Review of Hook (1991) by William D — 17 Dec 2012

The great Sir James M. Barrie would probably turn in his grave at the notion of Hook. Robin Williams as Peter Pan? How about Arnold Schwarzenegger as Harry Potter ("I'll be back duh get you, Vol-duh-mort!") or Clint Eastwood as Billy Bunter? Isn't Peter Pan the kid who err...never grew up? Is Steven Spielberg kinda missing the point here? Well, err...yes. Robin Williams is like...50 years old. How can he possibly fit into the role? Short answer to that one is -he can't. Forget it. No way.

Hook shouldn't really work. On paper, maybe(sort of) but showing it on film would leave purists of Barrie's original story feeling as if Spielberg has fed them to that crocodile with the ticking tummy, although having said that, they may still do.

That's not to say that Hook's totally disrespectful to J.M. Barrie. After all, it does mention that he did write the books and about the Great Ormond Street Hospital in which he donated the money he earned from them to. It is also worth considering that Barrie was going to write a story in which Pan grew up. There are also neat little quips - the adult Peter Pan is a lawyer who's jokingly referred to as a pirate (nice touch!) and at one stage, he very uncharacteristically tells his son Jack to 'grow up!'.

However, despite grossing over $300 million worldwide, Spielberg considered the film to be a total flop. He needn't have said so and that is a little harsh. Yes, it's far from his greatest work. Yes, it does have its flaws. Yes, he may be still one of the greatest directors to still be living among us and yes, he still does slightly misinterpret the character of Pan but for a fun adventure trip to Neverland with plenty of swordfights, swashbuckling action which the finale delivers in great quantities along with terrific flying scenes, parents with kids who like a bit of swordplay and all things pirate can easily be forgiving and you know what? There's something for them to look forward to as well.

Like in most of his other films, Williams is serious in this role. He plays it straight and is mostly deadpan even if he does display flashes of his fast sharp comedic wit here and there. That aside, his character is for the most part tiresome. Alone, he's a bit of a miserable old sod who likes a good moan and to knock back on the whisky. As a dad, he's highly overprotective around the kids and he's never really there, nor does he have the time to play with them or see his son's baseball game because of his life being completely dedicated to his work. It's during the scenes at the beginning where Spielberg seems to give in to American tradition of starting with the whole "bad dad with big job neglects his son because he's too busy" scenario that's been pretty much done to death. It doesn't really help much but it does set the rest of the story up even if it does eventually start to take off...slowly. It's when Captain Hook (an enjoyably hammy Dustin Hoffman with an excitable but cheerful Bob Hoskins in tow, both of which form a great scene-stealing comic duo) sets his eyes on kidnapping the ankle-biters and the somewhat irritating Julia Roberts as "poxy pixie" Tinker Bell takes Peter Pan (or Banning as he is mentioned back on Earth) back to his childhood - too good an upbringing to forget entirely - that it begins to soar.

Which brings me to my next point - how exactly DOES Hook abduct the children? Did he force Tink to sprinkle magic dust on himself so he can fly to London to get them? Would it have hurt Spielberg to explain these as well as some other major plot holes? It also seems very unreal of Peter's seemingly negligent parents to be totally dismissive of where their boy's actually got to, not given a monkey's as to whether or not they get him back and forgot they even had him in the first place. There are times in this bedtime story that feel as if Mum and Dad are trying to tell it off by heart, only for them to stutter in places, try to remember what happens next and making it up as they go along without making any real sense.

If Hook doesn't work as a well-told story on a whole, it works as a fantasy journey to another world that's well worth taking with the whole piece accompanied by John Williams' lively, dramatic but flat-out lovely score (how DOES the man do it?). The Neverland sets are crafted with plenty of imagination to behold, although there are scenes that play like an island-themed Toys "R" Us commercial with the Lost Boys riding wind-surfing skateboards (?) and shooting wooden handmade splatter guns. Watch out for cameos including a bearded Glenn Close, George Lucas and Carrie Fisher making love (what?), Phil Collins and Gwyneth Paltrow in an early role, as well as the delightful Dame Maggie Smith as sweet, old Granny Wendy and Arthur Malet as Tootles, a senile old coot who's certainly lost something. Of all the weak links in regards to the acting, they are Roberts, Dante Basco, a little OTT as skunk-haired Lost Boy Leader Rufio (although he looks pretty cool) and the screaming, whiny little brat Amber Scott as Pan's daughter Maggie. Try as you might to feel pity for her, although she does have a sweet singing voice, by the end of it all you just wish she was given a right smack as well as a slit through the neck with that trusty hook. True, Spielberg has struggled to make us sympathise with some of his child characters in the past but it isn't exactly easy to accomplish that as it has plagued many a film, as well as those not directed by him.

Hook thankfully doesn't sink. It isn't perfect, though. The plot's like a piece of Swiss cheese and there are moments of obnoxious childishness, cringe-worthy scenes worthy of a few slaps on the forehead as well as Americanisation-a-go-go - can't really blame Steven Spielberg for that, being a Yankee and all - but it does have a heart and allows you to just have fun with it, shed a few tears along the way and not worry about its faults. What's more, even Barrie himself would have liked it. Spielberg reminds us that there is a kid in all of us and Hook is proof of that. Wonderful stuff.