![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 19th, 2004 01:08 pmRipped off a fingernail this morning.
This is a good thing.
Because I did it playing guitar. Which means I am playing guitar again, after a long long period of not. I blame the neglect on post-traumatic stress caused by the I-tried-to-build-a-home-studio-and-ended-up-destroying-my-computer incident.
We saw Peter Pan on Sunday.
I think we've become so accustomed to seeing children's movies that throw a nod and a wink to their adult audience that it was disorientating to see one without any irony.
Okay, Pan has a subtext about sexual awakening, writ so large only a child could miss it. But apart from the Freudian love triangle, it's all pirates and teddy-bears and jolly "hurrahs!" The plot runs around like a kid with ADD, and director P. J. Hogan never really tames it enough to provide a coherent emotional progression. You have to switch your brain into neutral, and just enjoy it moment to moment.
There was a hell of a lot of visual effects in the film. Some were breath-taking. Some were not. Wire-work never looks as good as you would like it too. I would have preferred to see a Tinkerbell who was actually sly or mischievous, instead of merely pantomime naughty. And I think Hogan made the wrong choice in making the ordinary world of London look as fairy-tale as Never Never Land.
Actually, the whole London sequence could have done with a bit of that missing irony. Lines about a young girl having a hidden kiss in the corner of her mouth might have seemed very touching to the sentimental Edwardians, but these days it comes out as absurdly florid.
But Jason Isaacs is all menace and charm as Hook, Rachel Hurd-Wood makes a perfectly gawky-yet-beautiful Wendy, and Jeremy Sumpter does a fine line in sly grins and steely-eyed self-confidence. Even if he keeps dropping his accent. And has to trounce around in one of Ziggy Stardust's old costumes.
Overall, it is a good film. It's just a little old-fashioned.
This is a good thing.
Because I did it playing guitar. Which means I am playing guitar again, after a long long period of not. I blame the neglect on post-traumatic stress caused by the I-tried-to-build-a-home-studio-and-ended-up-destroying-my-computer incident.
We saw Peter Pan on Sunday.
I think we've become so accustomed to seeing children's movies that throw a nod and a wink to their adult audience that it was disorientating to see one without any irony.
Okay, Pan has a subtext about sexual awakening, writ so large only a child could miss it. But apart from the Freudian love triangle, it's all pirates and teddy-bears and jolly "hurrahs!" The plot runs around like a kid with ADD, and director P. J. Hogan never really tames it enough to provide a coherent emotional progression. You have to switch your brain into neutral, and just enjoy it moment to moment.
There was a hell of a lot of visual effects in the film. Some were breath-taking. Some were not. Wire-work never looks as good as you would like it too. I would have preferred to see a Tinkerbell who was actually sly or mischievous, instead of merely pantomime naughty. And I think Hogan made the wrong choice in making the ordinary world of London look as fairy-tale as Never Never Land.
Actually, the whole London sequence could have done with a bit of that missing irony. Lines about a young girl having a hidden kiss in the corner of her mouth might have seemed very touching to the sentimental Edwardians, but these days it comes out as absurdly florid.
But Jason Isaacs is all menace and charm as Hook, Rachel Hurd-Wood makes a perfectly gawky-yet-beautiful Wendy, and Jeremy Sumpter does a fine line in sly grins and steely-eyed self-confidence. Even if he keeps dropping his accent. And has to trounce around in one of Ziggy Stardust's old costumes.
Overall, it is a good film. It's just a little old-fashioned.
