Why didn't this work?
-
edlitz36 — 10 years ago(November 24, 2015 05:58 PM)
the movie did very well at the box office
First off, box office gross is not an indicator of quality. By that logic, the
Transformers
and
Twilight
movies will later be considered classics. But they're trash and will always be regarded as such. Second,
Hook
did not actually do "very well" at the box office. Sure it made over $100 million in the US which would be good for many modest films in the early 90s but
Hook
wasn't just an ordinary film, given that it cost $70-80 million to produce, not the mention the budget to market the film. And also considering that it was directed by box office king Steven Spielberg and starred 2 major Hollywood players (Williams and Hoffman). It didn't lose money but it underperformed and was considered a disappointment by the studio (same situation with
Dick Tracy
the year prior).
now considered a classic. im pretty sure it was just the critics that bashed it
If the critics bashed it and still do bash it nearly 25 years later (it sits at 30% on Rotten Tomatoes), then it's no classic. Please name me a bona fide film classic that's hated by the majority of critics today
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David -
ConDeuce — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 05:17 AM)
"Hook" is a prime example of what happens when talented, smart people get a lot of money and an idea for a movie that seems like a good concept and maybe
could
have been good but instead sputters and falls apart. I don't care what anyone says about "Hook" supposedly being a "classic" or that the public loves a lot
(really?)
. "Hook" is a dud and is, in my opinion, Speilberg's worst movie.
It's failure is not for lack of trying but there's just too much going on in it. Everyone fro Speilberg to Williams to Hoffman are trying too hard for "magic". The strain shows and the movie becomes tiresome. It reminds me of two bloated studio backed musicals from the late 60s that some people also consider "classics" and "beloved": "Doctor Doolittle" and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". Both of those films (as well as "Hook") had lots and lots of money thrown at them and you can see it in the actors they hired and the sets they built and all of it resulted in a kind of vapid nothingness. Nothing in these films registers a genuine because it's all so over produced. This is surprising in the case of "Hook" because of Speilberg's involvement. The man is one of my favorite directors because he has done so many movies that really do hit the emotional mark dead on (and I'm not talking only about "E.T."). With "Hook" we get the Corporate Speilberg. He reared his ugly head with "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". I can only guess that he felt he had to keep showing he could make money by taking on projects like "Hook" in order to get his better films (like "Munich") made but you'd think he would have done a better job.
"Hook" still bothers me after seeing it over 20 years ago because of how hollow it all was. It didn't/doesn't work because it's all fake.
LaPfieffer92 -
LaPfieffer92 — 12 years ago(October 15, 2013 03:03 PM)
i didn't even bother reading all that. you sound like one of those tastless movie "critics" that's likes what is popular and hates what is not. this is IMO one of speilbergs best and most magical movies hes ever done. it IS considered a classic fantasy film and almost everyone I know especially my age agrees that this was a fun and magical film of there childhood. anyone who badmouths this movie is just a hipster loser who cant enjoy a great movie for kids. I bet you thought the dark knight was a "masterpiece", L.O.L. don't make me laugh.
Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies! -
ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch — 12 years ago(October 16, 2013 03:58 PM)
The John Williams score was great, however there should never be a story concerning Peter Pan where he's an adult. Ever.
'
When there's no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.
' -
ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch — 12 years ago(November 29, 2013 10:16 PM)
Flash Fact: Its NOT a 'classic'. Its also one of Spielberg's lesser regarded films. Despite decent box office most of the marketing material (toys) languished in bargain bins of toy stores unsold years after the film's release, meaning none of that crap did well either.
Oh yeah, STFU. Your opinion dosent override anyone else's. If you like the film, good for you. Getting all Stan about it just makes you look like an even bigger moron.
'
When there's no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.
' -
sugarfreesweetie0367 — 12 years ago(February 23, 2014 08:17 PM)
This is a comment section. Everything is an opinion on here so there is no need to put IMO. You sound so idiotic and confrontational that it is hard to take anything you say seriously. Someone can have a different opinion, you know. And by admitting earlier that someone wrote something so long you didn't read it allreally? Do you still read books with pictures?
You cannot debate if you don't read someone's whole post.
And just so you don't attack, I liked Hook. I would give it a solid B. -
DiamondDonnieAzoff — 12 years ago(October 25, 2013 04:29 AM)
One of my all time favorite movies but I agree 100% with you about the sets, it looks VERY fake and Broadway-ish. Always bothered me, always will, but I still love the movie regardless. It seemed as if we never got to see how big Neverland was, it looked just like a few blocks of some small village.
"Chick's got an ass like an onion..makes me wanna cry" -
kwokfan007 — 12 years ago(October 31, 2013 01:08 AM)
The film workedto a degree. I think what bugged me the most was the bad acting done by the younger actors. Lost Boys anyone? You got excellent, top notch actors(sans Julia Roberts) in a film with the Ginger from Rod Stewart's Forever Young video. I mean Come On! That's bull crap! Chucky was better at playing a little boy than these kids!
Some areas of the film were pretty hokey especially the end when Hook gets eaten by the supposedly dead crocodile. Right there you could tell Spielberg and his writers had no idea how to end the conflict between Pan and Hook. Might as well have a Trex pop into the shot and save the day. Oh wait, they did! That's the problem with most of Spielberg's films. His endings are usually a hit or a miss.
I love Hook for nostalgia purposes, but it's one of those films that could've been a lot better. -
metalvain — 12 years ago(October 31, 2013 02:58 PM)
I think the film was just bogged down by relying too heavily on scenes that just seem to be there to show the art direction and elaborate stages. I feel there is that magic everyone seems to go for and I have a fond memory of the film when I was a kid. In fact, I'm watching it again right now and I think I can actually appreciate how dark in tone it can be even more so. The scene where Peter and Moria come home to find that their kids have been kidnapped is one of my favorite scenes in any movie ever.
I will say that the film is awkward in it's pacing and at some parts it doesn't really seem like the movie knows what it wants to be. Nevertheless I still feel the good moments are good enough to appreciate it even if the movie is overall flawed and isn't exactly a masterpiece. -
ComicNerd — 12 years ago(November 04, 2013 04:48 PM)
The scene where Peter and Moria come home to find that their kids have been kidnapped is one of my favorite scenes in any movie ever.
That is the best part of the movie IMO, if the rest of the movie had been up to that standard it would be have been great.
I do enjoy watching it when it's on TV. I saw it in theater Christmas 91. I remember the poster with just the Hook on it. I actually think the build up to Peter's return to Neverland is the best part of the movie, however it never really settles on a tone. It's not really an adventure film , it's not a comedy. Neverland never really works as a magical place and takes you out of the movie because of it's stageness.