Review: Hook

Peter Pan, ‘The boy who never grew up’ has indeed grown up into an overworked lawyer (Robin Williams) who never has enough time for his kids. He doesn’t seem to remember his true identity, until a trip to England brings him face to face with an elderly Wendy (Dame Maggie Smith). And then his kids end up being kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman!), forcing Peter to remember, as Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts) takes him to Neverland to rescue the kids. He can’t do this as a mere stuffy lawyer, however. Bob Hoskins plays Hook’s loyal number two Smee, Caroline Goodall plays Peter’s wife, Charlie Korsmo plays one of the kids, Dante Basco plays the leader of the Lost Boys, Arthur Malet plays daffy old Tootles, a young-ish Gwyneth Paltrow plays the young Wendy, Phil Collins plays a police inspector, and David Crosby turns up briefly as a pirate.

 

I read somewhere that Steven Spielberg thinks the problem with this 1991 re-invention of (or sequel to) “Peter Pan” was the art direction, and that the CG of today would’ve solved that issue. No, Steven, the problem with this film is that it was made by a filmmaker clearly more interested in technical elements than story or characters. Basically, the film tries to re-interpret something that was already fantastic and in the process, the magic is lost. The idea of Peter Pan eventually growing up and becoming a workaholic dad is a cute one, but it’s not enough. Spielberg should’ve realised this and decided to simply make the best traditional version of the tale possible. Having the childlike Robin Williams in the lead could’ve really led to something entertaining here if Spielberg allowed for it. He can be the world’s best filmmaker when he wants to be (“Jaws”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “War of the Worlds”), but this one’s pretty much of a dud because Spielberg proves myopic at the helm, losing sight of the pixie dust. Williams, meanwhile, looks miserable and it’s not just his character. He clearly sees that this is inferior stuff, and indeed the early portion is sitcom nonsense more indicative of early Ron Howard (“Mr. Mom”, “Working Class Man”/“Gung Ho”) than Spielberg.

 

I’m not gonna deny that the film looks cheap, Spielberg probably has a point there. Although I’m no “Jurassic Park” fan, the technological advance in just the two years between this and that film is staggering. The blue screen work is especially hideous. But to blame everything on the look of the film is to avoid the real problem here: Story. It’s not the conception that’s the major problem. No, the major problem is one of execution. The early scenes technically aren’t that different, just that instead of the children’s father looking a lot like Hook in the Disney version, we get Peter Pan himself as the humourless father character instead. Spielberg puts too much emphasis on the more modern interpretation and scenes prior to Neverland. The pacing of the whole thing is staggeringly slow. Because of the re-interpretation of the story, it’s 40 minutes in and we haven’t even gotten to Neverland yet. Almost two hours in and Peter Panning still hasn’t fully embraced his former self. The only reason why this is called “Hook” is because calling it “Peter Pan” would result in a lawsuit for false advertising. It takes forever to get to see any swash being buckled, and it results in a film that is unlikely to appeal to young or old.

 

Dame Maggie Smith and Bob Hoskins (perfect as Smee) stand out in an otherwise underwhelming cast. Julia Roberts was riding high here and was apparently armed with an ego and drug habit to match at the time (So I’ve read, at least). It was a cute idea in theory to cast her as Tinkerbell, but it doesn’t work. You can hardly see her a lot of the time due to the (forgive me) size of the part, and she’s forced and annoying the rest of the time. I bet she hates looking back at this, her role is just looking and reacting to stuff she can’t see. She did still have an unforced smile at this point in her career, I’ll give her that. It looks painful for her to smile these days. Dustin Hoffman’s Hook isn’t unentertaining, but his Terry-Thomas approach lacks any menace, he’s all bluster and far too short to boot.

 

There’s way too much time spent here with The Lost Boys and their annoying, indecipherable trash talk. What the hell was up with that? And no, I haven’t a clue why David Crosby and Phil Collins are in this in cameos, either (Glenn Close too, apparently). The closest the film gets to magic is the score by John Williams (“Star Wars”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Superman”), and even he has seen (or heard?) better days. It’s not a terrible film (“Return to Oz” offered up a similar approach to a classic and is a much worse film), just a terribly botched film with no fun. It takes 2 hours and 20 minutes to fail to do what Disney did better in around 90 minutes.

 

A film full of ideas and potential that simply has no sense of awe, wonder, fantasy, adventure, magic, or…fun. This should’ve been perfect, all the elements were there (and some nice use of shadow reminiscent of the Disney version too), but with a director more focussed on art direction, he fails to see that the rest isn’t up to snuff. I’d rather hear Dame Maggie Smith read the original story on audio tape, or watch the 1953 Disney animated classic instead. Based on a story by Jim Hart and Nick Castle (“Escape From New York”, “The Boy Who Could Fly”), the screenplay is by Hart and Carol Scotch Marmo (“Once Around”, “Jurassic Park”). Awesome doorknob, by the way. It’s a hook! I seriously want one!

 

Rating: C