Why didn't this work?
-
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. -
darkowl13 — 12 years ago(December 12, 2013 02:19 PM)
This movie worked incredibly well, and has a huge cult following. I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy this movie (not to say that everyone did enjoy it). It has a very original and heartfelt story, the acting is great (Dustin Hoffman was the best Hook I've ever seen), and the John Williams score only enhances the visual experience. This movie just has too many good things going for it to say that it didn't work.
I agree with you though, it does have a stagey feel to it, but it was probably done intentionally. Keep in mind that Peter Pan has been done numerous times as a play, so it actually makes sense for this movie to have that feel to it. -
drose-412-868637 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 10:09 PM)
Now, I love this movie but I see what you're saying about how everything looks like a set. But I don't see how that could be such a big problem. Let's remember the origin of the Peter Pan story. It was originally written as a play. And one of the more defining adaptations of the story was the 1960 Mary Martin live broadcast of the 1954 Broadway play. So, Peter Pan is much at home in a "staged" environment. Hook feels very much like Spielberg's tribute to classic swashbuckling adventure films where everything had to be filmed on sets as opposed to on location and maybe it's Spielberg paying tribute to the original stage versions of Peter Pan. I love the fabricated stagey look to Neverland in Hook, and combine that with the great acting from the leads, the amazing score, and clever story, I'd hardly call it a misfire, but that's just me.
-
coex — 12 years ago(December 18, 2013 06:09 AM)
The Lost Boys' sets were unbearable. Absolutely ridiculous. Dare we get into some incredibly dated (even at that time) "new wave" hairstyles? Jeez, and they haven't aged well at all
Too bad, as Hoffman's Hook was a class act!
And, as someone else pointed out, Pan as an adult was a bad move storywise.
The film remains cringeworthy today; and if it has a cult-following, it's because it's "cheesy" in that Plan 9 sort of way. -
helderuto — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 05:12 AM)
For myself, I think the movie looks to stagey. Everything in Neverland is an obvious set, and would be at home on Broadway, but on the big screen it somehow doesn't work for me.
The original Peter Pan WAS a stage play, so it makes all sense looking stagey. -
donh-10 — 12 years ago(January 05, 2014 11:29 AM)
I think it was brought down by bad editing. I don't know if the editors were afraid to say no to Steven Spielberg or what but many of the scenes drag on way too long. 144 min. is way too long for the young audience this was aimed at.
-
joomington — 11 years ago(April 04, 2014 02:57 AM)
This was one of my most-watched movies when I was a youngster. I am watching it again at age 27 and I must admit it is not the film I remember. I have to agree that it is bloated, strained, confused and at many times cringe-worthy. But it's not a disaster as the rotten tomatoes rating and reviews like "Spielberg's worst film" might indicate. I think Dustin Hoffman is actually fairly amazing as Hook. He has the best lines by far and outdoes the material. His scenes with Bob Hoskins' Smee are the only ones that work properly.
Unfortunately I think a lot of the problem with the film is that the rest of the characters are poorly drawn and not very likeable. The Lost Boys were fun to watch as a kid but as an adult are only just adequate. Rufio is pretty much insufferable and Julia Robert's Tinkerbell is annoying. But the biggest problem is Robin Williams as Peter Pan. I actually don't blame Williams because I think with better material he could have been great. But the character himself is genuinely unlikeable for most of the film, so doesn't really work as the character we're supposed to be rooting for.
I really feel that what happened was Spielberg signed on to the project before there was a complete script, and the best they could come up with was this, which he knew wasn't great but was just good enough to get on with. It does feel like he dialed this one in a bit. The movie really should have started 10 minutes after it did. All the stuff in Chicago with the play and the baseball game and the office and the plane flight is just terrible, slow, boring and doesn't actually add anything except making us dislike Robin William's Peter more and more.
I would have begun the movie as the family arrives at Granny Wendy's house and completely cut out the long and boring and irrelevant speech scene. There is enough exposition to set up Peter's life and his relationship with his family and his past, and things actually start happening (the kids getting nabbed) without about 15 minutes instead of 45. In fact I think a good deal of people would like the film a lot more if that had been the case, and if I ever show it to a friend I might do just that. -
pleasewait13 — 11 years ago(April 10, 2014 02:57 PM)
It's one of my favourite Spielberg films. The score is just breathtakingly beautiful by Williams. Hoffman's Captain Hook is just pitch perfect and there is a real beauty to the film, and sadness and joy and happiness.
I actually believe the stories concept was great - Peter Pan grows up!
Nowadays there seems to be no new concepts in movies. By showing a grown up Pan, Hook took a different approach with a character. A very interesting approach in my view, that opened up a wealth of opportunities. Why did Peter grow up? What were his motives?
It has everything really; an uptight grown-up discovering his sense of fun and his inner child. The scene where the Lost Boy recognises Pan by checking his facial features is one of my favourite moments in movies.
Don't get the negative reviews. -
candym1958 — 11 years ago(April 27, 2014 10:04 AM)
I do not understand why there is so much fighting going on about this movie. It is a simple FANTASY film. With some wonderful actors, and a pretty good story line. I agree it is No "Gone with the wind, or Wizard of Oz" But it is great to relax on a Sunday afternoon with your family and to watch.
-
BrianTheDog — 11 years ago(April 13, 2014 09:40 AM)
On tv nowit didn't work then, it doesn't work now. Terrible dialogue, disjointed message, Robin Williams was a poor choice for lead, and weird editing. Did anyone care that Rufio died? Did anyone care about Tinkerbell? It was a movie made for 8 year olds, but too violent for them and too silly for anyone over 12.
-
clark_gillies — 11 years ago(April 30, 2014 07:33 AM)
Remember as a kid being so excited to see this, and being so let down when I watched it.
Story seemed to be all over the place, and within 20-30 minutes I was left thinking "is this suppose to be a musical, a comedy or serious?". I know it was suppose to have the comedy, mixed with the feel good factor you would expect from movies like Big, it was just a little bit too serious in a way that a lot of the gags and jokes got lost in it.
Williams felt very lack luster in it (I have always suspected like Popeye, he was told to cut out/keep to a minimum the improve), Hoffman seems far to cartoon-ish and over the top that it just does not fit in with the movie in any way, and it is really Hoskins that steals the show (every time I watch it, its the Hook-Smee "oh not again" scene that I watch it for, then turn off).
Its a good story, with a poor script, that was over hyped for the production vale with nobody real any idea what direction the movie is taking (I feel Spielberg spent so much time campaigning to get this made in the 1980's, that he was burned out with the idea by the time it went into production)