Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
I saw Finding Neverland tonight, which is the exact 100th anniversary of the first performance.
I am too drained to post a FULL review right now, but I shall post some very basic commentary.
Depp, Winselt, Hoffman, and the rest of the ensemble were first rate and the young actor playing Peter was a true find in my opinion.
Peter Pan holds a very dear place in my heart, so seeing the creation of the show played out was very special to me, altered as it might be or not.
The last few minutes of the film, from the play in the drawing room of Sylvia's home to the was wonderfully done -- particularly the neverland trasition -- and had me in tears.
The symbolism and parallells drawn between the events in PETER PAN and the events and people in "real life" was wonderfully and movingly done.
I HIGHLY recommend this film. I have been anticipating seeing it for a while and tonight was the perfect night for it.
I saw the film awhile ago as well and would have to agree with you, I thought it was wonderful esp. the boy that played Peter.
Side Note: Before this movie I never understood the significance of the crocodile that swallowed the clock (Time is chasing all of us)
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
yes. I have LOVED the symbolism in that and all of the things in Peter Pan and one of the most brilliant fantstical designs I saw for Peter Pan used that to it's advatage and the back wall was a giant clock...
that one line about time chasing all of us in the film spoke VOLUMES.
I was HYSTERICAL during the scene during the play in the drawing room when 'Peter' asks them to clap to save Tinkerbelle.. the look on Sylvia's (Kate Winslett) face and her mother bursting into applause.... and then the curtain lifting behind them... ugh... I was a mess.
I definitely remember the last scene....I thought the movie in general was just BEAUTIFUL and I never call movies beautiful. Although I don't know why Johnny Depp was speaking in an Irish accent.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
wasn't Irish. It was Scottish. Barrie was Scottist.
yes, it was definately beautiful. I loved the waves during the pirate ship fantasy scene.
that Nerland tableau with barrie and the Davies' with Peter Pan and all of the dancing fairies will definately stay with me for a good long while.
Ahh, I din't realize Barrie was Scottish. Do you happen to know of any more symbolism in Peter Pan-I mean other than was alluded to in the movie. I've been curious since watching the film.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
oh pish posh..delve into the novel and play and dig them up.. believe me that is half the fun... and look into a biography of barrie for much more insight.
the croc is the obvious one there...
here is a hint on another -- hook was originally written to be played by the actress who played MRS darling.. not mr....
Alright then I'm off to dig....
Thanks for the hint thogh.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
if you remmeber in the film, they play on that Hook/woman/mother thing.....
Finding Neverland was spectacular and it helped me find my own Neverland! (It's on 42nd street)
"if you remmeber in the film, they play on that Hook/woman/mother thing....."
This touch? I didn't like. The woman was concerned about an eccentric, married man moving into the home of her daughter and four grandsons. She then (understandably, to me at least) blew a fuse when she learned that no one bothered informing her that her daughter was terminally ill. And for these reasons, she's branded the film's villain.
One of many oversimplifications that made this film go from one of my top five most anticipated of the year to one that I would like to see remade with a deeper screenplay.
Updated On: 12/28/04 at 03:11 AM
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
I didn't see her her a svillian in THAT respect at all. She did not know certain things. I saw her as the villian in that she was domineering over Sylvia and those boys before Barrie came into the picture and, in a way, he freed them from that control.
but she had a hook on her hand...
i thought it was an absolutely beautiful film.
one of my favorite lines:
"Well, here we dream on a budget"
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
yes, Dustin Hoffman was a treat in that role, he really was. There were so many great moments and effects that it has been taking me a whiel to process it in my head.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/14/04
Wait, so Dec. 27th was the 100th aniversary? Cause I saw it last night too! I LOVED it. AW! OH@! It was SO SO SO good...except for the bee-otchs behind me...
**SOAP BOX***
Don't you hate it when the whole theatre is completely empty, and the three obnoxious girls STILL sit RIGHT behind you and your beautiful date? They talked, they slurped, they smacked...they shut up when I gave them the death stare of eternal hell fire...
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
yes. it opened Dec 27, 1904.
"I saw her as the villian in that she was domineering over Sylvia and those boys before Barrie came into the picture and, in a way, he freed them from that control."
Another oversimplification. The woman had barely any screen time but I guess that if the film needed a villain that would be awakened in the end, she had to be it.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
why is it an over simplification? and why do you need TONS of screen time to establish a character? she was a society woman caught up in social circles and domineering over Sylvia and the boys after sylvia's husband died, yes, because she was worried about them, but also, in part, because of what 'everyone else" thought.
I have loved it more with each additional viewing.
"why is it an over simplification? and why do you need TONS of screen time to establish a character? she was a society woman caught up in social circles and domineering over Sylvia and the boys after sylvia's husband died, yes, because she was worried about them, but also, in part, because of what 'everyone else" thought."
That's just it -- you don't need "TONS of screen time to establish a character" but you do need more than was given Julie Christie to give that character depth. The film is content to villify a real woman for being gravely concerned about social norms and the fate of her widowed daughter's family. It understands the character not in the context of her 1903-1904 London but according to 21st century Western ideals instead. This stock characterization is tired and pretty offensive when it's used to portray a historic figure.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
It wasn't meant to a historical document. It was a drama, not a documentary. There were many liberties taken.
"It wasn't meant to a historical document. It was a drama, not a documentary. There were many liberties taken."
Right, but that doesn't mean that I have to love it. :) And I don't. It was great in parts and disappointing in others.
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
!!OVER-RATED!!
:: clap clap clapclapclap ::
Really, I think this movement is a testament of our affections for Winslet and Depp and, maybe Peter Pan, rather than a testament to strong film-making. It's OK but a good cry does not a powerful story make.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
I fully admit to having a strong bias toward Peter Pan -- it was teh firsts how I ever saw and the one that made me want to be an actor. I fully admit to loving what Depp and Winslet did with their roles.
Videos