Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Dreadfully Boring

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Mary Martin s--ks. i say it with the deepest respect because i grew up watching her version as a child and looked forward to it every year i saw it. i know m.s. Martin's possessed minions will howl and protest in utter disbelief, but this role belongs to Cathy Rigby. trust me. i am a die hard fan of Barrie's mythical fairy land.i will give an explanation since i know this seems like iconic blasphemy. first. i'm fond of stinko Martin but...every stink'in role she originated on stage has been done better by everyone else. Julie Andrews, Mitzi Gaynor, Catherine Rigby. all better. it's a known fact. if i watch the flipp'in "Sound of Muzak", i wanna see Julie Andrews. not squeaky, nasally, cornball Mary Martin. and Mitzi Gaynor is a lot prettier and is a better singer.ALSO. i like cheesy, rinky dink, low budget productions and retro television stuff, but the production values in the Mary Martin production are awful. they look like kindergarten class put the whole thing together with paste, and glue and scotch tape. the sets don't even look cardboard, it looks like construction paper. and even a three year old can tell Peter Pan is just some weird, middle aged broad acting like a queer pansy.the Catherine Rigby production however, is far superior. the sets are lavish and detailed stage sets. some of the finest i've seen and i've looked at pics of many Broadway plays and have seen many on stage including 'Peter Pan'. and Lady Catherine is far more convincing as a dude than fat butt Martin who could barely fit her enormous behind in those stupid tights. sorry true. Cathy Rigby's outfit isn't gay looking like Martin's and Cat is really rather butch in her portrayal of PP. a kid is more likely to believe Rigby's a boy more than the motherly looking Martin.look. i think cheapo retro TV is a hoot. but there is better retro TV than the original TV 'Pan' production even. The Leigh and Charlap musical is a national treasure. it deserves the best production values possible for stage. where it truly belongs. i'm also all for chicks and dudettes playing the "Peter" role. that's a classic stage tradition and it should be kept that way for this production. but a little more realism in the performance than what Martin offered won't hurt it.and of course mostly, Cat Rigby is without a doubt the most proficient 'Peter' on flying wires ever. i have read all about all the other numerous "Peters" throughout the play's history, and not a single one of them was a gymnast like Rigby. a gold medal gymnast no less. seeing Rigby fly the wires is breath taking and an Olympic feat.this is my favorite version of "Peter Pan". sometimes improvements are genuinely improvements. the other versions (except for the awful 'Hook') are all excellent and the Disney version is, well, Disney. it's adorable and cute. but this is in the true spirit of 'Peter Pan'. the way Barrie had intended it originally. as a pantomime and a Fariy play.

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.

This movie was 'OK' as far as the casting that they used.Peter Pan productions have always been a bone picker with me because for some unknown reason they have always used 'over the hill' actors and actresses in most of the main roles. The author wrote about kids and kids should be cast in the leading roles! Someday some producer and director will realize this and we will have a 'smashing' musical production of this great KIDS story.

In Mary Martin's Peter Pan, the dances were very thrown together. This is not a bad thing when the cast can make it look like that is not the case. That WAS not the case. You could see mistake after mistake, and you could tell when even the littlest mistake was made.Furthermore, the casting for Mary Martin's was terrible. Wendy had a piercing to the ear sounding voice, and Mary Martin in no way, shape, or form made a believable little boy. She instead made a believable little old man.In Cathy's version, everyone sang on key, and everyone seemed prepared for the performance at hand. Cathy's performance made it easy to forget that she was an adult woman, and truly made you believe that she was that of a young boy. This is not easy for many actors/actresses out there. What's funny is that she had little training. Mary Martin had lots.Makes you wonder who possessed the real talent.