SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

jeromezaha I loved Mary Martin like I love Julie Andrews. Growing up in the 80s we had two real versions (possibly only two) of peter pan. Walt Disney's original, and Mary Martin play taped "peter pan" with Cyril Ritchard. I had it on VHS, but it seemed so clear like it was filmed in the 80s. Still looks good. "Spoilers": Never seen the "remake" with Cathy Rigby. I watched Christopher walken as hook. Rhythmically talking, but with more actual singing then Kirk.

zkonedog Ever since the original Peter Pan story was put to paper, the adventures of Peter and Neverland have been chronicled in various different formats (books, movies, TV shows, etc.). This re-telling of the Pan story, set on stage with Mary Martin portraying the rambunctious youngster, has a certain charm that is all its own.Unlike some Pan stories that may take themselves a bit too seriously, this edition is made for children and it shows in nearly every scene. Both Captain Hook and his merry band of pirates and the Tiger Lilly-led Indians are played for slapstick/silly humor, while Martin's Pan and Wendy are quite whimsical themselves.Yet, despite the child-oriented humor and content, adults can also enjoy the film for the exact same reasons. Instead of playing like, say, a typical Disney film (where little tidbits are thrown in every once in awhile to keep parents moderately entertained) this production will charm adults on the sole premise of its youthful exuberance.Perhaps the highlight of the entire Pan experience, though, are the musical numbers (especially those featuring Cyril Ritchard's Hook). The Indian numbers are particularly fun, while "Hook's Tango" is probably the highlight of the entire film.So, though older children may roll their eyes at the hokey plot/acting/humor, young kiddies will still revel in it again and again!

dimplet I don't even have to re-watch Peter Pan to rate it; all that counts is experience of a small child sitting in front of a black and white TV more than 50 years ago, and that child rated it as perfect, right up there with Captain Kangaroo, Shari Lewis, and the annual broadcast of The Wizard of Oz. Peter Pan was written and performed for children, and with the advent of television, it reached into the hearts of virtually all baby-boomers like me. A book could probably be written about what effect it had upon our generation, particularly the hippies of the Sixties. Now I am old, or at least my body is beginning to show some of its age. I am sometimes a bit more absentminded than before. But in my heart there is still an ageless youth. I, like Peter, vowed not to grow old, and I haven't. What I have learned is that the soul is ageless. But that is not entirely what Peter was talking about. He wanted to hold onto eternal childhood. That, I have lost; the door closed long ago with adolescence and adulthood. Peter warned us. I think we knew he was right, and as we became teens, we watched helplessly as our childhood faded (perhaps that's why some of us turned to illicit drugs). It is still a surprise how little we can really remember of the experience of childhood, and how lost is that sense of play, fantasy, wonder. How sad and dead is the adult world by comparison. But when I put on that old 1960 television version of Peter Pan and listened to Mary Martin sing some of those songs, I was transported back to my childhood home, the snug happiness of a good, old-fashioned protected childhood of the 50s and 60s. My heart ached and my eyes teared. How many times I had seen this version of Peter Pan on TV. I had even seen a live performance, complete with actors flying on wires, somewhere off Broadway. To me, THIS is Peter Pan, not the Disney version or any other movie. Watching this as a child, you really believed you could learn to fly.Now, to an adult's eye, the acting and sets must appear hopelessly inadequate, and crying out of CGI. But children don't need fancy sets when they have fantasy, for they can make forts out of piles of leaves. There is a lot of bad acting in children's movies, but this is an example of how it should be done for small children, at least with a fantasy subject. It is like reading a book to a child.The music is perfect, creating just the right emotional response. I see Leodard Bernstein gets some of the credit, though I am not clear how much. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Hershy Kay you will see that he was the collaborator and orchestrator for Bernstein on several projects, including this. During Bernstein's lifetime, Kay didn't get much credit. I was told by someone who knew both of them well (the chairman of the music department of Columbia Univeristy), that Kay did most of the work, while Bernstein just sketched out some tunes, and this includes Westside Story. In other words, Bernstein paid Kay to do the orchestration and keep quiet, while he took all the credit. But the Broadway pros knew the real story. I mention this because I am not sure how much of the record has been corrected.This, of course, is the sort of thing we adults worry about. It's amazing how much adults can find to argue about in America these day. And look at all the crazy wars and conflicts going on around the world. Sometimes adults can sure act like little children, and not in a good way.As to the video quality, I can't complain because I, like 99 percent of America, watched this originally on a B&W set, with far less detail than today's digital video. And children are pretty easy critics to please, or at least they were way back then.I could see taking this material and music and remaking it so it would be more effective for older kids and adults, if only they would stick relatively close to the original -- something most remakes don't do. The Disney animated version just leaves me cold, and the various movie versions I've seen over the years were at best OK. The key is retaining the focus on childhood fantasy, something most adults simply can't do. And that is the the strength of this version.There is a reason for adults to watch this: Mary Martin. She created so many roles on Broadway that were later made into movies, but rarely appeared in movies, herself. I suspect her style worked better on the stage, but here, on this television recreation of the Broadway who, it is perfect.

Emilie Yes, peter pan is a girl in this, and yes, they do sing quite a bit, but when i first saw this, i was hooked. a couple of days ago, i dug this oldie out of my movie rack and plugged it in, trying to figure out why i liked it. i remembered quickly, but as i grew old, i saw the stupid effects and the lame plot that holds the story together. i always hated the wendy, since she was so fake from beginning to end. even as a kid, i didnt like her. i always liked peter pan, since he could fly and never go old and play with indians and pirates forever and ever. now, from a different persceptive, i think that the role being portrayed by a girl opened up the possiblity that women could handle the roles of men, like peter pan. mary martin was an excellent singer and really did peter proud. but the effects are so fake, (**SPOILER**) like when the pirates want to poison the boys with a rich cake, but the hand of hook is like 6 ft long. that was fake, but i never overlooked it back then. plus the fact that peter includes us in the story, (**SPOILER**) when tink drank the poison for peter and we all need to clap to revive her. i always did, but yesterday i didnt and she still came to life. so, enjoy the real old version of peter pan, and even though the effects stink, try to overlook it and see the music, because some of those tunes are kinda catchy. (A A-)