It did work. What are you talking about? Millions of people love this film. Clearly it worked. I remember this being one of my favorite movies as a kid. I remember buying the toys even. This movie worked.

I love this movie, I think it's criminally underrated myself. My favorite thing about this movie, is John Williams' music score. I agree as said earlier that sets looked too "stagey." I know the original Peter Pan was on a stage but under the direction of Steven Spielberg you think he would've used better cinematography like he did in the Indiana Jones movies (except for Crystal Skull), you felt like you were there where it took place. Hook's Neverland reminded me of Batman Returns' Gotham. Imagine Hook remade with the effects and visuals as seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, that would be awesome.

Yeah, it was not his best work, and he may look at that as his "wish I hadnt" movie, but that does not change the fact it was a financial success.

Even Spielberg hated it.he said on radio its the movie of his he'd like to see again, just to see if he could find anything he liked out it (reference Spielberg intervie on Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo radio show)

And since movies are financially driven, it was a success.

Exactly, I know more people that enjoy the movie then not.

This message has been deleted.

Profits don't mean a movie was a success in any way but financially. The majority of movie-goers and makers feel this was a disaster and it was. That is a flop. And this was a huge one.

Must have missed the part about anyones personal thoughts (even if mainstream) is an opinion. We judge all other industries on financial success, and this should be no other This movie, while had major flaws, was not a flop, and the money proves it.

Profits don't mean a movie was a success in any way but financially. The majority of movie-goers and makers feel this was a disaster and it was. That is a flop. And this was a huge one.

It did work, any reason you think it didn't is an opinion. The profits show it was a success may not have been a mega blockbuster as intended but it did not flop.

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)

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can agree with this. I like the movie a lot but it really drags.

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.

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.

Yes it did
very better than the emotionless and forgetable Peter Pan 2003

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.

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.

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.