Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

mike48128 Thus should have been better. The production values are far superior to the 1960 Mary Martin version which, sadly, is only available in bootleg copies of unknown quality. (Why doesn't NBC re-release it?)Cathy Rigby does a very good job of recreating the role, but in the close-ups she looks so much older than 40, and somehow older than Mary Martin. This detracts from the "youthful" look the character should have. Too bad she didn't make it when she was much younger.If you have never seen the 1960 Mary Martin version, you will probably like this version as the production values are first-rate and even the flying and acrobatics are better. However, NOBODY can re-create the performances of Mary Martin and Cyril Richard (as Capt. Hook)---they own the roles. Small children who have never seen the original version will probably love it. Minor faults: 1. The "Take your medicine" scene and "clap if you believe in fairies" scenes lack the "heart" of the original. 2. Capt. Hook is far more cruel in this version, and the mermaids are evil, which is closer to the Barrie story.Be aware that various "bootlegs" of the Mary Martin 1960 version are available. Watching them is like viewing a movie with your glasses off: The sound in good but the picture is fuzzy. Also, they are DVD-R's, which are not known to be very durable or long-lasting.

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.

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.

shellie I have seen several productions of Peter Pan and this has to be my favorite. It has the lighthearted appeal of the original story, with colorful and imaginative sets and costumes that are a joy to see. While children can enjoy the story as a new experience, those of us who are adults can enjoy the acting skills, as well as the stunning special effects. While they may be commonplace on most videos which were movies, the flying alone is a wonderful example.While I know that there are those who see Mary Martin as the ONLY Peter Pan, in the spirit of Peter Pan, I just have to say "phft-ft-ft-ft!" Mary Martin was always just Mary Martin playing a role. While with Cathy Rigby, I actually found myself forgetting that it was a woman, and not a young boy playing Peter Pan.