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)