Hook (1991) Poster

(1991)

User Reviews

Review this title
496 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Criminally underrated
ercfunk-445-95004619 October 2022
I really can't understand why this movie has gotten so much hate throughout the years. I remember it as a hit. When it came out, all my cousins of around my age loved it, my friends loved it, I didn't know any kid that didn't at least like it. As for adults, isn't it a fun concept to see what it would be like if Peter Pan grew up? Who else could play a grown Pan than Robin Williams? Julia Roberts was perfect for Tinker Bell. Though I have heard she was a nightmare to deal with behind the scenes. The lost boys were excellent, a good balance of fun and humor, along with some serious parts in there too. Dustin Hoffman as captain Hook? I don't know if he won any awards, but that man should have. Probably his best performance.

This movie is a classic. F&@# the naysayers.
79 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Why is this a bad movie? Why is this even a mediocre movie?
ikrani30 July 2014
I'm not one of the people fortunate enough to catch this in the theaters. I am, however, one of the people who loudly objects to the negative critical response to this film.

Peter Pan growing up is a wonderfully refreshing concept and saying "it adds nothing to the Peter Pan mythos" confuses me to no end. The beautiful practical sets would never have come to pass in an age where Spielberg and Lucas have gone crazy with the CGI and accusing them of being cartoony is rather superfluous seeing as Peter Pan's not exactly known for its realism. The actors all turn in decent performances, the best being Robin William's uptight Peter Banning and childlike Peter Pan, Dustin Hoffman's deliciously evil Captain Hook, and Bob Hoskins. Nothing to say about Bob Hoskins; if he's on screen, he's giving it his all.

I deduct points from the film do to the third act with the war, not because the Lost Boys use incredibly implausible weapons to fight the pirates but because Peter stops being savvy about Hook, there's a rather unnecessary dark moment during an otherwise cartoony climax, and about a half dozen inconsistencies appear in the span of five minutes. But, other than that, Hook is a brilliant film and its "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes is simply a travesty, for not only is it a heartfelt Spielberg experience, but when the movie wants to be funny, it's REALLY funny. Listen not to the critics unless they are Jim Sterling or Doug Walker, because this film is one of the best.
94 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Peter Pan grew up.
OllieSuave-0074 April 2014
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-
30 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A defending note
revival054 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
102 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dustin Hoffman can easily can get you hooked
Smells_Like_Cheese27 January 2004
Hook is a spin off of the classic tale of Peter Pan, you ever wonder what life would have been like for Peter Pan if he had grown up? If he had kids, a wife, and a career as a lawyer? Not very much, but it happens here in Spielberg's tale of the boy who never wanted to grow up. Hook is a pretty good film, it was definitely very imaginative and creative story wise. The sets and actors were absolutely perfect for this film; did you know that Michael Jackson originally wanted to play the role of Peter? Pretty creepy, huh? But Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman were so great together, I really enjoyed their performances. But the only actress I questioned was Julia Roberts as Tink, I'm not so sure if she was the best choice for the role. But that's just me, while the story seemed to drag on a bit, it was actually pretty good.

Peter is a bit of a grown up who just can't seem to have fun in life, he misses his son's baseball games, doesn't spend much time with the family, and is always focused on work. But when he and his wife visit England with their kids to see Wendy, the lady who raised Peter when he was an orphan, his kids are kidnapped by Captain James Hook who wants to challenge Peter, but when Tink takes Peter back to Neverland, he needs major convincing that he is Peter Pan and is given three days to do so to get back his children. The Lost Boys try their best to make Peter bang-or-aign once again with them and that he'll get his kids back while learning the importance of youth.

Hook is over all a good film that I would recommend to people. It's not at all a bad film, it has good drama in it along with great comedy. Most people love the dinner scene between Peter and Rufio, mine is Captain Hook explaining to Peter's kids why parents don't love children. Dustin's delivery of "I want to potty, I want a cookie" was just so perfect and funny. This is a good family film that I think you'll like, it's just an honest film with a fun story.

6/10
100 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Overlong but hugely enjoyable fantasy adventure.
TheLittleSongbird19 March 2009
I was actually worried when I saw the casting for Hook, but I watched it anyway. It is enjoyable, but I've seen better. Robin Williams is very likable and surprisingly good, but I personally wouldn't have picked him for Peter. Kevin Kline would have been a better choice. Julia Roberts is okay as Tinkerbell, but she has been better. Stealing the show, in a wonderfully pantomime performance as Captain Hook, is an unrecognisable Dustin Hoffmann, believe it or not. His performance was that good, that I was appalled that it wasn't nominated. He's not the first actor to be seriously robbed of an award.Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption? Tim Curry in Legend and It? John Hurt in The Elephant Man? Bob Hoskins was amiable, and the music by John Williams was very good, but not his best score. The plot is simple but well-told, if marred by overlong and unnecessary sequences with the Lost Boys that were sadly poorly handled. The film's main merit, aside from Hoffmann's performance is the art direction, beautiful sets and lovely costumes, particularly the brief underwater scene with the mermaids. The part with Maggie singing on the boat deck was heart-rending, and the scene where Peter suddenly remembers everything was touching. Above all, every scene with Hook and Smee was extremely entertaining. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it very much, but the film lacked magic. All in all, a slightly disappointing but fun and under-appreciated film, that is a 7/10 from me. Bethany Cox
29 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Brings Back Childhood Memories!
georgie-bradley20 March 2009
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.
194 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
7/10 -- VERY ENJOYABLE, EVEN FOR ADULTS!
Analog_Devotee28 April 2021
Wish I'd seen this as a kid! Stellar performances across the board and some great set designs.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Watching it as an adult has given me a whole new perspective
cricketbat10 July 2018
Hook is another childhood favorite that still holds up well today. It runs a little long and there are some missteps (e.g. Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell), but it really does appeal to the child in me. And watching it as an adult has given me a whole new perspective on Peter Banning - including his shortcomings, fears and joys as a father. Plus, who doesn't love the imaginary banquet scene? This is a fun movie.
123 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as bad as all that
PL19811 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When I first came to IMDb to look up this movie, I was very surprised at all the negative criticism and backlash that it had generated. I had watched the movie when it came out and found it very pleasant and enjoyable and, re-watching it again just recently, I still found it a very good movie

The movie's strong points to me are the scenery and design, the storyline, the music and the quality of acting by most of the cast. These factors combined ensure that the movie for the most part lives up to its potential and remains intriguing, gripping and heartwarming throughout. It has all the hallmarks of a successful Spielberg production and the movie is all the more better for it

Robin Williams's performance as Peter Pan/Peter Banning is very good in both his roles as a professional businessman too busy for his children andas the reincarnation of Peter Pan later on in the movie. I do understand where many critics are coming from when they say that he has a propensity to go over the top in his acting during some parts of themovie but he's good at portraying both a serious and funny side and I think that makes him the perfect choice for this role. Dustin Hoffman and Bob Smee are both delightful in their roles as the evil villains and Maggie Smith does a great job as Wendy.

There are some points on which I agree with the critics. Julia Roberts was a horrible choice to play Tinkerbell. I found her annoying from the start and she failed to give the character the charm and depth that it needed to succeed. The Lost Boys were terrible -they came across as bratty, overindulged hoodlums rather than young, innocent, mischievous children and it was quite impossible to feel any empathy with or them -they were good actors but badly written characters

Nevertheless, despite these flaws, this is still a worthwhile and enjoyable movie that I think young children will enjoy.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I love this movie.
JoejoeSalamone23 March 2010
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.
106 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I'm pretty hooked on watching this movie. It's alright.
ironhorse_iv14 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan (Robin Williams) must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to save his children & challenge his old enemy. Hook, line, and tinker. Some people might not think its Barrie good: but I think it's alright for a children film. Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie ask the question, most people never thought before; what if Peter Pan grew up? This movie look like a sequel to the Disney's 1953 animated movie version of the novel J.M Barrie's 1911 novel Peter and Wendy. Still, it has some of the mature elements of the original novel, which was more geared toward adults than children. It digs deep into the psychological of Puer aeternus AKA Pan syndrome. Like Wendy in the original novel, the modern day, Peter Pan learns the bad side of never growing up, when he learn that due to his neglect, his relationship with both Wendy and Tinker Bell went soured. He was never able to witness the joys of adulthood. When he does choose to grow up, his quest for success, often came with the price of his family feeling neglected. It's nice to see the one-dimensional Peter Pan, have a character arch, here. The movie tells why it's so important, to grow up, but not too fast that you lose your inner child. The collision between responsibility and eternal boyhood is a great conflict. Not surprisingly, those portions of the film that involve Peter Banning and his family are considered the most genuine heart-felt and emotional affecting aspects of Hook. You really felt for him, when Captain Hook brainwash his child, in thinking that he can be a better father than Peter Pan. I love the clock breaking scene. The troubled relationship between Peter and his son echoed Spielberg's relationship with his father and you see it in this film. Robin Williams is great in the lead role. You would never think of him, as a Peter Pan character, but he tries his hardest to look and play the part. I just really glad, they never gave the role to pop singer, Michael Jackson, a over obsessed fan, because he doesn't have the acting range that can show that conflict. He never truly understood the reasons of growing up. Jackson was disappointed that he wasn't able to play the role on screen that supposedly he tried to put a voodoo curse on Spielberg. Talk about somebody needs to grow up. Another great memorable performance is that of Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook in one of his best performances, ever. He has the right balance of villainous. Even supporting characters like Dante Basco as Rufio, Bob Hoskins as Smee & Maggie Smith as Wendy were amazing in the roles. Julia Roberts as Tinker Hell is questionable. She has that sweetheart look, but lacks the jealous and deceiving nature of Tinker Bell of the original novel. She was hard to work with. It's weird to see cameos like Phil Collins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Glenn Close, David Crosby, George Lucas, and Carrie Fischer, but it didn't hurt the film. While Hook look pretty epic, Hook was shot almost entirely on sound stages rather than real life locations. It gave that felt of the early 1930s fantasy Golden Age of Pirates movies. The set designs were pretty good, despite it looking kinda unrealistic and cheap. I love the whole Pirate ship set. It's a bit weird, that Tinker Bell drop Peter Pan off here in the beginning of the film than the Lost Boys tree. It's like dropping off, a deer in a wolves den. I guess, she was indeed deceiving. I like, how Hook can't find the Lost Boys hideout, despite its being clear, that it's the tree, anyways. There were so misguide attempts to get 1990s children, watching this film. I found it a bit weird, for the majority of the Lost Boys act like children of the 1990s, than turn of the Century children. I didn't know, the 1900s had Basketball, Mohawk hairstyles and skate boards. I kinda wish that Michael and John from the original book made an appearance, but it does makes sense why they weren't there. The action is a hit and a miss. I know, it's a children movie, but why is the Lost Boys fighting the Pirates in such non-lethal ways with Eggs and pies? Children do die here, yet they're fighting them as if it's a fantasy kid friendly Home Alone corny style action. Despite that, the sword fights, the movie does have, are pretty good. The music is another good, about the film. John Williams's music is beautiful to listen to. The movie does have some stupid over the top whimsical music clichés moments like a child singing badly in the moonlight. She's no American Tail, Tanya. The movie does other stupid moments like the imagination food scene. Yes, children, rather than search for food, just imagine food, so you don't starve. Some stupid plot-holes things are hard to overlook like how a baby grown up to be 12 years old in Neverland despite the place, being a place, where nobody grows old. It's also seem odd, that the Pirates knows everything about Peter Pan's life after he left Neverland, but still shock to see him as an adult. I guess, there were a lot of foreshadowing; since there were lots of Hook symbolism. I like how the voice of the plane captain in the beginning was indeed Dustin Hoffman, and the trash sweeper in the end, could be Smee. Its Easter eggs like this that make it, a good re-watch value. Overall: People either love or hate this movie. Personally, I love it. I will say it, it was a great nostalgia family film that could need a little bit more work. Compare to other live action sequels to animated movies. It's a lot better than them. If you haven't seen it, check it out. Bangarang!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The biggest artistic low point for everyone involved
Fidelio1117 July 2004
I watched this film as a child and could always remember how utterly bewildered I was by it especially in contrast to the impressive (if Disneyfied) adaptation of Peter Pan. It was darker and stranger and made little sense to me, I guess I just thought I was missing something.

12 years on and I still don't understand this simply because there is nothing to understand about it. It is a hideously self-indulgent mess of a film. Incoherently structured, one-dimensionally and superficially characterised, implausible (even in the considerably less demanding realms of the the fantasy genre, incomprehensible and ugly.

But what really got me about this film is that I have never seen such a large collection of talent so utterly wasted. Everyone of them should be ashamed for being involved in the conception of this cinematic atrocity. What was the point of this film? The importance of an innocent imagination. All of that was put on screen before and in a much much better way in the Neverending Story, a warm, imaginative, humorous and engrossing children's fantasy. It's everything that Hook wasn't.
43 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10 for Dustin Hoffman's performance alone.
JimmyCinephile15 March 2013
This is a fantastic classic movie of a classic fairy tale.

The sets are amazing (none of this green screen crap!)

The acting is fantastic. Dustin Hoffman, Maggie Smith, Robin Williams, and Charlie Korsmo do an especially good job.

The adaptation is written very well. Instead of the boy who can't grow up, it's the man who's forgotten how to have fun, and be in the moment, like a child.

The IMDb rating is way off. How the hell does Pitch Perfect, and rubbish like that do better? How? Because either this site is full of morons with no taste, or the world is, or more likely both...

All negativeness aside, this is a great movie, if you haven't scene it, you're missing out.
55 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty Good But Dragged In Middle
pkryder-129 March 2010
I enjoyed "Hook" a lot; Dustin Hoffman and Julia Roberts really stood out in this film.

My only complaint is that there was too much silly playing between the lost boys and Peter in the middle of the film, and I feel that this became rather monotonous. I would have liked to see more interaction between Peter Pan and Captain Hook, and also more screen time for the Captain Hook character generally.

Also, Neverland is supposed to have pirates and Indians in it, and there WERE a LOT of pirates. But I never once saw an Indian.

Maggie Smith was a fine actress and it is always great to see her on screen.

I thought that the end of the film, with the old man flying out of the house, was kind of nutty and really unnecessary, a la the all-too literal ending of "Cocoon", in which the senior citizens are shown flying away in an alien spaceship.

My problems with this movie, though, are minor, and I generally consider this a very good fantasy film for kids and adults--at least those of us who never quite grew up--alike.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Strange but fun
theaverageyeet21 January 2022
I've seen a tiny bit of this film once when it was playing in the living room and I never cared for it. I finally decided to sit down and watch it and I was fairly pleased with how it played out. It had a pretty good story line and good characters. This movie is far from perfect but still pretty good.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why does everyone hate this film?
potter_luvver27 March 2005
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.
603 out of 770 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good classic
elissadallen4 June 2019
I liked the costumes and the funny scenes, I will say it dragged on a little longer than necessary, but other than that, like always, Robin Williams does a wonderful job playing an adult with a child soul.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Pan Is Back
bkoganbing17 April 2009
Purportedly Steven Spielberg is not happy with the end product of Hook. I'm at a loss to know why because I think it's an absolutely charming fantasy, using his own peculiar take on the Peter Pan story and extending it.

Robin Williams as Peter Banning is a hard driving lawyer with a wife and two children Caroline Goodall, Charlie Korsmo and Amber Scott respectively. He was an orphan kid who married the granddaughter of Wendy Darling who was Sir James M. Barrie's inspiration for the Peter Pan tale.

But it's all real, Robin Williams doesn't know he's Peter Pan who left Never Never Land for reasons you'll discover in the film. But he left one nasty enemy there in Captain Hook and Hook captures his children to lure him back to Never Never Land where Hook can take vengeance upon him.

Spielberg got some great performances out of his cast which also includes Julia Roberts as the elfin Tinkerbell and Maggie Smith as the aged Wendy. But stealing the film completely in one bravura performance is Dustin Hoffman.

Captain Hook is one of those fabulous roles where the actor can just feast on the scenery and can just go to town with it. It's a role that it is impossible to overact in. I doubt if Dustin Hoffman ever enjoyed himself more in making a film.

Hook got five Oscar nominations in the technical categories, but sad to say did not win anything in 1991. I'm surprised that one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator films beat Hook out for Best Visual Effects, this one is clearly superior in that department if anything.

Robin Williams has his innings as well, trying to remember his past as Peter Pan and get back into Pan like behavior to defeat Captain Hook. As to why he left Never Never Land in the first place. Let's just say he took one too many trips outside his domain and something happened to him that happens to all young men at some point.

Hook is a great piece of family entertainment from Steven Spielberg and Dustin Hoffman's fans will really enjoy it.
88 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Set Design, But Very Superficial
gavin694212 August 2014
When Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan (Robin Williams) must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.

This film is a bit divisive, with some loving it and others not being very impressed. Indeed, the makeup, costumes and set design are top-notch. Some of the dialogue is pretty funny, particularly when Pan and Rufio get into a match of insults. And Dustin Hoffman really becomes Hook (Bob Hoskins is even more attached to Smee.) The overall story, although clever, tends to fall flat at times, with an overly predictable arc with more than just a dollop of sentimentality. Maybe one should not be too hard on the picture, but...
18 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Definitely a Spielberg misfire
DavidSim2401839 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone seems to agree that Hook was one of Steven Spielberg's great disappointments. It was a reasonable hit after the financial failure of Always, but it was unanimously critically savaged. Even now, 16 years later, and unlike some of Spielberg's less regarded films, people's opinions of it remain unchanged.

When Spielberg has his eye on the ball, he can be a fantastic filmmaker. Duel and Jaws were gruelling experiences that left one physically and mentally drained. Terrific entertainment! And when Spielberg concentrates on more sentimental stories, they can be incredibly tender like Schindler's List and AI. But if he indulges child-like sentiment too much, he turns out overrated mush like ET. And Hook.

Hook is more flawed than any other Spielberg film. Yes it does ask the intriguing question, what if Peter Pan grew up? But the way the film answers it simply doesn't work. There's a clumsiness to its storytelling, and bar a few genuinely exhilarating moments here and there, much of Spielberg's usual magic is sadly absent.

The grown up Peter Pan, now Peter Banning, and played by Robin Williams is a ruthless corporate raider. In a bizarre twist, Peter has become a modern day pirate. He has little time for his wife Moira, and even less time for his children Jack and Maggie. When he visits London for Christmas, Wendy (Maggie Smith) is not the young lady she once was. And she's devastated to learn Peter's not what he used to be either. All the child like innocence and youthful exuberance he once had have all but vanished over the years.

But he must get it back. Because Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) has just kidnapped Jack and Maggie, and with the aid of Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts) and the Lost Boys, Peter must rediscover his long forgotten past, and become Peter Pan once more.

I think the reason why Hook is such an abject failure is because Spielberg's need for mawkish sentiment really goes into overdrive here. There are all the usual Spielberg trademarks. The inattentive father. Carefully calculated emotional cues. And most importantly, the idea of the fantastical coming into contact with the ordinary. But really, nothing comes off. I was so disappointed with the film. Robin Williams is certainly impish enough. But he only falls into the usual woolly headed sludge that would become his trademark in the 90s. Hook was just for starters.

Dustin Hoffman is much too pantomimic and theatrical as Captain Hook. He adopts a perfect Etonian accent, and looks every inch the character, but never elevates it to threatening status. Even if he looks like he's having the most fun. Julia Roberts is horribly miscast as Tinkerbell. The Disney version had more screen appeal and she never even had to say a word. The miniaturised Roberts struts around the set with giant size fairy wings on her back not doing much of anything else. And her American accent quickly grates. At least Bob Hoskins makes for an entertaining Smee. His scenes with Hoffman are fun, so I suppose the film isn't a total waste.

Roger Ebert thought the Lost Boys looked like they'd walked off the set of Oliver!, and as I was watching the film, I was thinking the same thing. Spielberg is usually reliable for getting good performances out of children, but this time there are just too many to take into account. They're skateboarding(!) and foodfights are frankly just boring.

And I thought the film wasted Maggie Smith. Such a fantastic actress as her should not be shelved aside. The idea of an elderly Wendy is a fascinating one, but it doesn't even try to explore it. Hook sadly underutilises one of Hollywood's greatest unsung actresses.

But the biggest disappointment of all is Never-Never Land itself. I was expecting an extraordinary fantastical wonderland. What we get instead is a curiously stagebound setting. NeverLand looks exactly like the set that it is. And the special effects are well below the high standards of Spielberg. Obvious back-projections. Flat surroundings. Spielberg must really have been having an off-day when he made Hook.

There are a few moments that show some of Spielberg's magical touch. I loved the scene when Peter rediscovers himself as Peter Pan. Its quite well written and ends in a haunting epiphany. Its just a shame that it takes so long building up to it. Still, the scenes of Peter soaring through the sky are wonderful, and makes your heart truly sing. Its the one genuine triumphal act of the entire film.

But the rest of the film seldom flies as high. Hook is too juvenile for its own good, and the journey from Peter Banning to Peter Pan is much too long. Even the climax feels too wound up to make any kind of impact. An utter disappointment. Spielberg's worst film of the 90s.
22 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Never forget your inner child
bignastybastard5 July 2013
Back in 1994 when I was 10 this was a favourite of mine, I even had all the action figures. As I got older I never really thought much of it until the other day when I decided to watch it just for the hell of it. Now as an older person with more understanding all I can say is that this is one of the most amazing films ever. There were points in the film where I even started weeping and getting emotional.

Hook tells a great story about A grumpy lawyer named Peter Banning who takes life too serious who has forgotten about his childhood as Peter Pan. Captain Hook kidnaps his children and takes them to Neverland to lure him in for one last battle, the only chance he has of saving them is to remember his forgotten past as Peter Pan and do battle with Captain Hook. The film is a huge reminder that I should always keep in touch with my inner child and never let go.

Acting wise Robin Williams brings his A game as does Dustin Hoffman, Bob Hoskins and the rest, Julia Roberts is in it too but she's nothing to write home about.

If you've never seen it then you should watch it, whether your a child or adult it doesn't matter, the film is one of the best adventure tales ever. If you've not seen it for a long time then re-watch it because like me it is a great reminder of how I was back when I was 10 and even helped me find my less cynical side.

10/10
49 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
No-one can get it right all the time
neil-47627 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Hook presents us with the interesting and unusual phenomenon of Spielberg not getting it right.

The idea is great - an adult Peter Pan, having eliminated the very notion of Neverland from his mind, has his children kidnapped by Captain Hook and has to return to Neverland where he rediscovers the childhood he had deliberately abandoned.

And there is much to like about the film, not least of which are Dustin Hoffman's mannered Hook, and Maggie Smith's frail and aged Wendy.

But when mistakes are made - and there are a number here - boy, are they whoppers! There are two huge casting mistakes among the principals. Julia Roberts is an absolutely awful Tinkerbell. Tinkerbell is a fairy, for heaven's sake. It's difficult to think of anyone more rooted in the real world than Julia Roberts, the least fairy-like actress I can think of (and whoever thought it would be a good idea to have a wincingly cloying scene of barely restrained loveydoveyness between Peter and Tinkerbell at the same size, should be locked up with no chance of ever getting near a word processor ever again. Preferably hide the pencils, too, just in case).

And, I hate to say it, because I understand why it looked good on paper, Robin Williams is pretty awful too. If anything, Williams plays it too straight. I believe his uptight adult business man with not enough time for his kids, but I never believed his rejuvenated Pan.

The Lost Boys don't convince, particularly the cockatoo-haired punk leader.

The special effects fall in a clumsy halfway house between dream-like sheer fantasy and real life, and the set-bound interiors are too busy. The whole thing has a garish cast to it as if someone turned up the colour intensity on the TV.

A misfire and, in Spielberg's filmography, only 1941 is a poorer effort.
13 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bland and clumsily made misfire
kira02bit8 November 2006
Not as awful as some would have you believe, but this revisionist updating of the unforgettable Peter Pan tale is a bland misfire from the start. None of the elements gel together into a satisfying viewing experience. There is so little magic or energy on screen that it seems impossible to believe that a director the caliber of Steven Spielberg is responsible for the final result. The story imagines Peter Pan as an adult workaholic husband and father of two children (a boy and a girl). He has no memory of his past in Neverland and makes a habit of neglecting his family. While visiting Granny Wendy in London, his children are kidnapped by nemesis Captain Hook and, with Tinkerbell's aid, Peter returns to Neverland. Unfortunately, he has no clue on how regain his old magic to save his children. One certainly must give credit for a novel and promising concept, but it never takes flight. Robin Williams, certainly one of cinema's most energetic comedic actors, seems constricted as Peter. Dustin Hoffman seems to be having a fine time as Captain Hook, but for a legendary villain he is surprisingly toothless and devoid of menace. The film's worst misstep is in the handling of The Lost Boys. Whereas the characters as related by J. M. Barrie and in other cinematic incarnations seem ones to capture the imagination, Spielberg and his writers have re-imagined them as glorified skateboard hoodlums whose shenanigans inspire more tedium than magic. These boys are dreadfully uninteresting, as is Peter's irritating son, played by the usually reliable Charlie Korsmo. Viewers should be on his side after the neglect suffered by the hands of his dad, but he emerges as vacuous as his adolescent compatriots. Ironically, for a film that features a stellar casting trinity of leads, they are oddly wasted in favor of the tiresome adolescent cast. The women in the film really have it bad. While Peter has two kidnapped children, one could easily forget that his young daughter was held hostage considering that she is all but forgotten in favor of young Korsmo. Similarly, Maggie Smith is wasted in a brief cameo as the aged Wendy and Caroline Goodall is left behind in London to fend for herself. Julia Roberts may have had a fighting chance if anyone had a clear conception on their vision of Tinkerbell. Instead of the mischievous sprite with a huge jealous streak, we get a wishy-washy tomboy who has little to do during the course of the film. The much-celebrated sets are alternately busy and tacky, and the editing is amateurish. Some scenes are cut so clumsily that it is unbelievable that someone with Spielberg's talents failed to notice, or perhaps he simply did not care. For a much better take on the Peter Pan legend, look for P. J. Hogan's Peter Pan.
30 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed