UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Fantasy >

Peter Pan

Peter Pan (2000)

October. 10,2000
|
7.3
|
G
| Fantasy Music Family TV Movie

The stage musical Peter Pan starring Cathy Rigby has toured the world to great acclaim. An adaptation of the famous 1954 musical directed by Jerome Robbins and starring Mary Martin, this new version is lasting proof that J.M. Barrie's tale of the boy who would never grow up is one of the kingpins of family entertainment. All the elements are in good form for this video production shot at the Mirada Theater in 2000 for the A&E Network. Some new songs have been added to the fabulous Moose Charlap-Carolyn Leigh score (which includes "Tender Shepherd," "I Gotta Crow," "I'm Flying," and "I Won't Grow Up"). But the biggest asset to this production are the spectacular flying sequences: Peter even soars over the audience at times. Martin was a stronger actress in a close-up, but Rigby is magical with her athleticism and spark, most notably in a percussion-filled song and dance number "Ugh-a-Wug.".

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

TxMike
2000/10/10

"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.

More
movibuf1962
2000/10/11

I only saw this production because I happened to find a VHS tape of it in a clearance rack in my local video store (and bought it for next-to-nothing). It is a new staging of the Broadway musical from the 1950's; this does not minimize its impact in any way, but there are many reviewers here who feel the need to make excessive (and in my opinion unfounded) comparisons between this production and the original one with Mary Martin- when, in fact, it is the same show. I have copies of both performances and primarily treasure the Martin production because of its historical significance as a time capsule of early television. This version with Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby version is brilliant; its presentation differs from the 1960 one as they captured an actual performance from a theater with an audience rather than tape on a network sound stage. As someone else noted below, Ms. Rigby's mannerisms and costuming better are indeed more boyish than Ms. Martin's (although I didn't care for Ms. Rigby's attempt at a British accent). The point is they each do it a little differently, Ms. Rigby opting for more exuberance. The book itself is a bit corny (doesn't matter which version), but chances are you're watching it with your own children or re-living your own childhood- and that's sort of the point. The Act 1 finale which shows Peter and the Darling clan fly out the window is stunning. Plan to lose yourself for two hours, and you'll probably believe you can fly when it's over.

More
caroline-25
2000/10/12

It must be nice to be able to afford to mount a theatrical production and cast yourself in the lead. Yes, this show looks good, but it lacks warmth - portraying the magical Neverland as a dark, almost scary place. Cathy Rigby's Peter, while technically good, comes across as an unlikeable bully with an extremely irritating (and unnecessary) English accent. Hook and the pirates did a wonderful job, John and Michael were good, the Indian dancing was great (and glossed over the fact that Tiger Lily couldn't really act). The thing that really bothered me was the fact that Wendy and the Lost Boys were played by adults. There are so many talented kids out there that could have done just as well while adding realism and genuine energy. For that matter, I'd like to see someone break tradition and have Peter Pan actually played by a young boy. Maybe if I ever find myself with a couple million dollars to spare, I'll make my own version...not starring me.

More
Lisa
2000/10/13

This version of Peter Pan is almost exactly identical as Mary Martin's 1955 version. Cathy Rigby is excellent in the role of Peter Pan. I had no idea she could even sing! The children are adorable, as they were in the Mary Martin version. There are some differences, for instance, in this version, Liza, the maid is barely in it. I loved that about the 1955 version. The acting quality by everyone in this one is superb, as is the singing. The actor who played Captain Hook has an incredible singing voice, as does the actress who played Wendy. I was amazed at the similarities these two versions had in common. Those who are used to Mary Martin play Peter Pan may not enjoy this version as much because the two (Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby) get into the parts in their own ways. The comedic moments in this version are brought out a little more than they were in the 1955 version. In my opinion, both are ideal for the entire family.

More