By busy businessman Peter Banning (Robin Williams) not remembering that he was once Peter Pan, we know that in the world of "Hook" he'll naturally have to be reintroduced to the personalities he once surrounded himself with, mainly Tinkerbell (a radiant Julia Roberts) and the Lost Boys (not all the young actors make distinct impressions, but there are a few who do a good enough job).
What "Hook" is missing, though, is a very subtle, yet vastly important difference. Peter and his family (Caroline Goodall as Peter's wife, Moira, and Charlie Korsmo and Amber Scott as the kids) visit Granny Wendy (Maggie Smith) in London, in time for the Ormond Street Hospital to dedicate an orphan's wing to her. After Peter's children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), and personal favorite Phil Collins makes a cameo as a respectful, yet doubting police inspector, Wendy tells Peter who he is. She first asks him if there's anything he can remember before she took him in. He can't.
How is this possible? He's flown without the requirement of wings. He's lived in Never-Neverland. How can this be forgotten? Screenwriters James V. Hart and Malia Scotch Marmo never explain how this memory loss could happen. Is it really that possible that Peter could block it out with all the work he does for the businesses he tries to save, the lucrative business deals he attempts to mount? According to the movements of the film, Peter doesn't seem to have lost that memory at all. The Lost Boys certainly don't believe that Peter was once Peter Pan, after he arrives in Never-Neverland (led by Tinkerbell), and neither does Captain Hook, incredibly disbelieving at how this could be the man whose children he's kidnapped.
What did Hook expect? It's understood that time never seems to affect anything in Never-Neverland. But when Hook decides to venture into our world to take Peter's children, didn't he at least do enough research to realize that we age regularly here? There's a nice surprise of a scene where Peter finally remembers everything and recounts how he became Peter Pan and how he came for Wendy often to take her there, and there's Gwyneth Paltrow in her second movie role as the young Wendy, who gradually becomes Maggie Smith. Surely Hook could have understood and therefore not been so surprised that the man he sees before him doesn't fit into green tights as easily as he once did. Wouldn't he have known that enough just by the fact that Peter has kids?
In this regard, the screenwriters as well as Steven Spielberg miss out on something very distinctive that could have made "Hook" more embraceable: Suppose that Peter did remember that he was once Peter Pan. And it's not that he blocked out the memories of living with the Lost Boys and with Tinkerbell, just that life with Moira seemed more palatable to him and he agreed to a different life. And instead of Peter's children being kidnapped, why not the balance of Never-Neverland being threatened by an even more evil Captain Hook, with the Lost Boys in danger. Tinkerbell comes and warns Peter about this, begging him to go back and set things right, but Peter's unsure. Life where he is seems more important than life over there. It's not that he doesn't appreciate the past, but the present feels nicer.
As it is, "Hook" has a few moments that make one want to hug it closely, to want to love it with all the emotion one can have toward a movie. First, there's Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell, which makes me grateful that I completely forgot first seeing "Hook" when I was eight years old, only remembering that it was during a summer movie program at a local theater in Coral Springs, Florida. Because over the years, I've not understood why people find Julia Roberts appealing. Doesn't seem to be a whole lot in the way of acting in her career, except for a brazen attempt with "Erin Brockovich."
But watching Tinkerbell grin widely as the Lost Boys are joyful at seeing Peter once again, I see why. Who wouldn't want to be smiled at like that? She's the smiling female counterpart of Alan Alda, who, when he smiles, his eyes participate in the act as well. It's the same thing with Roberts, though her eyes seem to sparkle. In a way, she takes over part of the Audrey Hepburn mantle, but not all. She's almost as charming as Hepburn was.
The one scene that causes more attention to be paid to "Hook" is when the Lost Boys doubt that Peter is who he is, once Rufio draws a dirt line and commands those who don't believe it's him, to step away from him. All of them do except a young boy who looks at him, pokes at his shirt, pulls him down to his height level, takes off his glasses, stretches his face with his fingers, and then his mouth as far back as it will go into a thin grin. He smiles and says, "Oh, there you are, Peter," and the Lost Boys run back to him. Just the discoveries that can be made by a child, the things that those who are older might not readily see, is incredible and deeply touching, especially in that scene.
But as much as it would seem necessary to hold on in the hopes that "Hook" could get better with Roberts and that one scene, other moments like that are spread far apart. It's delicious to watch Dustin Hoffman prance about as Captain Hook, and equally fun to see Bob Hoskins as Smee (especially in a moment where he finds use for his ear wax), but where is the genuine fun? I love swordfights, but the ones featured here seem like uninspired, standard fare, without a proper choreographer to really make use of the locations.
There's at least Robin Williams, besides the aforementioned pleasures, reliably uncomfortable in dramatic form that soon requires him to be the Robin Williams we know. The entire film doesn't hold up, but he's there as an anchor of sorts, even when boredom pervades the film. "Hook" rates as a 4.5 out of 10. (R. Aronsky)
![[Logo]](/images/underground_header.jpg)
![[Braveheart]](http://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/braveheart_small.jpg)
![[Heaven Ain't Hard to Find]](http://www.screenit.com/images/posters/dvd/big/heaven_aint_hard_to_find.jpg)