Peter Pan (1960)

Too much of everything

Sorry, this movie sucks

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

For a 1950's live production originally telecast in black and white (or was that because we did not own an expensive color TV back in the 60's?) my baby boomer childhood has wonderful memories of this simpler time when the family would gather around our black and white 24 inch television and be entertained by Peter Pan somehow magically flying out of the Darling families bedroom window with the children in tow. It is a time in my imagination that left me as a six year old just breathless.I have subsequently viewed Peter Pan many more times and in the decades that have followed I have passed the original Peter Pan dream VHS film on to my own children. The musical score with Mary Martin playing Peter Pan and Cyril Ritchard playing the dual role as the mean spirited (and for its time) quite scary Captain Hook as well as the Darling families father was just priceless and with so many exciting musical numbers to wow children of all ages.Quite simply television should bring back the luster that has seemed to have been forgotten by television programs such as this fine live musical telecast. If you ever get a chance to view this telecast which is rarely seen on television anymore I suggest that you gather up the family regardless of their age shut off your cell phones, computers, IPads, PlayStations and XBoxes and watch this original 1950's musical version of Peter Pan in its purest black and white form. Your family will enjoy the musical score and dance sequences, Tinkerbell's luminous glow, the tick-tocking clock that resides in the crocodiles stomach and constantly scares the nasty Captain Hook, and the children of Neverland wishing to find adoptive parents that will love them as much as our parents loved us.Exposing your children to a magical performance such as this Peter Pan version is worthy of a five ***** star perfect 10 out of 10 rating.

This movie was great, through the eyes of a child. Child of all ages will love it. The cast is actually very good at acting. The role of Peter Pan is casted by a girl actually, but don't let it fool you, she is an amazing actor and singer. You will be able to tell right from the start that she was meant for this role. It is a great movie to grow up with. Now of course not much beats the original animated version that Disney made, but for a movie with real people, it is the best one out there. There is so much imagination and creativity that went into this movie. The acting is set up on a stage and you can clearly tell you are in the audience watching from a far. It looks to me like it should have been made into a Broadway play. It follows the same story as Disney does with their version. If you have an active imagination or children you will love this movie! It is a great version of Peter Pan. Has some good songs in it as well!

Like so many others, I was a young thing when I saw Mary Martin's PETER PAN for the first time. I was perhaps 3 or 4, and I recall ever-so-clearly wanting to be Wendy, and wearing my pink housecoat (similar to Wendy's nightgown) every time I watched this film (which was at least once a week). Years later, this is one film that still remains near and dear to my heart.Out of all of the adaptations of PETER PAN I have ever seen (including the Disney version which is also a classic), this is my favorite. But then again, how could one dislike anything which preserves the legend of the fabulous Mary Martin? The cast is absolutely terrific. While Maureen Bailey does not "get on my nerves" as some reviewers have stated, she does tend to over-act a bit. Seeing as how this was pretty much a direct translation of the stage show, however, there is a good chance Maureen had, at some point, been involved in the show. Anyone who knows anything about acting knows that acting for the stage and acting for the screen are two totally different ballgames, which could have resulted in her over-acting. Nonetheless, she makes for a charming Wendy (and later Jane). Sondra Lee is terrific as Tiger Lily, although I find it appalling that in this day and age where the part of Caucasian, blue-collar Bronx bus driver Ralph Kramden is going to be played on-screen by African-American comedian Bernie Mac, someone actually has the audacity to say that Tiger Lily can't be blonde because "she's an Indian." Does the fact that Tiger Lily is blonde really prove to be detrimental to the movie in any way? No, no it doesn't. Margalo Gilmore, an extremely talented veteran of both stage and screen, is a lovable Mrs. Darling, although she only appears at the beginning and toward the end of the show. Cyril Ritchard will ALWAYS be, in my humble opinion, the BEST Captain Hook (/Mr. Darling) to ever grace a screen (apologies to Dustin Hoffman and others who have played the famed role). His Hook is deliciously malicious, cunning, and hysterically funny. And Mary Martin - I don't even know if I can put into words how incredible she is in the role of Peter. Several reviewers have scoffed at the fact of Peter Pan as a woman - saying it defeats the entire purpose of everything. Show me a ten year old boy who could have acted, sung, dance, and flew the part (and performed it eight times a week on the stage) and I'll eat your hat. This was the perfect role for Martin, by my understanding her favorite role (she wanted a tomboyish role similar to Annie in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN), and what a treat it is to have it preserved. As a woman approaching 50, she is ridiculously agile, in fine if not incredible voice, and a treat to behold. Top all of this off with narration by the lush voice of the wonderful Lynn Fontanne, and you have a winner! Several reviewers have scoffed at the "cheesey affects," the visibility of the wires, and the "bringing Tinker Bell back to life" scene. As a 19 year-old cinema major, I am constantly baffled by the fact that people in this day of CGI refuse to accept the limitations of film and television in 1960. Not only do they refuse to accept it, but they simply have no concept of the era. PETER PAN is a filmed version of a STAGE MUSICAL, folks. You're going to see the wires. There were no computers at that time to generate images and special effects - get over it and embrace the past. As far as clapping Tink back to life - this is an integral part of the movie (and stage play for that matter). It's the audience's chance to embrace childhood and to believe in the unbelievable. After all, that is what Peter Pan is really all about.All in all, this is an amazing film, and I have no doubt in my mind that even though youngsters today have been brought up with films using phenomenal CGI technology and such, they will fall in love with the beautiful and catchy music, the energetic choreography (by Jerome Robbins, no less!), and the story of a boy who could never grow up.

This is truly a magical movie. The singing, the colors, the flying. Mary Martin embodies Peter Pan so gracefully and whimsically that I cannot imagine this character as played by anyone else. I view this Peter Pan as the best and most classic depiction of the boy who never grew up.