In Hollywood, money, and not creativity is nearly always the driving force behind decisions of what films are given the "green light" and the rest that see the red stop sign and/or bottom of the trash heap. While those with their own money can make whatever films they choose, most of the creative forces in filmmaking (the directors, writers and stars) need someone else's cash reserves to financially back their latest projects.
One of the best ways to generate that sort of support is obviously to have "name" talent involved with the picture in question, thus giving the financiers a face and/or name that they believe will draw in the masses to see the picture and thus give them a return on their investment.
Another way is to have a solid "what if" scenario that has such a great sounding "hook" that's practically guaranteed to have the stars lining up, the money people emptying their pockets and the studio accountants salivating over potentially profitable returns. Columbia/TriStar's "Hook" obviously had its own appropriately labeled "hook" when it was first pitched back in the early '90s.
After all, doesn't the notion of having Peter Pan being a grown-up, who's forgotten his childhood identity and must return to Neverland to face his former, childhood arch nemesis, Captain Hook, sound like a great, or at least interesting idea? It does, and did back then, and easily attracted the likes of director Steven Spielberg and stars such as Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman and Julia Roberts who all became attached to it.
The resulting picture, originally released in December of 1991 and going on to gross around $120 million domestically, however, didn't and still doesn't quite live up to the original and beloved children's story by J.M. Barrie. While the picture looks great - in fact, it went on to receive five Oscar nominations in technical areas (including Best Art Direction, Costume Design, Visual Effects, Makeup and Song) - it lacks the fun and charming spirit of Barrie's original work.
As written by James V. Hart (who later went on to write "Contact" and "Muppet Treasure Island") and Malia Scotch Marmo (who wrote the screen story for "Madeline"), the film does have its interesting story hook (sorry, can't help using that term) and the film certainly isn't torturous to sit through.
Unfortunately, it's one of those Spielberg films where the talented and prolific director was in his "kid" phase where such juvenile characters - as constructed and played - ruined, or at least near ruined the proceedings. While the director had a great beginning of his career (with "Jaws" and "Close Encounters") and is currently at the top of his game (with pictures such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List"), his "middle years" were filled with films often containing children in lead roles or important parts. While some of them were good ("Empire of the Sun," "E.T."), others were often sickening sweet and/or irritating in the way in which the kids were portrayed or behaved ("Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," "Jurassic Park").
"Hook" definitely falls into that latter category, with the entire bits about the Lost Boys coming off as nothing short of annoying and miserably failing in execution. While it's understood that the film is geared for kids (and the "kid" in the rest of us adults), that doesn't mean that those portrayed in the picture have to come off as irritatingly and/or artificial as they do here.
The film also suffer a bit from having the talented Robin Williams in his "touchy feely" mode, and his take on Peter Pan as a grownup who has lost, but then finds his "inner child" again just didn't work that well for me. Nor did the casting of Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell. What makes Roberts so successful a movie star is her larger than life persona. By reducing her down to pixie size, however, the effect is obviously diminished and consequently both her performance and persona are mostly lost in the diminutive character.
Fairing much better are Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins as Captain Hook and his right-hand crony, Smee, respectively. Chewing up the scenery with glee, they're the best the film has to offer, at least regarding its performances. The picture's technical merits, however, are quite good (and obviously explain the Oscar nominations for them). While the elaborate sets purposefully don't look real (but instead have more of the feel of old-fashioned movie sets, thus reinforcing the film's "fantasy" feel), they are incredibly elaborate.
The special effects - while understandably a bit dated looking now - are decent for what was trying to be achieved with them. Oscar winning composer John Williams rounds out the technical merits with a solid score that might not be his best or most memorable, but certainly fits the bill for what's required for the picture.
As far as the disc itself, both the visuals and aural elements are both quite good and make the film an enjoyable enough experience to sit through even if the story's high concept plot isn't fully realized and/or handled quite properly. Supplemental materials, however, are rather lacking, with just two theatrical trailers (for this film and "Jumanji") and some brief, textual filmography notes about the key cast and crewmembers rounding out the offerings.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
