Peter Pan (1960) Poster

(1960 TV Special)

User Reviews

Add a Review
33 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Oh, the wonderful memories this brings back...
Marta4 November 1999
As I was growing up, this film always had a special place in my heart next to The Wizard of Oz; it was shown live in 1955 and 1960. The 1960 production was preserved on kinescope and then shown once or twice in 1961 or 1962 and never again until 1991 or so. During those years that it was forgotten by the networks, there wasn't a baby-boomer out there that had truly forgotten it. It was one of those magical shows that we all talked about and wished they'd run again. Now, it's finally available on tape and on DVD; the DVD version is very well done and the picture is colorful, bright and clear, even though it's from the only kinescope copy of the live show. It's very much a filmed stage play, and the sets reflect this. It was preserved in color, which is a miracle considering there were virtually no color sets in existence then.

Mary Martin is great as Peter (she was 47 years old when she did this very acrobatic role!), but Cyril Ritchard pretty much steals the production from her with his Hook. He and his pirates are so over the top that the other actors are hard put to keep up. Watch his face and his body during the singing and dancing scenes; he's just a delight. The songs are all wonderful, too. This is a film that probably won't be very popular with the children of the 90's, but my guess is that it was really meant for those of us who loved it when we were kids, because I purchased the DVD the minute it came out. Buy it while it's still available, and enjoy the memories.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brimstone and gall, what cozening is here?!
Ashley29 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I was there in 1960 when Peter Pan was taped....
echoch115 January 2007
This thread has some confusing information in it. I think I can add some information.

The 1955 version of Peter Pan was done live from NY and then redone the following year. That version was preserved on Kinescope, but not videotape.

In 1960, NBC re-staged the production and videotaped it in their wonderful old Brooklyn studios - by the way, I believe that The Cosby Show in the '80s was produced at the same NBC Brooklyn Studios.

The 1960 production was videotaped and rebroadcast a number of times, and may be available on VHS now.

As the 4-year old son of an NBC publicity flack, I had the wonderful privilege of attending the taping of the show and I have a magnificent b&w photograph of me, in a gray flannel suit - in gray shorts no less - with Mary Martin in full costume.

It is one of the treasures of my childhood and Peter Pan has always been a favorite of mine.

By the way, there is/was a cast recording of Peter Pan - I want to say that it was on RCA Victor records, since of course, RCA owned NBC. But I have always been under the impression that is was of the Broadway play. This thread implies that the show never made it to Broadway, so I am not sure. However, I am certain that there was a record - vinyl, 33 1/3, long play, etc.

"I know a place where dreams are born...."

10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A television triumph three different times.
movibuf196218 October 2002
It should be clarified that the wonderful Mary Martin actually did "Peter Pan" on television three different times, and I'm relatively sure that only the last version is available on home video. The 1955 broadcast was done on bona-fide live television, as a chapter in the PRODUCER'S SHOWCASE anthology a few years before videotape- and I imagine must've been a sight to see. It was re-staged all over again, live, the following year, and I suspect that this version is on kinescope- but is probably only viewable at the MT&R in New York or L.A. (There are production stills of all the performances, and Martin's costume and hair color are slightly different each time.) It was finally videotaped, in 'living color,' in 1960, and if you are as old as I am, you may remember the network re-broadcasts always being preceded by the blooming NBC peacock. The tape is now a DVD, and still includes the original network cards, but sadly, not the peacock. It holds up quite nicely, although the heavy stage makeup and flying wires are now painfully obvious. But it is a marvelous time capsule of an earlier, gentler, period of TV entertainment.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
To me, the undisputed champion of Peter Pan films.
FentonMeiks4 January 2004
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.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One Great Movie!
Stardust_4u_226 December 2004
This movie is one of the best versions of the Peter Pan story that I have ever seen I've been watching it for years and now at the age of 20 I still find myself singing the songs and tapping my toe to the beat.

It was done in the traditional theater way, with a woman playing Peter Pan, but Mary Martin did such a wonderful job you never think of her as a 'girl'. Tinkerbell is a light that whizzes across the stage, and the audience is drawn into the movie when asked to clap for the little fairy after drinking poison meant for Peter.

This is a wonderful movie and I recommend it for adults and children alike, its full of the wholesome kind of magic that you hardly see nowadays in film.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheeseboy obviously has no clue....
suzyqfd1 October 2004
what the medium for this production was. It was one of the first Broadway stage productions that had been duplicated exactly for television. The idea was ahead of it's time, and also has preserved Mary Martin's and the rest of the cast's memorable performances which otherwise would have been lost forever. People today are too much into "special effects" instead of good down home theater. All of the performers perform admirably. My son cannot get enough of this video and I'm happy to say that I was able to obtain it when it was reissued a few years back. I wish we had more of this type of entertainment of the "classics". If anyone knows of any, let me know if at all possible.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good for Kids and Parents
Philoalexandros25 June 2005
Awesome! Clearly, the commenter above didn't know one thing from another. The characters were masterfully played. Peter Pan was delightfully mischievous and willful while Captain Hook was devious and intriguing. The children sometimes got a little on the annoying side, but they are little to be dealt with, though Wendy could be accused of being whiny. Tinker Bell was classically played. Though Tiger Lily couldn't be played by today's standards, her song is fun as well are the animals which chase around Neverland. This makes a great play for children with active imaginations to watch and which parents can sit through without hitting themselves over the head with an empty video box. Fun, light hearted music and a hint of a moral.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Happy 100th in 2004
juliafwilliams27 December 2003
This version of Peter Pan is etched forever in my memory. A great score, a great cast -- what more is there to say.

Yes, Miss Mary Virginia Martin was 40-something when she played the title part, all the while introducing the world to The Sound of Music on Broadway, and she played THAT splendidly as well.

As this great story marks its centennial in 2004, it would be a coup to offer the 1960 version on DVD.

Just think lovely thoughts.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A childhood dream
bekayess25 December 1999
My earliest recollection of seeing PETER PAN (which, like Marta's, was second only to THE WIZARD OF OZ as the "movie" of my childhood) must have been sometime around 63 or 64 (when I was only 6 or 7)--I'm not even sure of the year, maybe earlier, maybe later, but I remember watching it on my aunt and uncle's TV in their basement family room and clapping for Tinker Bell. Then, many years later, I read that NBC was going to offer us another showing (1988?) and I had my VCR ready. Despite the primitive video tape recording of the picture and sound, this version of PETER PAN still enchants me at age 43 (well, in two weeks, anyway). And how wonderful it is to have Mary Martin's performance recorded for posterity. What is more interesting to me is that when I finally had the opportunity to direct the music for a stage production (in 1994, and with a wonderful actor named Kathy St. George as Peter) it was that the adults in the audience were the ones most caught up in the spell--but the children, too, "believed." I'm watching the video now and Tink's about to die, so I better get ready to show my belief in her.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A timeless classic, worthy of note by someone other than cheeseboy.
bleached_eden13 May 2004
In my opinion, this film should not be missed by any child, adolescent, or adult who likes music and loved J.M. Barrie's masterpiece novel. Unlike the animated Disney film made seven years earlier (also a classic musical), this film follows the original story more closely, as adapted by Jerome Robbins for the stage. The music is beautiful, catchy, and fun. Peter Pan is portrayed by a woman because any male old enough to play the role would have gone through puberty -- thus no longer looking or sounding like a 10 year old. In this day of shows about cross dressing and sexuality bending, is it really such a stretch to believe that a woman in costume is a little boy?

Of course its special effects are lacking in quality: it was filmed in 1960, before the innovation of Lucasfilm, and is not just a movie, but a filming of an actual stageplay. This is the reason for the "poor" special effects. Sorry, videogame generation, there's no CGI, so you'll have to leave something to your imagination...if you still have some.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A delightful production
zinkster26 December 2003
The teaming of Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard as Pan and Hook, along with the wonderful songs in this musical version, make this production a fondly

remembered treat -- one which ought to be available on video and DVD for

modern viewers. This production was aired on TV around Christmas for several

years in the 1960s as I recall, but has onlr rarely been shown since. It's

interesting that the most current version of Peter Pan (2003) and this 1960

version (a TV production of the 1955 Broadway musical in which Ritchard won a best supporting actor Tony for his role as Hook/Darling) are similar in plot and tone, both being based on Barrie's play, and each standing well above both the lightweight 1953 Disney animated film and the other more recent treatments

such as "Hook". Watch this version once and you'll always remember Miss

Martin's grand voice crooning "It's not on any chart, you must find it in your heart: Never, Neverland..."
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Children's Movie
brass_monkey7822 September 2002
This movie is a delightful Broadway play with Mary Martin as Peter Pan. It features cute little songs and dances, not to mention the humorous lines of Cyril Ritchard. I grew up watching the video and I always enjoyed it, even if Peter Pan was a woman and Tiger Lily was a blonde, blue-eyed girl. I give this movie an 8 out of 10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Does so wonderfully in bringing out the inner child within
TheLittleSongbird13 October 2013
This and the Cathy Rigby versions are fantastic in their own way, they are both such fun to watch and have a real sense of magic. With personal preference, I'm leaning towards Rigby's for the better flying sequences, being a little more polished, the continuous energy and being a little closer to the book. That is not to knock off Martin's in any way, it has great nostalgic value, the accents are more natural-sounding(pretty much the only real criticism with the Rigby version was how overdone some of the accents were) and does a marginally better job of bringing out the inner child within you. The ending is a little better done here too, it's genuinely heart-rending. The costumes and sets here are beautiful and colourful. The music is lively, charming and hugely memorable, Never Never Land and the poignant Distant Melody being the one that stood out the most(Mysterious Lady was a little pointless but so much fun to watch), and the scoring is lush in orchestration and rich in sound. The script is filled with snappy lines, it's often hilarious especially with Hook and Smee- and with Tiger Lily's priceless "Famous Indian proverb, when in doubt RUUNNNNNNN!"- and it seemed like everybody in the cast thought so, while the choreography is full of energy(like the Rigby version especially with the Pirates and the Indians) and the whole storytelling has a light-hearted charm.

The Lost Boys are immensely likable, no sense of nerves at all, the Indians and Tiger Lily are characterful and magnetic dancers and the Pirates are a genuinely rollicking lot. Maureen Bailey is charming and spunky as Wendy, her voice is pleasant and strong if a little too mature-sounding at times. Nana is adorable and this version has one of the cutest Michaels, John is spirited and the narration is wonderfully sincere. Cyril Ritchard and particularly Mary Martin are what you'll remember most about this Peter Pan. Ritchard is both funny and menacing, the funniest parts at their best are hilarious though it's not a performance that is played-for-laughs, there are times like in the capture of the children where Hook is quite dangerous. He also plays Mr Darling, a tradition is for Captain Hook and Mr Darling to be played by the same actor, and he is very convincing at being uptight As Peter, Martin is just wonderful, Cathy Rigby may be more boyish and more athletic but the energy and likability levels between the two actresses are equal. But Martin just edges out Rigby in the singing department(though I still adore Rigby's voice), Martin's voice is just beautiful to listen to but she also brings lilt and emotion to her singing that Rigby doesn't quite do as effectively. Never Never Land is moving, gorgeously sung and not just one of the highlights of the production but also a standout of any individual rendition from any musical seen recently. All in all, a wonderful classic that is more than a nostalgic childhood favourite. 10/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mesmerizing family adventure = a lifetime of magical dreams
Ed-Shullivan3 September 2015
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite an Accomplishment
Hitchcoc23 January 2015
I first saw this when I was thirteen years old. I have to admit, it was a bit odd to me then. I mean, who was this middle aged blonde woman playing a boy? It was gratifying to me that my kids played the tape of this over and over because over time I came to realize how well done this was. The great Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard were worth the price of admission. Granted there are some things that weren't politically correct, especially those relating to Native Americans, but one need only look at the media of the time (especially the classic Westerns) to realize that this shortsightedness and insensitivity was just a part of our country. If you can look past that, watch the performance of Martin, with her eternal optimism and Ritchard, dancing and prancing with that glint in his eye, up to no good. Yes, we can see the wires, and Nana is a dog costume with some small person inside. But the songs and the delightful story will live on.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Only Available as "Public Domain" Still the Best Version!
mike4812821 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Argh me matey!, only available as an "unofficial" version which is a 2nd generation fuzzy copy of the 1980 Goodtimes (Universal) DVD. Originally produced on color videotape in 1960 and shown on NBC last in 1980. The best production ever, due to the charismatic Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard as Peter Pan and Capt. Hook, respectively. Is it perfect? No. Is it wonderful? yes. Nobody has even done it as well, although Cathy Rigby came close, but her Capt. Hook is no match for the "prissy" and hilarious Cyril from 1960. There are production faults in 1960, as it was filmed-live-on-tape. The transfer is uneven, as I understand it required special technology to decode it, as the 1960 scanning system was far different from todays' technology. Someday, I hope I can buy a real, honest-to-goodness, authorized copy. Universal owns it. They just need to get permission from the current copyright owners. The 2014 remake, in my opinion, was an uneven disaster. They even changed, omitted, and added some of the songs.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good for young children!
ashleyparsons1152 March 2011
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!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Magical Musical for Children... and Adults (but no one in between!)
Henry Kujawa22 December 2008
Born in 1959, I can't be sure I saw this play on TV in 1960... but we definitely had the soundtrack LP, and I know I watched it in 1963 (not sure about '66 either, but, PROBABLY). Having taped it off the air in 1989, and finally played it back tonight, that makes 3 (or 4!) times I've seen it.

I probably listened to the LP more times than any other version, so I'm no doubt coming to this from an unusual place. I used to wonder about the Disney film, as, being so familiar with the Mary Martin stage play, the promos for the Disney film just seemed "wrong" somehow. (Probably the way, as a Ron Ely fan, seeing promos for a Mike Henry TARZAN film made me, as a kid, say, "THAT's not the REAL Tarzan!") Inexplicably, my Dad NEVER took me to see the Disney film, no matter how many times it was reissued, and I finally had to go myself in the late 80's-- pretty close to the time this was finally rerun on TV. I came to love the Disney film on its own merits, though I recognized, especially when I was able to tape the stage play, the big differences.

I see it this way... the Disney film was made for "family" audiences, and so, there's maybe about 5-10 minutes worth of it that's truly "embarrassing" for adults to watch. The stage play, however, is aimed at kids... and so, about 90-95% of it is "embarrassing" for adults to watch! I'm talking purely about the story and the way it's told here. The funny thing is, when I watched it in 1989, at the age of 30, it hit me that there were certain things in the story-- certain concepts and ideas-- that would go RIGHT OVER the heads of any kids watching it. I felt you had to be an ADULT to be "mature" enough to "get" what the story was really saying. So, ever since, I've joked that the stage play is aimed at "children and adults-- but no one in between". Teenagers are at that stage of growing up where growing up and being "cool" makes them forget childhood innocence-- but when you get old enough to have kids of your own, if you're lucky, you can remember it all over again.

I guess one does go thru "different rooms" as one goes thru life-- because, having gone to quite a number of live stage shows in the 1990s, I found this MUCH easier to watch now than I did back in '89! Cyril Ritchard (who almost reminds me in spots of Rex Harrison) is a RIOT!! And yes, the bit about him almost being "seduced" by the "spirit of the forest" is particularly hilarious.

The Disney cartoon may be one of my favorite Disney cartoons-- I adore their version of Tinkerbell!-- but to me, the stage play is the "real" version. I'm so glad someone had the foresight to PRESERVE it for posterity back in 1960-- something I wish they would do with all famous stage plays. (Is there a tape of Julie Andrews' MY FAIR LADY in existence? A few minutes of it were run on PBS as part of a "History of Broadway" documentary and it brought TEARS to my eyes!) Now if only I could see videos of the Sandy Duncan and Bonnie Langford versions of the play...!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
TV Musical at it's BEST!?!
shanfrina19 November 2007
Hey Kids!?!...

... Even at 60 now, I find this classic TV musical a MUST see!?! It's "TIMELESS," as Barbra would say. If you've NEVER seen it, rent or buy it for the inner child of vous!!! - You KNOW, as a print journalist of 35+ yrs. in la mainstream & gay media (on both coasts), ESPECIALLY 17 with "Billboard Magazine" in L.A., Vegas & the Bflo./Rochester, N.Y. markets, I'm just SAD there's no trailer-to-watch OR music-to-hear!?! Legendary Broadway composer Jerome Robbins?!? You CAN'T get-ANY-better!!! ... Great songs like: "Neverland," "Lullaby" & "I'll Never Grow Up!" Hope YOU haven't. MOIS-never-WILL. "2nd * to the right & straight on 'til morning!" SEE YA THERE!?!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The 1960 version was done on videotape
duraflex27 February 2007
Without any doubt, I can say emphatically that this 1960 show is NOT a kinescope (film copy off a TV tube) but a videotape made from a television switcher. It was shot on 1st generation RCA TK 40/41 color television cameras in NBC's Brooklyn, NY studios. Mostly it was done in full segments live to 2" quad tape but I could detect at least a couple pick-up edits. The cameras were huge and incredibly heavy and the unevenness of the studio floor shows up in some of the shots as the cameras are dollied in and out for close ups.

We recently showed the VHS version of this show to our 4 year old. He liked it but he likes the Disney animated show better.

The technical quality of this VHS version from GoodTimes Home Video is only fair. Oddly enough, it is recorded in LP mode - the 4 hour speed. The audio track does not even use the VHS hi-fi tracks so the fidelity is really lacking. If it had been done in the best SP mode (2 hour speed) using the hi-fi tracks - the picture and sound would both have been better. The box reads SP mode but the tape is not.

I have seen other color videotape of this era and it can actually be quite good - this tape is not. Perhaps the DVD transfer (about 1999) was better but I have never seen it. DVD is inherently sharper than VHS. The VHS version was produced in 1990. VHS quality has also improved substantially in the last 17 years.

The show is what it is - and for me - the weak technical quality really gets in the way of the presentation. Although I loved it as a kid, it disappoints me now.

Mary Martin is good but Cyril Ritchard as Captain Hook is fantastic!

Even as a kid, I never did understand why they had a woman play Peter. Lord knows there have always been plenty of very talented boys who could play the role. Disney Studios and MGM were never at a loss to find the right kid to fill any part - no matter how challenging.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
More enjoyable than the animation
rebeljenn1 March 2006
This version of Peter Pan was, in my opinion, better than the Disney animation. Peter Pan is played by Mary Martin, and the film is made like a theatre production. It was much more enjoyable to watch than the animation, although I never really enjoyed the story of Peter Pan and the lost boys. This film has its charm because of the techniques used in production. It's interactive more than anything else, and the flying scenes are amazing. It is amazing what they could do to create the story, and I guess that is why it is better (in my opinion) than the animation. I would recommend this to children as I think it is enjoyable and I think Mary Martin did a good job.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mary Martin played Peter Pan on television many times
frenchjr2530 September 2005
The version of Peter Pan that we have available to the public today was done in 1960 and done on video. There is a 1955 version, the second one that Martin was in for NBC, that was done on kinescope and still survives but not available to the public. A piece of this version was used on the "TV Guide & TV Land Present: The 100 Most Memorable TV Moments". It should be noted that Mary Martin and her husband had this version of Peter Pan written for them to do on Broadway, according to her autobiography. They also added the classic songs that are now so familiar to many of us, like "I Want to Crow". Mary was also in the original Broadway production of "The Sound of Music", but by the time the movie was made she was considered to old. While she was doing "The Sound of Music" on Broadway, she was in rehearsals for the stage version "Peter Pan". While in the harness made for her to fly there was a problem and she ended up breaking her arm and had to do "The Sound of Music" in a sling. I do wish that NBC would release a special version of Peter Pan that includes both versions (1955 and 1960) and it could include interviews with surviving cast members, and her son Larry Hagman.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
i grew up watching this
Emilie15 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, peter pan is a girl in this, and yes, they do sing quite a bit, but when i first saw this, i was hooked. a couple of days ago, i dug this oldie out of my movie rack and plugged it in, trying to figure out why i liked it. i remembered quickly, but as i grew old, i saw the stupid effects and the lame plot that holds the story together. i always hated the wendy, since she was so fake from beginning to end. even as a kid, i didnt like her. i always liked peter pan, since he could fly and never go old and play with indians and pirates forever and ever. now, from a different persceptive, i think that the role being portrayed by a girl opened up the possiblity that women could handle the roles of men, like peter pan. mary martin was an excellent singer and really did peter proud. but the effects are so fake, (**SPOILER**) like when the pirates want to poison the boys with a rich cake, but the hand of hook is like 6 ft long. that was fake, but i never overlooked it back then. plus the fact that peter includes us in the story, (**SPOILER**) when tink drank the poison for peter and we all need to clap to revive her. i always did, but yesterday i didnt and she still came to life. so, enjoy the real old version of peter pan, and even though the effects stink, try to overlook it and see the music, because some of those tunes are kinda catchy. (A A-)
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best version
jeromezaha1 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I loved Mary Martin like I love Julie Andrews. Growing up in the 80s we had two real versions (possibly only two) of peter pan. Walt Disney's original, and Mary Martin play taped "peter pan" with Cyril Ritchard. I had it on VHS, but it seemed so clear like it was filmed in the 80s. Still looks good. "Spoilers": Never seen the "remake" with Cathy Rigby. I watched Christopher walken as hook. Rhythmically talking, but with more actual singing then Kirk.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews