AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

johnstonjames 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.

Caitlin 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.

TxMike "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.

ralphsf 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.