One thing I noticed about HOOK: it’s not called PAN. The title HOOK implies a new perspective on the PETER PAN tale, like we’re gonna see it from the pirate’s perspective, or even like it’s gonna be a Captain Hook biopic. Maybe we would learn about his struggles growing up, how he wrote his first hits, rose to the top of the charts, substance abuse, falling in love, the thing with the crocodile, etc.

Instead HOOK is just a sequel to PETER PAN where years later an asshole corporate lawyer guy (Robin Williams) finds out he forgot he was Peter Pan and has to go to Never Neverland to save his kids from Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman). It’s all about a balanced approach to “growing up,” not losing the joy and imagination of a kid but also being a responsible father and husband because he’s a fucking adult.

These messages are a little relatable and alot hackneyed because of these type of studio family movies that could star Williams or Jim Carrey or Tim Allen or Adam Sandler. And they’re themes that specifically have to do with Pan’s character, not Hook’s. There’s no new insight into Hook, his only semi-new trait is that he wants to have fun having a “war” with Pan more than he actually wants to kill him or avenge him for cutting off his hand. So he’s disappointed that Pan can’t fight anymore and he allows him time to re-train. And it doesn’t seem like it’s focusing much on him or his legend, other than a short part after the kids have been kidnapped when they find a long scrape across the walls, like he came in and Freddy Kruegered the place.

I mean that’s fine, it doesn’t have to be about Hook, but I bring that up because I think it shows what part of what went wrong: it must’ve been developed to death. Spielberg didn’t originally set out to make a movie about Peter Pan as a grown up, he just wanted to make some kind of Peter Pan movie. First it was a straight adaptation. Some reports claim he considered a musical version with Michael Jackson (obviously I wish that happened), but Spielberg told Entertainment Weekly that when he explained the plot of HOOK to him “Michael understood at that point it wasn’t the same Peter Pan he wanted to make.” (i.e. a good one).

For a while Spielberg wasn’t gonna direct and the script was rewritten by other people, then he came back to it. I don’t think anybody ever had a clear idea how or why to tell this story, but they went through with it anyway. I mean, they’d been loading the gun for a long time, might as well close their eyes, take a couple spins and then pull the trigger. What could go wrong?

HOOK isn’t the worst idea, it’s just not a strong or focused one, and doesn’t seem to be carefully thought out. Grownup Peter Pan isn’t a relatable screwup like Bill Murray or maybe Nic Cage would’ve played. He’s not likable at all. He neglects his family in the most obvious cliches possible: taking a business call during his daughter’s play (even more of a dick move in 1991 because of the effort required to haul around the giant phone), missing his son’s baseball game (also harder in 1991 because there was no app for missing the game). Most shitty movies just choose one of those two old saws, this one requires both. At least they could’ve changed it to a different sport! A tennis match or something. A solar car race. And then of course the family goes on a vacation and he’s all aggravated because of the big corporate acquisition conference call. Man, there’s alot of movies about the big corporate acquisition conference call the guy is trying to get. I guess that was a big part of people’s lives in the ’80s and ’90s. It was in the movies because we all can relate, buying out companies and all that.

There are other details to show how much grown-up Peter Pan has lost the magic of imagination and child wonder delight or what have you: when he first confronts Hook about the abduction of his children he threatens to sue him. Then when he won’t budget he acts like he’s going for the big guns and he pulls out his check book. These are both really funny ideas, like they’d be funny if Chris Elliot did them in CABIN BOY, but in this movie I’m not sure it’s suppose to be jokes, or if they are they’re not delivered in a funny way. There’s also a protective-parent side to his not being any fun anymore: he worries about his kids getting hurt, doesn’t like them playing near windows. Also he’s afraid of flying on planes, even though he used to fly using the power of imagination, pixie dust and tights.

But there’s one part where he’s at work where he’s having fun, to show he still has a little bit of Peter Pan in him. It’s an incredibly lame type of fun, but him and another guy have a quick draw contest using their early ’90s cell phones. He seems way too proud of himself and his co-workers seem even more way too impressed by him, but they’re obviously having fun. So be sure to forget this at the end of the movie when he apparently quits his job and they act like it was totally evil. I don’t know, maybe he’ll still keep in touch with all those people, and maybe they’ll loan him money so he can continue the international travel with his family.

These early lawyer scenes are scored with jazz that, fittingly, has a little bit of a cheesy modern fusion white-people-listen-to-it-in-the-dentist’s-office type of feel to it. I mean not too bad, it’s a little bit Peanuts but cut with a little bit of Kenny G. They probly should’ve gone full-on smooth jazz to really capture Peter’s sensibilities.

I don’t think he’s as relatable as they mean him to be, and when he turns back into a Pan it’s not a whole lot more appealing. It’s full grown Robin Williams with a bunch of kids dancing around giggling, howling and having food fights. The John Williams music is convinced this is the greatest and most magical thing I’ve ever seen, but I have my doubts.

Within the story Pan is not only likable, he’s irresistable to women. His wife obviously adores whatever she sees behind his asshole exterior. Grandma Wendy (Maggie Smith – shown briefly as Gwyneth Paltrow in flashbacks)) clearly maintains a childhood crush on him, and almost kisses him at one point. As soon as he gets to Neverland he falls in the ocean and three lusty mermaids make out with him. Later, Tinkerbell actually turns herself human-sized to profess her love for him. I don’t get it, man.

Hoffman is almost unrecognizable as Hook, and I want to say he’s good in the role, but alot of it is these scenes where he’s just doing some shtick with Smee (Bob Hoskins). For example he holds a gun to his head and says he won’t let Smee stop him from committing suicide, repeating it over and over again until Smee finally takes the hint and stops him from committing suicide. You can tell it seemed real funny to them when they filmed it, but it doesn’t translate for me. The only part that made me laugh is the part after a pirate is shot for trying to steal second and Hook mutters something about baseball being a violent sport.

If I had to choose a best scene maybe that would be it? Hook stages a baseball game for Pan’s son (Charlie Korsmo from DICK TRACY, by the way), just so he can attend it. Take that, dad who missed the baseball game! The irony is that Pan goes to the game to try to steal Hook’s sword and he ends up stopping to watch the game and be proud of his son. The son doesn’t even know he’s there, so it’s not a show, it’s for himself. But I don’t know, even the best parts are better ideas than executions.

The power vacuum left by Peter’s absence did not lead to a military coup or anything, he just got replaced by a dude named Rufio as the leader of the Lost Boys. Rufio is played by Dante Basco who was MJW’s manager in the great BLOOD AND BONE and was the main character in a goofy movie ride called FUNK BLAST that they used to have at the Experience Music Project in Seattle. That’s what I know him from. I’m not sure how Rufio came to power – he doesn’t seem to have Pan’s sense of fun or humor, he’s just an asshole who’s good at doing flips. It is possible that his status is based purely on his hairdo, which is kind of like a rockabilly pompadour but with three red mohawks bursting out of it. Pan should’ve had to outdo that hairdo in order to regain the throne. He could have a Big Daddy Kane on one half, down-to-his-ass pink crimped on the other, plus a couple braids with Stevie Wonder beads and “#55 BRIAN BOSWORTH” shaved into the back. Then it would be clear why the Lost Boys made him their leader. We’d all get it.

I guess it’s widely agreed that Julia Roberts (who was only 24 at the time, but a huge star because PRETTY WOMAN came out the year before)  is terrible in this. She plays Tinkerbell, the fairy who can talk in this version and I’m pretty sure wants to do Peter. (Don’t worry, since she uses that magic to turn human sized she has it worked out anatomically if necessary.) Roberts was nominated for a Razzie for worst supporting actress, but lost to Sean Young in A KISS BEFORE DYING. Anyway I didn’t think she was so awful, in fact I thought she was kind of good at times, but there is a surprising disconnect between her and the other actors. Most movies do a better job of making it seem like the live actor is really looking at and talking to the special effect.

It’s kinda funny seeing these movies that were just a few years before the digital revolution. They would look so incredibly different if they made them now. I like when they actually build big sets and stuff, instead of creating it all in a computer. But this doesn’t hold up as a good looking movie, for the most part. The one thing that really looks nice on the blu-ray is the occasional matte paintings showing the island from a distance. Those look real pretty.

I think part of my problem with this movie in comparison to other Spielberg is that it’s not grounded in a recognizable reality. E.T. is this fantastical fairy tale about a pet alien, but the kid actors and their dialogue are so naturalistic (”I don’t like his feet!”) and there’s a texture to the house and the town. It feels like a real place. In HOOK everything is fuckin fake. There’s the big Universal Studios Stunt Show style set for Never Neverland, where everybody wears crazy clothes and does flips and a fat kid named Thud Butt (seriously) folds himself into a ball to roll over bad guys. But the “real world” part at the beginning isn’t any more true to life. It’s made completely out of cliches, there’s no authenticity at all. Fake people flying off to a wooden set to ride skateboards and splatter paint on each other.

That probly doesn’t matter as much if you’re a kid, and I know there are people who grew up with this and still love it. Maybe not as much as THE GOONIES, but similar. I could be wrong but it seems to me like you really had to be imprinted to it at an early age, like those baby geese to Anna Paquin in that one movie. Otherwise you’re not gonna want to follow it around. You’re not gonna want to migrate with it.

You know what’s kinda weird, this movie has multiple connections to HALLOWEEN. The screen story is credited to Nick Castle, the original Michael Myers. The cinematographer is Dean Cundey, director of photography for HALLOWEEN (and HALLOWEEN II, and HALLOWEEN III). Arthur Malet, who plays the senile ex-Lost Boy Tootles, was the graveyard keeper in HALLOWEEN. Remember that part?

Graveyard Keeper: Yeah, you know every town has something like this happen… I remember over in Russellville, old Charlie Bowles, about fifteen years ago… One night, he finished dinner, and he excused himself from the table. He went out to the garage, and got himself a hacksaw. Then he went back into the house, kissed his wife and his two children goodbye, and then he proceeded to…
Dr. Sam Loomis: Where are we?
Graveyard Keeper: Eh? Oh, it’s, uh, right over here…

(One of the other screenwriters, Malia Scotch Marmo, only has a handful of other credits, and one of them was as a production assistant on SLEEPAWAY CAMP. For whatever that’s worth.)

So, yeah, I blame the thorn cult. That’s probly what went wrong.

HAPPY FEET TWO is messier than the first one. It seems more interested in exploring Miller’s big ideas than zeroing in on a focused story. Part One’s hero Mumble (Elijah Wood from FLIPPER) is now grown up (but still freakishly fuzzy) and has a kid named Eric. The events of One have changed the status quo so that Mumbles’s unique gift of tapdancing is now a societal expectation, which causes great humiliation for his uncoordinated son, causing him to fall into the ice while dancing and then pee all over himself (I wonder why they didn’t make that more of a 3D gimmick?)

So Eric wanders off and discovers a mega-church type ice patch where part One’s guru Lovelace (Robin Williams) now plays second fiddle to a bigger star, a “flying penguin” who’s obviously a puffin (Hank Azaria). And Eric decides that’s what he wants to do, he wants to fly. So the movie sort of pulls the rug out from under the feel-good message of the first one. Maybe you can’t do anything you believe in. Maybe you can dream too big, even if your pops taught penguinkind to communicate with humans through tapdancing.

The best parts are little side incidents and happenings along the way. There’s a great scene where a monstrous elephant seal is kind of an asshole to him, suffers a karmic fall from a cliff, accepts that he’s done for and asks Mumbles for the favor of getting his 2 adorable pups home. But Mumbles is Christlike (or at least Babe 2-like) enough to try to rescue the dude instead.

I also like the scenes about Lovelace and the puffin guy being rescued by humans (live action ones). In these movies humans are like aliens, and their objects (a sweater, some garbage) are like the Ark of the Covenant or something that turns the animals they touch into gods among birds. It’s too bad about the wacky accents. But somehow a scene where the Williams character amuses humans with air guitar comes off… I don’t know… weirdly beautiful. It’s not like some joke out of ALADDIN. It’s a confused animal doing something he feels but doesn’t fully understand, and the people are somewhere in between having a laugh and communing with nature. I can’t really explain it.

There’s also a subplot about two krill voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. The pittkrill must be the Tyler Durden of tiny shrimp things, because he decides to swim in the opposite direction of the swarm and find out what happens. He ends up far enough away to see his people as an orange cloud being eaten by a whale. It’s as if he touched the monolith and saw a God’s eye view of his existence. He sees that his people are living their lives not knowing that their whole purpose is to be food, but he refuses to go along with that.

The krill go on a whole adventure and don’t talk to the penguins or anything. They’re like that squirrel in the ICE AGE saga except kinda deep. Some reviews have complained that they have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Yeah, they’re mostly separate from the plot, but they have everything to do with the themes of both movies. Their tiny feet create a vibration that together with the cooperation of the rest of the eco-system, saves the penguins from a cave-in that was itself caused by a chain of events beginning with a single waterdrop. It’s all about how all the specieses are connected and about the importance of even the tiniest and most supposedly useless creatures. And if you think about it they never would’ve done it without the influence of Mumbles teaching everybody to dance. His art saves everybody for the second time.

In case anybody cares, the Three Dee in this one is along the lines of the Pixar movies – at first it looks pretty cool (especially in the krill swarm) but after a while you kind of forget it’s there. So it’s not a muddy detriment like some of the fake 3D, but it’s not that much of an addition. I didn’t regret it though because I saw it in Imax and the big screen and sound system were a major plus.

I think you should all see this today in the most expensive format available ’cause it’s not doing all that hot and we don’t need an excuse for delay #36 on MAD MAX: FURY ROAD. Come on guys, we all benefit from this. Everybody better pitch in. The krill did.

That spoiler was the first thing I heard about the movie, but it happens maybe halfway through, so I probly shouldn’t have known about it. Anyway, it’s not what it sounds like. Considering that’s what it’s about it’s pretty upbeat.

Williams plays a high school poetry teacher (not the same character from DEAD POETS SOCIETY in my opinion) who has failed for years to get any of his writing published. He’s timid but nice, is dating a hot teacher at school but is not very confident in their relationship. Also he has the worst son ever, just a completely unlikable little bastard prick played by Daryl Sabara (SPY KIDS, POLAR EXPRESS). It’s not very believable that such a nice and understanding father would raise such a despicable scumbag motherfucker, but otherwise this kid is a very accurate portrait of youth. He really has no interests or hobbies other than porn. He mostly talks about anal sex, German shit porn, etc. When his dad tries to talk to him about music he says “music is for fags.” Same goes for movies.

So then one day after making a serious attempt to connect with his son the world’s greatest dad (seriously, SPOILER) discovers the little bastard dead from accidental strangulation during masturbation. And in a real masterstroke of depravity he discovers that the kid was jerking off to upskirt photos he snuck of the dad’s girlfriend during dinner. Charming.

To save himself embarrassment, or to give the kid some kind of dignity that he never came even remotely close to earning, the dad sets it up to look like a suicide, erases the porn and writes a suicide note. The school newspaper ends up getting ahold of the fake letter and printing it, and people in the school who never gave a shit about the kid while he was alive (and with good reason) start seeing dimension in him that was never there, and suddenly everybody was his best friend. He turns into a martyr and an icon, like Tupac or Jim Morrison. So next the dad decides to write a fake journal, which gets published and becomes a media sensation.

This is where I really expected something different. From that premise it sounds like he’s this desperate loser exploiting his son’s death to get a shot at having success as a writer. But it doesn’t really come across that way in the movie. It’s more of an accident, and an act of charity, investing a sensitivity and intelligence into his son’s legacy when really he was just a worthless shithead that everybody should probly be happy is dead instead of out on the streets planning rapes. The dad never seems like a bad guy. The title isn’t as sarcastic as I expected.

I have to admit, the more queasy version sounds alot funnier to me than this movie is. But it’s sort of nice that Goldthwait doesn’t go for the meanest approach to the story. I know everybody wants to rub society’s face in the shit like Dave the Demon saying “this is MY reality, Roger Ebert,” but I think sometimes it’s more admirable to be nice. If you know how to make kind of a sweet story about a guy covering up his douchebag son’s fatal masturbation accident, I say go for it.

I’ve talked to people who thought the movie was hilarious (mostly because of the horrible things the son says), but to me it didn’t even really seem like much of a comedy. I mean, obviously it is, because the movie poster has a white background with red letters. But to me it plays more like a weird drama. There are a couple laughs and clever ideas. I like how blatant he is about using his son’s alleged writings to get his own views across, even using this platform to get goth teens into Bruce Hornsby. And I like how his son’s only friend knows the book is fake because it doesn’t ever mention fisting or felching.

But I think the movie is less successful in its portrayal of the kids at the school becoming obsessed with his dead son, wearing his face on t-shirts and stuff. It’s not at all believable and wasn’t really funny to me, so it fell flat. And it’s yet another movie that suffers by being compared to HEATHERS, which Goldthwait acknowledges as the originator of the “school exploits suicide of kid they didn’t care about alive” satire by naming one of the characters Heather.

Still, it’s an unusual movie and it kept me interested. I’m not sure Goldthwait will ever be a great director, but I respect that he follows his whims and makes uncommercial movies on his own dime, and still gets Robin Williams to star. I’ll have to revisit his other directorial works – I remember SHAKES THE CLOWN being funny and I really liked his practical joke movie WINDY CITY HEAT. Never saw the one about bestiality though.

Williams is actually very good in the role. It’s a rare one for him – it’s not even like ONE HOUR PHOTO where he plays it all serious and creepy. He gets to make jokes and be funny to charm people but just in a subdued way where he’s not running around talking in funny voices and effectively daring you to hit him on the head with a mallet. I actually liked him in this movie, even if it made me a little uncomfortable to hear him talking to his neighbor about zombie movies and quoting Simon Pegg about fast zombies. I guess I should be more uncomfortable about the scene where you see his dick.

Sabara is also good, in fact perfect. It’s funny that the spy kid is so good at playing assholes now (he was also the bully who young Michael Meyers ended up beating to death in the HALLOWEEN remake). Most of the other characters, though, are your usual local production indie inexperienced type of performances, no offense to my native Seattle where it was filmed. It just has that cheap-but-well-meaning indie vibe. But with Robin Williams.

I don’t know how the fuck you try to sell a movie like this. It’s hard to explain. The only way to reel me in was to reveal the entire plot. And it turns out there are other people who will hear that same information and not be sold on it like I was. When I used Google to figure out what school they filmed at I found an article about it on the Seattle Public Schools community blog. It talked about the production and when Robin Williams would be in town and said, “I won’t tell you the plotline – it’s crude and not particularly interesting.”

[ratings]

I still like this premise though, that since there’s so much money in children’s television, there also must be corruption. So scenariographer Adam Resnick and directator Daniel DeVito paint a portrait of the seedy underbelly of children’s television, where children’s tv stars are caught up in bribery and stalking and murder. The story begins with a great scene where Robin Williams as “Rainbow Randolph” takes a bribe from parents to have their kid featured on his show. The bribe is a suitcase half full of wrinkly ten dollar bills, and Randolph says “You want me to put your little booger eater on my show?” Next thing you know, though, he’s walking out with the money, and the parents pop up with guns and yell “Freeze, cocksucker!”

Then Edward Norton from the 1999 Outlaw Award Winner for Best Fuckin Picture FIGHT CLUB enters as Smoochy, a purple guitar playing health nut rhinocerous. He plays the part as kind of a half imitation of Woody Harrelson. Mr. Resnick, in an interview, described his character as being like Serpico, an ethical person who comes into a world of corruption and struggles to stay on a straight path. Kind of like me I guess also.

Anyway all kinds of wackiness ensues as Rainbow Randolph keeps trying to set up Smoochy, and the Irish mob and a brain dead former boxer and some other colorful individuals get involved. And there are jokes and what not.

There are some real funny lines in this picture. Vincent Schiavelli says, “Sorry if I smell like piss, but you know how it is.” Smoochy says, “There are kids and junkies out there counting on me!” I guess you had to be there.

Robin Williams is also surprisingly un-annoying. The filmatists get more mileage than you’d expect out of having Mr. “I always star in crap like Patch Adams” yelling motherfucker and cock and etc. Even I was laughing a couple times. He also gets a couple of magical Rainbow Randolph moments. There is a well choreographed dance through the city and an end credits “ice dancing” scene. I don’t know if you know what ice dancing is, but it is like ice skating except even more for fairies. There is one guy I saw on tv who does ice dancing based on major motion pictures. He did one based on CASTAWAY, with a volleyball, a fire and everything. The next day he did one based on WILD WILD WEST, with a cardboard saloon. I shit you not, this really exists. In this movie I liked it though, in my opinion.

Still this is a pretty obvious movie with lots of scenes where the music tries to convince you that it is more whimsical and funny than it actually is. You won’t be completely wasting your time but it doesn’t live up to its potential.

NOTE WRITTEN FOUR YEARS LATER: sorry for the “fairies” comment above. I wish I could say I literally meant magical fairies like tinkerbell, but I was probaly just being ignorant there. also, I’d just like to point out that this is probaly the most positive review ever written of this movie.

[ratings]