Woah...does this film suck...

Pixar also understands that films must be made for adults as much as they are for kids, as it is only good business to do so.

Spielberg did not make Hook for adults.
 
jpeck said:
Pixar also understands that films must be made for adults as much as they are for kids, as it is only good business to do so.

Spielberg did not make Hook for adults.
Click to expand...
He apparently missed the boat with the kids as well. Sorry, it doesn't hold a candle to any good children's films.

It's not terrible, but it's not one that they want to watch over and over again like... well... ANY Pixar film for example. Or a good older Disney film either.
EDIT: Having kids and having plenty of Nieces and Nephews in my family is what I'm going by. They've seen it, they just don't go back to it. They would much rather watch the original Peter Pan. Even the Return to Neverland before HOOK.

Just my 2 cents.

Spielberg is great, but HOOK has no real magic to it. He missed the boat on that one.
 
im watching heavyweights right now. now thats a great kids movie. that and mighty ducks... but hook is good just now its very dated i saw hook when i was 6 so kinda is apart of my past. i think he made it up with making jurassic park for both kids and adults?
 
He apparently missed the boat with the kids as well.
Click to expand...

Of course critics disliked it, it was not made for them. But the almost $120 million gross at the box office says the kids liked it.

Don't worry, I am not trying to suggest it was a good movie. More like: kids have low to no standards.
 
jpeck said:
Of course critics disliked it, it was not made for them. But the almost $120 million gross at the box office says the kids liked it.

Don't worry, I am not trying to suggest it was a good movie. More like: kids have low to no standards.
Click to expand...
Yes, but critics can still tell the difference between good kids movies, and not so good kids movies.

Otherwise all children's films would receive poor reviews by such critics. According to your logic.
And that's not the case.

" Don't worry, I am not trying to suggest it was a good movie."

I agree completely. Not good, not terrible either. Just average.
Which for Spielberg... is a low point in his catalogue of films.

Cheers,
 
jpeck said:
This is not a debate friend-o.

Kids loved it and the $120,000,000 proves it.
Click to expand...
The debate isn't how much money the movie made?? There are many films that are not all that great that made a killing at the box office, and vice-versa.

You brought up a rotten tomatoes critic figure for LITW, and that was fine. But for some reason it is not alright for Hook?

You stated that HOOK was not made for critics and that's why they didn't like it. M Night made the critic in his movie look like an ass, is that why they hated it?
I stated that there are PLENTY of kids movies that critics just love. I hardly think that they are all biased and I can prove it.

We BOTH agree that HOOK was not all that great to begin with.

I really don't see a problem.

No debate friend-o.

Just telling it like I see it.

Cheers,

Mike
 
RT was posted because somebody mentioned the IMDB rating for Lady in the Water.

Both movies were junk, critics know this, I know this, so do most other people.

But Hook was successful in the box office, it was the highest grossing kids flick of 1991. Lady in the Water made about half of its cost back on the big screen and was considered a flop and was/is not popular.


But back to Hook, because that is really what we are talking about.

You said: "He apparently missed the boat with the kids as well."

Box office sales tell you about the popularity of the movie, Hook was extremely popular with kids/youth when it came out. As I mentioned above, it was the highest grossing kids flick and one of the top of 1991 out of all movies. Kids have a different judgement of what is good and what is bad, they don't understand the things we adults judge movies by. Sure it is crap, but it is and was a succesful piece of crap that kids liked.
 
jpeck said:
Sure it is crap, but it is and was a succesful piece of crap that kids liked.
Click to expand...
I really agree except for that last part.

Family movies do better at the box office because the entire family buys a ticket, that's the first plus. The other pluses are the facts that it was a big budget, huge stars, Spielberg film. That doesn't hurt.

Blair Witch made much more and was aimed at a much smaller demographic. What does that mean?

I guess my point is this. Look at a kids/family movie collection, ask them what they like to watch. They will range from classics to current Pixar films. HOOK usually isn't on that list. At least in my family/relatives.

Bottom line, I never judge a film based on what it makes at the box office.
Besides, HOOK cost 70 Million to make. Not a huge take when you look at it that way.

Now... let's get back on topic.
LITW was a bit of a bust as well and a HUGE failure at the box office. :D

Cheers,
 
Blair Witch was also an anomaly and not something you see often in film.

With inflation Hook would have made more money. $50 million on top of the cost of a high budget like that is nothing to laugh at. Obviously not including advertising or small screen sales, as well as merchandise.
 
jpeck said:
Blair Witch was also an anomaly and not something you see often in film.

With inflation Hook would have made more money. $50 million on top of the cost of a high budget like that is nothing to laugh at. Obviously not including advertising or small screen sales, as well as merchandise.
Click to expand...
Once again, sales are nice, but as we have both said... not a great movie.

No way to really prove if kids "love" it or not. I know my family couldn't care less about it when compared to other good kids films. The movie just wasn't that great... regardless of the star power, budget and director behind it.

Cheers,

Mike
 
Check out the 71% it has on RT from the community, which is a huge difference between the T-meter (22%) and the top critics (20%). Combine that with the large domestic gross and I would say that is proof the film is popular with the audience it was directed towards.

RT community stats:
71% community
Reviews Counted: 596
Fresh: 429
Rotten:167
Average Rating: 6.4/10
 
I'm thinking critics hate lady in the water because of the critic character that met a brutal end. Rottentomatoes/metacritic, unlike imdb, measure the opinion of critics?

I'm not saying Lady In The Water is a good movie, but maybe professional reviewers wouldn't think it was so bad if M. Night Shylyman left out the attack against critics? So many regular people who watched it seemed to enjoy it to some extent.

Yahoo users (average moviegoers) rated LITW C+, which is an average score: not good, but not that bad? The same yahoo users gave Gigli an F rating! So maybe Lady In The Water doesn't suck that badly?
 
jpeck said:
Check out the 71% it has on RT from the community, which is a huge difference between the T-meter (22%) and the top critics (20%). Combine that with the large domestic gross and I would say that is proof the film is popular with the audience it was directed towards.

RT community stats:
71% community
Reviews Counted: 596
Fresh: 429
Rotten:167
Average Rating: 6.4/10
Click to expand...
Fine, I'll take the average rating if that makes you happy.

6.4... Wow Spielberg, you really outdid yourself! :D

Let's just agree... as you already have...
Not a great movie but it did fairly well in the theater. How's that? :happy:

I'll agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top