Watch Peter Pan For Free

Overrated

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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.

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!

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.

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.