Hook (1991) Reviews

• Brings Back Childhood Memories!

  georgie-bradley2009-03-20

  Right, I can understand that Spielberg's previous achievements had set the bar really high, but by no means does this make 'Hook' a flop. The story is what is so appealing to a young audience and a mature audience for that matter. The sensitive undertones of such a celebrated story spark much joy and heartfelt moments. The 'what if' factor of the whole story is really adventurous, and the fact that this story stems from the original is brilliant. Its a story of love,family and identity. All three elements resonate with a lot of audiences. From a visual standpoint Spielberg triumphs again! And i don't understand why people beg to differ! For the purpose of entertaining young audiences, it fulfills the intention and more. I must say however, the film owes 50% of its credit to John Williams. His absolutely stunning score supports the story's tenderness. The flying sequence is so thrilling that it literally makes me get up and want to levitate! The performances are equally stunning and convincing, Robin Williams encompasses both his comedic and dramatic skills towards a full blooded performance. Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins are superb....really really astonishing. This film has to be one of Spielberg's most overlooked and underrated films of all time. It holds so much promise and warmth that every time I sit back and soak up the high-flying adventure it sends shivers down my spine. I recently watched it after so many years of it lost in my memory that I felt like I had visited a historical landmark..its placed within a treasured set of memories on my part. I cant express how moving this film is, its just enthralling in every sense of the word..the construction of the story is very clever and realistic - from a child's point of view. Really guys hold the cynicism and unlock you imaginations and appreciate this work of cinematic art.

  More

• Why does everyone hate this film?

  potter_luvver2005-03-27

  I, personally, cannot understand why so many people have left negative comments about this film. When it was released, many of us were young children and we all enjoyed it, but now that we are older, too many people are pointing out the bad jokes and mistakes and clichés that they have found. The point is, this is a children's film, and we didn't see those mistakes when we were children because it's designed that way. Even so, people fail to see deeper into certain aspects of the film. Peter Pan was meant to be 'the boy who never grew up', so to have a tale of his adult life and to show how he forgot Neverland is a special and unique take on the story, one that won't be forgotten. There have also been many complaints about the scene where Tink becomes human-size and expresses some kind of love for Peter. Although she is not a human per se, she can have human feelings, so why would she not love him? As the original story tells, she is often jealous of other womens' affections towards him, and this film just extrapolates on that theme a little. There have been comments about the 'father-who-is-so-busy-and-can't-go-to-the-game' cliché. Well, here's news for you. It's cliché because it happens all the time, and it's a truth! Some parents are just too busy to care. Lastly, too many people are moaning that Hook was too comical to be the bad guy. Well, this is a kids film and if he wasn't a little bit cheery-in-a-maniac sort of way, you'd have parents complaining that their kids were scared. The main thing about this film is that it is really good, but it IS designed for children, and adults who go back and watch it years later, then suddenly spot loads of mistakes are just ruining it for themselves and others.

  More

• A defending note

  revival052008-12-04

  Sometimes you have to accept that you are the minority. I didn't find Casino Royale to be the ultimate 007 movie and I didn't think Batman Begins was the ultimate Batman movie. I think the Star Wars prequels deserve more credit and what people so viciously hated about Jar-Jar I will just never understand. But it's OK. I accept that. In these cases it's simply just a matter of taste. You don't agree with me, I don't agree with you? It's not the end of the world. There are however other times when you feel that you have seen an entirely different movie than others have. And as some movies like 2001 or Blade Runner were torn apart or frowned upon when they first came, they have grown into classics later on. Why? My guess is misconceptions and pre-set expectations. Now, I can't stop anybody from hating Steven Spielberg's Hook if they want to. But I think it's appropriate to raise my voice a little, in talking about what kind of a movie it actually is. First of all, it's always been clear to me that Hook isn't that much of a story of Peter Pan as it is a story of Peter Banning or, if you want to get far fetched, perhaps Spielberg himself. Peter Banning has no respect and takes no interest in his children; thematically, this is defined by the way he consistently denies their world as REAL. By their world, I mean the world of a child, the world of games, stories, action and adventure. Be it baseball, school plays, drawings, bedtime storytelling or indoor games, Peter Banning does not comprehend this world as a very real world - but it is real to his children, it's actually their only real world, since the adult world leaves no place for them. Now, the movie is all about Peter Banning finding respect for his children and understanding their world as real. In the movie, he becomes forced to do this. At first he is hooked, if you will, by the very real notion that his children have been kidnapped. That naturally catches his attention, and naturally to him, nothing could be more frightening or real. His motivation here is to simply bring back his children, but as it turns out he will have to totally enter the children's play-world and play, accepting their world as real. To make it entirely clear that the children's world IS REAL, the movie literary crosses the line between fantasy and reality and Tinkerbell arrives to Peter Banning. The movie suggests that he not only will have to play that he is Peter Pan, he undoubtedly IS Peter Pan and cannot get away from it. He is hereby forced into play. This continues when he arrives at Neverneverland. Again, he cannot escape this world and in my mind this world is not so much JM Barrie's creation as it is a realm that essentially embodies child's play in general. It's like locking a bad parent into a playground, forcing him to spend time with the children in there. Because Neverneverland IS all play and fun. The lost boys PLAY that they are the lost boys, the pirates PLAY that they are pirates, Dustin Hoffman is obviously PLAYING that he is Captain Hook and as much as Peter Banning has to be forced into actually being Peter Pan in order to force him into taking it seriously, he eventually also PLAYS that he is Peter Pan. The theme of adults not seeing their children, or taking their world as real, is common in Spielberg's films. Remember Drew Barrymore in E.T, suggesting that maybe grown-ups can't see E.T and later on, Dee Wallace's mother is in the very same room as E.T but can't seem to notice him, since she is not interested in hearing any stories about men from the moon, that is to say she doesn't take it for real. There is a thematically identical scene in Hook where Peter is served the empty plates with food that he cannot see until he understands that the play is all for real. It's the scene that most people remember from the movie, even those who don't like it, and I don't think it's any coincidence. This theme about believing and seeing children's fantasy world as REAL, is sprinkled all through the movie in just about every scene from beginning to end. But to underline that this movie essentially is about a man who will have to take his kids seriously, and not so much a movie where Peter Pan actually goes back to Neverneverland, the movie's final sequences have Peter Banning waking up by a Peter Pan-like statue, suggesting that perhaps it was all just a drunken dream. Note that I am not saying it was, because the movie clearly states that the events have taken place within the reality of the movie, it's not a "it was all just a dream"-ending, but the scene clearly points out that it doesn't really matter if it was all make-believe nor not, because in the eyes of a child, make-believe is just as real as "the real world". Actually, the last line of the movie is "To live would be an awfully big adventure" so I think Spielberg is also suggesting that grown-ups too need to think of their life as something a little more romantic and adventurous. All in all, I think the movie has flaws and all, that's not what this comment is about, but I haven't seen these points anywhere so I figured I post my views. Hook is first and foremost not a "What if?"-story, and not a story of the adult Peter Pan. Yes it's what happens in the movie, but it's not what the movie is all about. Bangerang.

  More

• Peter Pan grew up.

  OllieSuave-0072014-04-04

  This movie is a continuation of the classic tale of the boy who wouldn't grow up, Peter Pan. Here, the infamous Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) kidnaps the children of Peter Banning (Robin Williams) and takes them to Neverland. Banning must regain his youthful spirit as Peter Pan and return to Neverland to reunite with his old gang, including Tinker Bell (Julia Roberts), and rescue his children. It's a pretty good story filled with unending adventures and spectacular sceneries of the magical Neverland what is filled with colorful characters, played by a group of fun-loving, bratty but loyal boys. Hoffman played Hook brilliantly, perfect for the part, as did Bob Hoskins in his Mr. Smee role. Comedic and quirky Williams was a good choice to play the grown-up Peter Pan; it was fun seeing his character looking bizarre and confused in Neverland, forgetting his roots and adventures with the Lost Boys in the magical place. And, Julia Roberts played a good Tinkerbell and she had some touching chemistry with Williams' character. Although it's not Disney, this movie does capture the magic and essence of the original animated classic Peter Pan from Disney. There are plenty of action and adventure to enjoy, but with some filler scenes that dragged the movie somewhat towards the middle. It's a nice one for the entire family, but I think it's better fit for the younger ones due to its juvenile and whimsical nature. Grade B-

  More

• I love this movie.

  JoejoeSalamone2010-03-23

  I try to make it a point to watch this movie at least once a year, or when I feel myself getting too cynical. This is because if you are looking for fun movie that really does pull at the kid inside you, then this is definitely it. Robin Williams is just the right kind of goofy for my tastes, and makes an excellent Pan. Captain Hook was perfectly fit by Dustin Hoffman. I could have done without Julia Roberts as Tink. Actually, I can do without Julia Roberts all together. But Bob Hoskins made a great Smee. (I like to watch this and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, back-to-back) Anyways, I watch this movie once a year because the message of the movie, and the reason people watch it, warrants that. A movie where the message is to never lose sight of your inner child. Imagination. Belief in magical creatures. Sword fighting with pirates. All of these things that I'm sure you did as a child, as I did. As far as I'm concerned, all of the people who have written bad reviews for this movie, saying things like "The characters weren't believable", and "Spielberg tried to answer a question that didn't need an answer" have lost sight of the kid in themselves, have become pirates, and should have their hands fed to crocodiles. It's a movie. A family movie. One that needs to appeal to both children and adults, which is a difficult task, to be successful. And I believe that this movie succeeds at that very well.

  More