list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Hook on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Hook/15836/default.aspx Title: Hook
Year: 1991
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Steven Spielberg filters J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan through a distinctly 1990s sensibility in Hook. Peter Pan has become Peter Banning (Robin Williams), a 40-year-old mergers and acquisitions lawyer with a permanent scowl on his face and a cellular phone in his belt. Banning has lost any memory of being Peter Pan, and he is also in danger of losing his wife Moira (Caroline Goodall) and two children, Jack (Charlie Korsmo) and Maggie (Amber Scott). Peter and his family travel to London to visit Granny Wendy (Maggie Smith) who recalls Peter's lost youth and asks him, "Peter, dear, don't you know who you are?" With Peter's children asleep in the same bedroom where the original Peter Pan story began, there is a blinding flash. Peter comes into the room to discover a note from Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), informing Peter that he has kidnapped his children. Granny Wendy now tells him who he really is and encourages him to re-discover his happy thoughts, transform himself into the Peter Pan of the past, and go rescue his children. With the encouragement of Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts), Peter recalls the birth of his son and once again takes wing. Then it's off to Never Land to rescue his kids. ~ Paul Brenner, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 129
Number of Lists: 60
Number of blog posts: 10
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 15:52:11 GMTHook1991Steven Spielberg<a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a> filters J. M. Barrie's Peter Pan through a distinctly 1990s sensibility in Hook. Peter Pan has become Peter Banning (<a href="/players/P___116900/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robin Williams</a>), a 40-year-old mergers and acquisitions lawyer with a permanent scowl on his face and a cellular phone in his belt. Banning has lost any memory of being Peter Pan, and he is also in danger of losing his wife Moira (Caroline Goodall) and two children, Jack (<a href="/players/P____39131/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charlie Korsmo</a>) and Maggie (Amber Scott). Peter and his family travel to London to visit Granny Wendy (<a href="/players/P____66495/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maggie Smith</a>) who recalls Peter's lost youth and asks him, "Peter, dear, don't you know who you are?" With Peter's children asleep in the same bedroom where the original Peter Pan story began, there is a blinding flash. Peter comes into the room to discover a note from Captain Hook (<a href="/players/P____94585/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dustin Hoffman</a>), informing Peter that he has kidnapped his children. Granny Wendy now tells him who he really is and encourages him to re-discover his happy thoughts, transform himself into the Peter Pan of the past, and go rescue his children. With the encouragement of Tinkerbell (<a href="/players/P____60634/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Julia Roberts</a>), Peter recalls the birth of his son and once again takes wing. Then it's off to Never Land to rescue his kids. ~ Paul Brenner, All Movie Guide129Tag Target (>10)601013http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t32382fwnyi.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Hook/15836/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28802.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 11:22:41 PM
Body: Each of the four biographies of Steven Spielberg that I have read says the same thing about Hook- it is the most disappointing entry in the director's canon. Not the worst, mind you, but the biggest disparity between what it is and what it could have been. The reason is that Spielberg is often compared to Peter Pan himself- there is a childlike wonder in his best work that few other directors can equal. From a psychological standpoint, many have analyzed the director as having a Pan-like personality- warm, energetic and easygoing but at times immature, self-centered and narcissistic (then again, it would be hard to find a filmmaker who is not is narcissistic). Many have analyzed Schindler's List as the film in which the director "grew up" and became more adult in filmmaking content (I would disagree with that, as I think 1986's Empire of the Sun is the most cynical, complex and "adult" film Spielberg has made). Regardless, it seem the classic story about the boy who never grew up would be tailor made for the world's most commercially successful filmmaker. So why didn't Spielberg just do an adaptation of the original J.M. Barrie novel instead of making what is essentially a sequel? And why did he make it in such a literal way? In order for this material to be magical, it needs to be dreamlike- we need to think that Never-Neverland is an extension of our own memories and daydreams of childhood, not a literal fantasy world like Middle Earth or Oz. And it's a critical error to think that anyone is going to care about Captain Hook at all when the real enemy is time. The movie begins as workholic lawyer Peter Banning (Robin Williams) arrives in England to celebrate the dedication of a children's hospital in the name of his Great-Grandmother Wendy (Maggie Smith). Wendy and her brothers as children made up the stories of Peter Pan and told them to J.M. Barrie, or so the movie tells us. Anyway, Peter's children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) who finally seeks revenge on his old friend. With the help of the fairy Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts), Peter learns the truth- he is Peter Pan, grown up and having forgotten how to fly. He'll need all the magical skills he can find to rescue his kids and be a real father instead of a jerk. The problem is I did not care one iota about any of the numerous trials Peter goes through- not learning to fly again, not mending his relationship with his son because he missed his soccer game, and not the very long fight at the end between Pan and Hook. This is essentially a story about time and its changes- the last scene in the novel Peter Pan is haunting. Peter returns as he does occasionally to Wendy's house, only to find that she cannot return to with him to Neverland, as she has grown up with a child of her own. What makes the scene so spellbinding is that we are not certain who the loser is in the situation - is it Wendy, who will never know the carefree days of childhood again, or Peter, who will never really know what it is like to be a complete person? Those kinds of questions are sorrily lacking in this film. What could have been a sort of universal tour of our collective psyches is a just an overblown and lame fantasy film. The movie is so desperate to be magical that it comes as well- being desperate to be magical, and not achieving it's goals. So, in the end, the consensus on this film is correct- it's a crushing disappointment. Hook (1991)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 03:22:41 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 11:22:41 PMEach of the four biographies of Steven Spielberg that I have read says the same thing about Hook- it is the most disappointing entry in the director's canon. Not the worst, mind you, but the biggest disparity between what it is and what it could have been. The reason is that Spielberg is often compared to Peter Pan himself- there is a childlike wonder in his best work that few other directors can equal. From a psychological standpoint, many have analyzed the director as having a Pan-like personality- warm, energetic and easygoing but at times immature, self-centered and narcissistic (then again, it would be hard to find a filmmaker who is not is narcissistic). Many have analyzed Schindler's List as the film in which the director "grew up" and became more adult in filmmaking content (I would disagree with that, as I think 1986's Empire of the Sun is the most cynical, complex and "adult" film Spielberg has made). Regardless, it seem the classic story about the boy who never grew up would be tailor made for the world's most commercially successful filmmaker. So why didn't Spielberg just do an adaptation of the original J.M. Barrie novel instead of making what is essentially a sequel? And why did he make it in such a literal way? In order for this material to be magical, it needs to be dreamlike- we need to think that Never-Neverland is an extension of our own memories and daydreams of childhood, not a literal fantasy world like Middle Earth or Oz. And it's a critical error to think that anyone is going to care about Captain Hook at all when the real enemy is time. The movie begins as workholic lawyer Peter Banning (Robin Williams) arrives in England to celebrate the dedication of a children's hospital in the name of his Great-Grandmother Wendy (Maggie Smith). Wendy and her brothers as children made up the stories of Peter Pan and told them to J.M. Barrie, or so the movie tells us. Anyway, Peter's children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) who finally seeks revenge on his old friend. With the help of the fairy Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts), Peter learns the truth- he is Peter Pan, grown up and having forgotten how to fly. He'll need all the magical skills he can find to rescue his kids and be a real father instead of a jerk. The problem is I did not care one iota about any of the numerous trials Peter goes through- not learning to fly again, not mending his relationship with his son because he missed his soccer game, and not the very long fight at the end between Pan and Hook. This is essentially a story about time and its changes- the last scene in the novel Peter Pan is haunting. Peter returns as he does occasionally to Wendy's house, only to find that she cannot return to with him to Neverland, as she has grown up with a child of her own. What makes the scene so spellbinding is that we are not certain who the loser is in the situation - is it Wendy, who will never know the carefree days of childhood again, or Peter, who will never really know what it is like to be a complete person? Those kinds of questions are sorrily lacking in this film. What could have been a sort of universal tour of our collective psyches is a just an overblown and lame fantasy film. The movie is so desperate to be magical that it comes as well- being desperate to be magical, and not achieving it's goals. So, in the end, the consensus on this film is correct- it's a crushing disappointment. Hook (1991) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/2/18/25275.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 2/18/2008 2:01:51 PM
Body: TIME has a story about Steven Spielberg’s departure from his post as creative consultant to the Beijing Summer Olympics, and most interestingly, how China will need to scramble to save face in the wake of it. Landing Spielberg in the first place was a coup, considering that China’s main goal with the games is to sell the idea “that China has returned to its rightful place as a world player whose opinion matters.” That’s not necessarily a fiction??????Spielberg, after all, dropped out of his commitment in frustration over China’s “opinion” on their trading partner Sudan and Darfur??????but the idea that China is ready to play on the world stage without facing the blowback of various human rights issues and international political, trade and manufacturing controversies certainly seems like a fantasy worthy of Hollywood. Can they pull off this globalist fairy tale without the guiding vision of the man who brought us Hook? It’s a situtation that’s going to require serious damage control. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch puts it in the article, “They are trying to have a perfect Games and present a picture of unmitigated success to the world. And here is something that is not a success.” Part of the problem is that protest groups, emboldended by the Speilberg exit, have started lobbying other Hollywood types associated with the Games (Ang Lee is another creative advisor), as well as the event’s corporate sponsors. China can probably survive the loss of their hired Hollywood cred, but if Coca-Cola drops out, their dreams of joining the big boys on the global-pop cultural stage will be dashed for good. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:01:51 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog2/18/2008 2:01:51 PMTIME has a story about Steven Spielberg’s departure from his post as creative consultant to the Beijing Summer Olympics, and most interestingly, how China will need to scramble to save face in the wake of it. Landing Spielberg in the first place was a coup, considering that China’s main goal with the games is to sell the idea “that China has returned to its rightful place as a world player whose opinion matters.” That’s not necessarily a fiction??????Spielberg, after all, dropped out of his commitment in frustration over China’s “opinion” on their trading partner Sudan and Darfur??????but the idea that China is ready to play on the world stage without facing the blowback of various human rights issues and international political, trade and manufacturing controversies certainly seems like a fantasy worthy of Hollywood. Can they pull off this globalist fairy tale without the guiding vision of the man who brought us Hook? It’s a situtation that’s going to require serious damage control. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch puts it in the article, “They are trying to have a perfect Games and present a picture of unmitigated success to the world. And here is something that is not a success.” Part of the problem is that protest groups, emboldended by the Speilberg exit, have started lobbying other Hollywood types associated with the Games (Ang Lee is another creative advisor), as well as the event’s corporate sponsors. China can probably survive the loss of their hired Hollywood cred, but if Coca-Cola drops out, their dreams of joining the big boys on the global-pop cultural stage will be dashed for good. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/18/25274.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/18/2008 2:01:19 PM
Body: TIME has a story about Steven Spielberg’s departure from his post as creative consultant to the Beijing Summer Olympics, and most interestingly, how China will need to scramble to save face in the wake of it. Landing Spielberg in the first place was a coup, considering that China’s main goal with the games is to sell the idea “that China has returned to its rightful place as a world player whose opinion matters.” That’s not necessarily a fiction??????Spielberg, after all, dropped out of his commitment in frustration over China’s “opinion” on their trading partner Sudan and Darfur??????but the idea that China is ready to play on the world stage without facing the blowback of various human rights issues and international political, trade and manufacturing controversies certainly seems like a fantasy worthy of Hollywood. Can they pull off this globalist fairy tale without the guiding vision of the man who brought us Hook? It’s a situtation that’s going to require serious damage control. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch puts it in the article, “They are trying to have a perfect Games and present a picture of unmitigated success to the world. And here is something that is not a success.” Part of the problem is that protest groups, emboldended by the Speilberg exit, have started lobbying other Hollywood types associated with the Games (Ang Lee is another creative advisor), as well as the event’s corporate sponsors. China can probably survive the loss of their hired Hollywood cred, but if Coca-Cola drops out, their dreams of joining the big boys on the global-pop cultural stage will be dashed for good. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/18/2008 2:01:19 PMTIME has a story about Steven Spielberg’s departure from his post as creative consultant to the Beijing Summer Olympics, and most interestingly, how China will need to scramble to save face in the wake of it. Landing Spielberg in the first place was a coup, considering that China’s main goal with the games is to sell the idea “that China has returned to its rightful place as a world player whose opinion matters.” That’s not necessarily a fiction??????Spielberg, after all, dropped out of his commitment in frustration over China’s “opinion” on their trading partner Sudan and Darfur??????but the idea that China is ready to play on the world stage without facing the blowback of various human rights issues and international political, trade and manufacturing controversies certainly seems like a fantasy worthy of Hollywood. Can they pull off this globalist fairy tale without the guiding vision of the man who brought us Hook? It’s a situtation that’s going to require serious damage control. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch puts it in the article, “They are trying to have a perfect Games and present a picture of unmitigated success to the world. And here is something that is not a success.” Part of the problem is that protest groups, emboldended by the Speilberg exit, have started lobbying other Hollywood types associated with the Games (Ang Lee is another creative advisor), as well as the event’s corporate sponsors. China can probably survive the loss of their hired Hollywood cred, but if Coca-Cola drops out, their dreams of joining the big boys on the global-pop cultural stage will be dashed for good. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/yallie/archive/2008/1/10/23758.aspx Post By: yallie
Post To: yallie Blog
Post Date: 1/10/2008 11:02:46 PM
Body: I've watched this movie many times and I still love it. It's hard not to. Seeing the "new" Peter Pan. The older Peter Pan. The Peter Pan who gave up staying young because he loved someone. But then he has to find the old Peter Pan, the young Peter Pan. The Peter Pan who loved everything except adults. If I keep typing I'm going to give away the movie.
]]>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:02:46 GMTyallieyallie Blog1/10/2008 11:02:46 PMI&#39;ve watched this movie many times and I still love it. It&#39;s hard not to. Seeing the &quot;new&quot; Peter Pan. The older Peter Pan. The Peter Pan who gave up staying young because he loved someone. But then he has to find the old Peter Pan, the young Peter Pan. The Peter Pan who loved everything except adults. If I keep typing I&#39;m going to give away the movie. http://www.spout.com/groups/I_Love_Childrens_Movies/Re_The_Most_Wonderful_Time_of_the_Year/372/23648/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: I Love Childrens Movies
Post Date: 1/9/2008 12:02:47 AM
Body: Okay, I know it's post-Christmas, so I'm a bit late with this one, but I was in Hastings the other day and saw something that reminded me: "Hook," for some reason, is a movie I used to really enjoy watching around Christmas as a kid. Fantasy movies in general are always good fun around the holidays. I realize that "Hook" is not an amazing movie, but if you love something during your childhood, your enjoyment of it is kind of hard to shake.
]]>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:02:47 GMTindieabby88I Love Childrens Movies1/9/2008 12:02:47 AMOkay, I know it&#39;s post-Christmas, so I&#39;m a bit late with this one, but I was in Hastings the other day and saw something that reminded me: "Hook," for some reason, is a movie I used to really enjoy watching around Christmas as a kid. Fantasy movies in general are always good fun around the holidays. I realize that "Hook" is not an amazing movie, but if you love something during your childhood, your enjoyment of it is kind of hard to shake. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/8/23633.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/8/2008 5:00:48 PM
Body: Yet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:00:48 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/8/2008 5:00:48 PMYet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/8/23632.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/8/2008 5:00:31 PM
Body: Yet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:00:31 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/8/2008 5:00:31 PMYet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/7/23607.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/7/2008 4:00:34 PM
Body: Nikki Finke says her sources tell her that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC have worked out a compromise to be able to produce a Golden Globes telecast that the WGA can’t picket. Nikki’s using the word “scraped” in her headline, but that doesn’t really sound accurate at all; it seems that the show will go on, just without the montage bloat. The plan is to apparently throw “a news event??where the actors can still get all glammed up”??????basically, a glorified press conference, with most of the “content” stemming from the winners’ ostensibly improvised acceptence speeches.?? Presumably, such a set up would allow NBC to keep their ad revenue whilst the HFPA gets to keep both their licensing fees and a teeny-tiny shred of dignity. Even better for us the viewers, Steven Spielberg will get to accept his Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award, whilst we’ll be spared the clip reel attempt to legitimize Hook. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:34 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/7/2008 4:00:34 PMNikki Finke says her sources tell her that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC have worked out a compromise to be able to produce a Golden Globes telecast that the WGA can’t picket. Nikki’s using the word “scraped” in her headline, but that doesn’t really sound accurate at all; it seems that the show will go on, just without the montage bloat. The plan is to apparently throw “a news event??where the actors can still get all glammed up”??????basically, a glorified press conference, with most of the “content” stemming from the winners’ ostensibly improvised acceptence speeches.?? Presumably, such a set up would allow NBC to keep their ad revenue whilst the HFPA gets to keep both their licensing fees and a teeny-tiny shred of dignity. Even better for us the viewers, Steven Spielberg will get to accept his Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award, whilst we’ll be spared the clip reel attempt to legitimize Hook. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/7/23605.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2008 4:00:23 PM
Body: Nikki Finke says her sources tell her that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC have worked out a compromise to be able to produce a Golden Globes telecast that the WGA can’t picket. Nikki’s using the word “scraped” in her headline, but that doesn’t really sound accurate at all; it seems that the show will go on, just without the montage bloat. The plan is to apparently throw “a news event??where the actors can still get all glammed up”??????basically, a glorified press conference, with most of the “content” stemming from the winners’ ostensibly improvised acceptence speeches.?? Presumably, such a set up would allow NBC to keep their ad revenue whilst the HFPA gets to keep both their licensing fees and a teeny-tiny shred of dignity. Even better for us the viewers, Steven Spielberg will get to accept his Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award, whilst we’ll be spared the clip reel attempt to legitimize Hook. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2008 4:00:23 PMNikki Finke says her sources tell her that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC have worked out a compromise to be able to produce a Golden Globes telecast that the WGA can’t picket. Nikki’s using the word “scraped” in her headline, but that doesn’t really sound accurate at all; it seems that the show will go on, just without the montage bloat. The plan is to apparently throw “a news event??where the actors can still get all glammed up”??????basically, a glorified press conference, with most of the “content” stemming from the winners’ ostensibly improvised acceptence speeches.?? Presumably, such a set up would allow NBC to keep their ad revenue whilst the HFPA gets to keep both their licensing fees and a teeny-tiny shred of dignity. Even better for us the viewers, Steven Spielberg will get to accept his Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award, whilst we’ll be spared the clip reel attempt to legitimize Hook. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/eagle795/archive/2007/8/26/18795.aspx Post By: eagle795
Post To: eagle795 Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2007 2:43:00 PM
Body: I saw this film in college in an old, “historic” theater with two of my best friends. We were literally the only three people in the theater and we had a blast. It’s a favorite memory of mine, which probably adds cachet to my view of the movie. The basic premise is “Peter Pan grows up”. A great cast is headed by Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman (whose Captain Hook obviously had to inspire Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies).
]]>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:43:00 GMTeagle795eagle795 Blog8/26/2007 2:43:00 PMI saw this film in college in an old, &ldquo;historic&rdquo; theater with two of my best friends. We were literally the only three people in the theater and we had a blast. It&rsquo;s a favorite memory of mine, which probably adds cachet to my view of the movie. The basic premise is &ldquo;Peter Pan grows up&rdquo;. A great cast is headed by Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman (whose Captain Hook obviously had to inspire Johnny Depp&rsquo;s Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies). http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/christmas/MemberTagFilms.aspxchristmas
Number of films tagged: 995

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 254

]]>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:31:29 GMT99582254Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 204

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:44 GMT15671204Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/magic/MemberTagFilms.aspxmagic
Number of films tagged: 818

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 173

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:47 GMT81869173Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag