It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I have always adored Peter Pan since I was a little girl and i still do love it. When I was going to go and see Cathy Rigby preform live as Peter Pan i didn't know what too expect because Mary Martin did a spectacular job and the Disney film was excellent as well. When the music started up I knew this was going to be a brilliant performance of Peter Pan. The stunts were fantastic, the singing was amazing, and the acting did have some faults at times but you forget all about them as soon as a new song comes on. The harness stunts (in I'm Flying) and the drum stick choreography (in Ugh-a-Wugg) blew me away. to sum it all up if u love musicals, amazing choreography and a great story line, Peter pan is one of the musicals for u to enjoy.

I have seen both the Mary Martin version and this version, and even though I have fond memories of watching the Mary Martin version when I was younger, I enjoyed this one a lot more. The Mary Martin version was excellent, don't get me wrong, but while watching it, you consciously think to yourself,"This is a woman playing a little boy." In many ways, this can ruin the experience. In the Cathy Rigby version, Rigby acts as a little boy would. She uses the gestures a boy would, she moves as a boy would, and when delivering her lines and singing you actually believe that she is a little boy that just did not want to grow up. Elisa Sagardia was also wonderfully enchanting in her role as Wendy. When watching it you feel as if Wendy is your own sister or mother. Everything is an improvement from the Mary Martin version-the pirates are animated and hilarious, the lost boys are also quite funny and child-like, the Indians have wonderful dance sequences and you almost feel hypnotized while watching them. I suppose it is a matter of taste and what appeals to you more-charming, quaint, heart-warming productions, or believable, spectacular, animated, eye-catching, mind boggling, rhythmic, hypnotic productions. Out of 10 stars, I give it a solid 7 1/2.

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.