SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

rarecorruptedconky Looking back at the original illustrations by Beatrix Potter, you'll notice that Peter not only wears a jacket but also a pair of shoes. After Potter's book became such a hit, various versions of the tale where made. Some very faithful to the original, and some not so much. While the creators of this show did a good job in giving the rabbit his iconic blue jacket, I was disappointed that they (probably) forgot to give him shoes. Where are the shoes? This obscene flaw is something that has been done in a number of renditions of the tale. I suppose those who made those renditions have bad eyesight, and didn't notice Peter has shoes in the original story. It also doesn't get any better in this generation as Sony will release a feature film depicting Peter Rabbit but also following a similarly obscene direction.

ramon-rodriguez31 I've been knowing Peter Rabbit for 19 years. However, my interest in the character regained only a few years earlier. When I learned that Nick Jr. has a series featuring Peter and other characters from Beatrix Potter's books, I went on the web to know more. But when I saw an ad of the series online, I was a bit surprised that Peter is missing shoes. Why is Peter missing shoes? Could this indicate that whoever made the series read Potter's books in such a fast pace and didn't look at the illustrations hard enough. If I was the one supervising the creation of the series, I'd make sure Peter will have some dainty footwear. Peter wears shoes in the original books as well as in other adaptations that are more faithful. Portrayiing a character wearing something shouldn't be too difficult. Anyway, despite the discrepancy, I do enjoy the show a bit. I just can't say that I'm impressed.

roocadillac85 I recently saw some media related to the show a few hours ago. Yes, the characters are cute which is common for a show directed to children. However, I have other thoughts as well. Just like the original books, Peter has his trademarked blue jacket and brown fur. But unlike the books, this version of Peter lacks shoes. In other adaptations, the rabbit is seen wearing mary janes or sneakers. I can only wonder why he's barefoot here. Anyway, everything else about the show (such as the stories and setting) is fine if not excellent. Eversince making a debut many decades ago, Beatrix Potter's most famous character has appeared in various media adaptations.

amisha_amisha As a lover of the traditional Peter Rabbit tales (books) by Beatrix Potter, I find this adaptation an absolute insult to Potters' wonderful tales of bravery, morality, kindness and change. It is one thing to take a much-loved literary work and transpose it into television, and it is completely another thing to take a work and change its message, tone and intended coda. Unfortunately, "Peter Rabbit" falls into this latter category. Sure the animation is quite cool, the colours are bright and the characters are appealing to children, but they will not learn the true messages and feelings that Ms Potter initially conveyed in her original, beautifully illustrated, and fantastic works. Why not just create an original cartoon about animals, instead of ripping off parts of Potters' tales, reworking them and making them clumsy. The producers of this series should be ashamed of themselves.If you want to watch a beautiful version of Peter Rabbit, skip this atrocious series and watch an original - "The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends (TV series 1992-).