I just hated this!

I didn't love it, but I'm not in a hurry to hate it either.

My personal favourite adaptation is the 2003 version, and for my taste it has a lot of things that are difficult to beat - and having watched it a couple of days before this new one I was pleasantly surprised to discover Stanley Tucci in the role of Hook.

And I quite liked the idea of framing the story in GOSH - I think it's inherent within the story that modernisation shouldn't affect it. Not that I wouldn't prefer the Edwardian setting, I'm just saying I don't think it's an inherently bad thing, and I quite liked the idea of the new Wendy being 'in dialogue' with the story, imagining it in her own terms.

But - necessary? No. And probably I'd agree that this film wasn't good enough to justify it in the end. Although, the idea of Hook being the Surgeon is intriguingly reminiscent of A Matter of Life And Death...

As to the 'chav'-ness of Peter and Wendy... I actually thought that seemed appropriate. Tinkerbell swearing amused me, and seemed entirely consistent with the character. I kind of always assumed that Tinkerbell has always been swearing, because that's the kind of creature she is. Not that I would want other adaptations to adopt this, I just liked it on this occasion.

BUT - the depiction of Peter seemed just fine to me. I always thought the point of the Lost Boys is that they're feral, especially Peter. One of the reactions to the casting in the 2003 version was an objection to Peter having an American accent - but that seemed just fine to me, because I can easily think of Huckleberry Finn as a Lost Boy. Well likewise, I think Peter actually seemed like a Lost Boy in this.

What there wasn't, however - as you say - was any real sense of magic. Terrible shame. The overall feeling was sadly one of gloom, so these other characteristics weren't given the lift that might have made them more interesting - instead they were let down by the tone, I think.

All of which said - I didn't hate it, I thought it was interesting... albeit an interesting failure.

Sadly, there isn't a perfect adaptation of Peter Pan. None of them are without merits, but none of them really capture the true sense of adventure in the story. I don't need much magic, as this really isn't a story about magic, but I do need a certain sense of youthful adventure. I feel like Hook comes the closest to capturing the feeling of Barrie's novel, despite the fact that it is a reimagining rather than an adaptation.

While I miss some of the direct quotes that other adaptations include, I was still fond of this new version. It really played up the idea of Peter Pan as a representation of Death, which many scholars have noted about the character in the past. I enjoyed the melding together of the hospital and Neverland as well. It was a great way of depicting the coming together of dream and reality, and Stanley Tucci as Hook was quite good. He brought a wonderful flamboyance to the role that has not been seen since Dustin Hoffman took on the role. It is certainly not a perfect adaptation, but it was entertaining, and it is a welcome addition to my Peter Pan collection.

I had great hopes for this but switched off as soon as I heard Peter speak and the horrible grating sound they used for Tinkerbell

I'm in the middle of watching it right now, I keep wondering when it's going to be good, I'm not enjoying it. The only thing about it I've liked so far is the surgeon, it's a very accurate portrayal I think. (Except he's too nice lol.)

I just watched it and I barely made it to the end. The idea was great and I liked Tinkerbell, the lead girl was great but Peter Pan and the rest of the kids bar 1 or 2, were awful. No real acting, no tears even. Sometimes I thought I was watching a taped school play it was that bad. I wonder why you would sink so much money into a wonderful idea then execute it so badly? I won't be watching again, it is definitely not a re-watch type film/tv show. Shame.