away and garbled. I also found her performance to be very much on one note. She's good as a p***ed-off little boy, but that's it. It has none of the grace or whimsy of Martin's performance. The woman playing Wendy has a good voice but, again, a terrible accent and delivery. Their Hook does the best of the three. He has real power and size (everyone else in this production must be 5' tall!) and reminds me of Captain Morgan. He's got a real operatic baritone. But I thought he botched his solos, throwing away lines with poor phrasing. Tiger Lily is a good dancer (although the dances are just second rate Broadway gymnastic razz-ma-tazz) but has little to do in this version. I also thought the end of the show where Peter returns was poorly performed... it had much more emotional power in the older version. There is much to like in this version, especially if you aren't acquainted with the Mary Martin version, but it's strictly second string. The artistry just isn't there.

Okay, but lacks heart

[caroline-25 · 7 September 2001]

It must be nice to be able to afford to mount a theatrical production and cast yourself in the lead. Yes, this show looks good, but it lacks warmth - portraying the magical Neverland as a dark, almost scary place. Cathy Rigby's Peter, while technically good, comes across as an unlikeable bully with an extremely irritating (and unnecessary) English accent. Hook and the pirates did a wonderful job, John and Michael were good, the Indian dancing was great (and glossed over the fact that Tiger Lily couldn't really act). The thing that really bothered me was the fact that Wendy and the Lost Boys were played by adults. There are so many talented kids out there that could have done just as well while adding realism and genuine energy. For that matter, I'd like to see someone break tradition and have Peter Pan actually played by a young boy. Maybe if I ever find myself with a couple million dollars to spare, I'll make my own version...not starring me.

Cathy Rigby makes Peter Pan come alive, a most excellent production.

[TxMike · 24 April 2005]

"Peter Pan", an A&E Network presentation, on DVD, of the JM Barrie stage musical. I remember Cathy Rigby, the gymnast, from the early 1970s. I had heard over the years that she was pretty good as peter Pan. In fact, she and the musical are coming to my city in just a couple of weeks. But I was not prepared for how good Rigby is, and how funny and good this stage production is.

I found this DVD at my local public library and, having just seen "Finding Neverland", which tells the story of how Barrie got his inspiration, I just had to see "Peter Pan." I actually saw another version also, the recent theatrical film with Ludivine Sagnier as Tinker Bell, and the Rigby stage version is superior in every way. I highly recommend it, to kids and adults alike.

Very Different Approach

[ibelieveinyou4ever · 1 July 2004]

Okay, so just a week ago I saw this version all the way through for the first time (and now I've seen it 3 times). This is, of course, after having seen 3 other versions of the same story of Peter and Wendy (Mary Martin version of the play, the Disney version which really sucks because it is so inaccurate, and the new live-action version). The one advantage I think I had with this version was that I've read the book (twice now) before seeing it. (I actually just finished reading it the second time today.)

So what do I think of this version? It is very unique in that it incorporates different aspects that are captured in the book but not in any other version I've seen. Such as Peter's "shortish" name, Wendy calling Peter ignorant, Peter's outright unquestionable "in charge" attitude toward the boys, and probably the most important aspect--the dark and dangerous perspective of Neverland itself.

Someone said in another comment that this version made Neverland out to be scary, and to be quite frank, it can be a scary place. Let's think about this, shall we? Neverland is the compilation of all imaginary playlands of children (according to the book), and (correct me if I'm wrong) many children find danger and darkness to be exciting. Don't boys sometimes imagine playing in misty dark waters with real danger lurking nearby? As Sir JM Barrie said himself, "In the old days at home the Neverland had always begun to look a little dark and threatening by bedtime. Then unexplored patches arose in it and spread; black shadows moved about in them; the roar of beasts of prey was quite different now, and above all, you lost the certainty that you could win. You were quite glad that the night-lights were on. You even liked Nana to say that this was just the mantelpiece over here, and that the Neverland was all make-believe. Of course the Neverland had been make-believe in those days; but it was real now, and there were no night-lights, and it was getting darker every moment, and where was Nana?" (Peter Pan, Chapter 4 "The Flight") Obviously Neverland could be a dark and dangerous place.

Also, along the same lines, it has been said that the jokes don't seem to fit or something like that. I must say that I found the jokes quite entertaining and they fit quite well. They keep with the playful and childish attitude that the play should be taken with. Are grown-ups so de-sensitized by modern comedy that they cannot even find a little humor in what two or more children say to offend each other? Or even the usual banter, during a play, between the villain and audience?

Even Peter's overall cockiness is refreshing. Barrie said himself, "It is humiliating to have to confess that this conceit of Peter was one of his most fascinating qualities. To put it with brutal frankness, there never was a cockier boy." (Peter Pan, Chapter 3 "Come Away, Come Away") And Cathy Rigby kept that cockiness in Peter throughout the play.

I must also say that I was very impressed with the emotional turmoil that Peter is shown going through. Cathy Rigby does a wonderful job at portraying the pain that Peter is feeling at Wendy's leaving Neverland and about remembering how his mother had closed the window. And in the end, the anguish of finding Wendy grown up makes you want to hug Peter and tell him it's all right.

And I'm surprised no one has mentioned Smee really. In this version he truly is lovable, just as Barrie described him. I found him very amusing, especially at the end when he returns with the Lost Boys to the Darling nursery (even if that wasn't really part of the story, it was still humorous and forgivable).

The Indians, I think, gave an extra flare that was lacking in especially the Mary Martin version. Here we find the Indians actually acting like Indians instead of random people dressed in loose Indian shirts and pants. Whether the actors were true Indians in this version (which I highly doubt they were) they were much more believable and menacing, just as in the book.

All in all, this version is very very close to the book itself, which I think is a great thing, as I am a stickler for accuracy in storytelling.

Don't get me wrong, though. I grew up (literally) with the Mary Martin version and I will always have a special place in my heart for it, even if it is a bit cheesy on the acting and sets. I love the music in both versions equally (since they are pretty much the same), but sometimes I wonder... would the real Peter Pan break out into a catchy song about Neverland and about never growing up? Hmm... I wonder.

New Version Borrows Songs From Older Play

[hans101067 · 10 December 2000]

There is a considerable difference between this production,which has been aired on A&E this year,and the televised performances of the Mary Martin musical stage play that many of us remember from our (misspent)youths.I was originally quite puzzled by this version,as they borrowed a number of the songs from the older show.Consequently,I was startled,and,initially,disappointed,when I saw this production.(During the 1960s and early70s,a large children's theater in University Heights,Ohio,always did "Peter Pan"at Xmas.saw I had some degree of familiarity with that show.Then,in Feb.1985,while living in Marion,Ohio,I did the role of Mr.Smee in a local production.So I DO know the show.)It appears that whoever did the script did a rather free adaptation of the MM version,and borrowed some of the musical numbers.Anybody who insists on the older vehicle has only themselves to hold responsible.This is a dark story,with emphases placed upon destruction,evil,some sexual tensions,and a sensual eroticism that was lacking in the other.These are legitimate aspects to explore.Rigby's portrayal of the title character,with cockney accent,is seen as a very much lost waif,which was minimized in the Martin version.Schoeffler's verile and sexually powerful Hook,sadistic and cruel,is much more sinister than was Ritchard's.In my opinion,there can be no objection to interpretations of this sort.I had some questions as to having Smee coming across as a 15-year-old juvenile delinquent-why?And the mature female,womanly Tiger Lily,again,why?The sets,costumes,props are all first-rate.The choreography is quite impressive,but some of the elaborately done numbers don't fit into the narrative pattern of the story.Case in point;Hook's Tango,while superbly done,stuck out like a sore thumb.The pirates sing and dance,but are not listening to a plot to kill the Lost Boys.It was just a production number-and the way Hook and Smee tango together,I thought I was in a gay bar.Much the same about the "Pow-Wow Polka"-the number done in the Underground Home.It was a splendid song and dance routine,but did nothing to advance the plot-which was to celebrate the alliance between the Boys and the Indians.Take this version on its own merits-wonderfully sung,acted,and produced.

It's the 1950's Broadway Show Brilliantly Updated

[jack_north · 8 May 2004]

Peter Pan is, of course, a timeless classic. But that doesn't mean every production of it is timeless as well. I've been a fan of the Mary Martin version for about 50 years. (Good God!) I, too, have been involved, in a very minor capacity, in an extremely well-produced amateur staging of the venerable Broadway classic. But this new staging is the new standard. (Viewers should be aware that the Mary Martin version which was aired, annually, as I recall, was a re-staged production of the broadway show for a live television studio broadcast. The recorded version we have today was, I think, from one of the last years of the broadcast, and was pre-recorded on video tape for the airing. Quite an ambitious feat for the time, but creaky, in its interpretation and the technical limitations of the time.) Rigby is perfect as a Pan for today's audiences. The Cockney accents seem to be appropriate for the "forgotten" children of London's lower and middle classes of J.M. Barrie's time. The well-known songs sound fresh. The flying is awesome.

This is a great recording of a modern live performance of this "timeless" classic.

Jovial, exacting cast, produces wonderful performance.

[Alexyyz · 20 November 2003]

I found this film to be upbeat and entertaining. The actors did their jobs so well that they made you lose sight of the fact that you were watching this play on a stage with a full audience.

The musical numbers were positive, the acting was excellent. The dog was funny.

All the actors performed their roles exceedingly well. I especially enjoyed the scenes when the actors flew over the stage. All around a nicely filmed stage production of the Broadway play with a great cast and crew. Recommended.