'Peter Pan and Wendy' Review: David Lowery's Disney Remake is a Lifeless Bore
While ‘Peter Pan & Wendy’ rights many wrongs perpetuated by Disney’s 1953 animated film, it’s also a dour remake.
Let’s start with the good: David Lowery’s Peter Pan & Wendy does not fall into the stereotypes perpetuated by Disney’s 1953 animated film. Its treatment of Tiger Lily (Alyssa Wapanatâhk) was smartly reinterpreted by making her a part of Peter Pan’s (Alexander Molony) lost boys. The movie also removed the rivalry between Wendy (Ever Anderson) and Tinker Bell (Yara Shahidi), who grew jealous of her as she spent more time with Peter Pan discovering Neverland. It instead gives Wendy (and Tinker Bell) agency and, in turn, makes them fully-fledged characters that can hold their own in battle instead of acting like two damsels in distresses.
Alexander Molony is also terrific as Peter Pan. He almost gives Jeremy Sumpter (the best live-action version of Peter Pan. Sorry, not sorry.) a run for his money. Molony embodies the carefree spirit of Peter Pan perfectly, zipping through the action with extreme confidence as he attempts to defeat his arch-nemesis Captain Hook (Jude Law). His movements are far less elaborate than the animated version, but his energy is more spontaneous. Molony is the only reason anyone should watch Peter Pan & Wendy because the rest of the film is one of Disney’s most unimaginative remakes.
In the wake of The Super Mario Bros. Movie being a box office juggernaut, Lowery recently said that his aim for children’s entertainment was to make something akin to My Neighbor Totoro and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial stating that it will provide a nourishing experience to not only children but also families. There isn’t a single frame of Peter Pan & Wendy that feels “nourishing” to the eyes and ears, especially when adapting such a timeless tale that’s told children that the impossible is possible, that you can dream even when you grow up, and that imagination is the strongest weapon.
You’d think that a film where imagination and the escapist fantasy of not wanting to grow up will take full advantage of a camera that captures not only the imagination of a child but also the wonderfully unpredictable world of Neverland as a twisted paradise, containing both lush vistas (where the Mermaids live, for example) and terrifying caverns (Skull Rock). Peter Pan & Wendy never takes advantage of Neverland's endless possibilities. Hell, the terrible Joe Wright adaptation of Peter Pan, which saw Hugh Jackman sing Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit, is far more imaginative for the eyes in its staging of action sequences and its presentation of Neverland than the Disney-approved remake of Peter Pan. Think about that for a second.
If anything, Peter Pan & Wendy’s aesthetic resembles that of a bad fan film you’d find on YouTube in 2011, where Disney remakes were taking off, and the masses would see them without complaining. Bojan Bazelli is a talented cinematographer who has made the most corporate-made blockbusters look somewhat palatable. Look at his last movie, Murder Mystery 2, as an example. There’s a terrific (and taut) fight scene in a car that moves at an incredible pace. The camera moves with the actors and adds incredible energy to the proceedings.
Peter Pan & Wendy has impressive camera tricks but is quickly hampered by multiple cuts overpowering every action sequence. The scenes zip incredibly fast because the editors cut them hyperactively. Nothing is more nourishing than being unable to discern what’s on-screen because the editors always cut away from the violence and the fact that the child actors aren’t so experienced at fighting. The film is so rapidly stitched together that many cuts don’t coalesce in a somewhat compelling way but consistently break continuity.
A kids’ film that isn’t visually appealing feels criminal nowadays, but it wouldn’t have mattered if the story and the actors were good. Aside from Molony, most of the performances in Peter Pan & Wendy are incredibly risible, starting with a phoned-in Jude Law who can’t for the life of him seem to care about playing Captain Hook. Of course, it can be intimidating to try, and top Dustin Hoffman and Jason Isaacs’ (the best Hook. Sorry, not sorry) take on the character.
However, Law was a great fit for Hook (so was Jim Gaffigan as Smee, who provides many laughs), and could’ve given a great performance if he cared. Some of the child actors are fine as the lost boys, but there’s also Ever Anderson as Wendy, who cannot give a convincing lead performance for her life of her, even if she desperately tries. She can’t match Molony's charm as Peter Pan, who shares flourishes of great chemistry with Law’s Hook.
And since audiences mostly know the crux of the story, without much of an overhaul of the material, the film is a painful bore to watch. The most problematic aspects of the original are thankfully gone, and this is something that I’ll always champion. This will hopefully signal to future remakes that they should avoid the harmful stereotypes of the original (if it contains any) and deliver a more progressive and universal product. In the case of Peter Pan & Wendy, it’s completely justifiable and appreciated. However, not attempting to make a whimsical and imaginative movie on a live-action canvas feels like Lowery has completely missed the point of why audiences have fallen in love with Peter Pan on the big screen since 1953.
Kids’ movies deserve better. Children deserve to transport themselves into a world filled with endless possibilities, potent images that stick with you long after the movie is over, and memorable characters that act as role models for them as they “grow up.” We demand so little of our movies nowadays that most of the “content” coming out, even from high-profile filmmakers like Lowery, feels completely devoid of imagination, whimsy, and human feeling. The fact that most Disney remakes only serve to rake in money, without a single care about quality or about a compelling story, is profoundly disheartening. There’s a reason why Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and, on a more relevant note, Hook, were nourishing for children and are still being quoted to this day, whilst a product like Peter Pan & Wendy will be quickly forgotten. I’ll let you figure it out for yourself.