A topic at IMDB wonders about the Peter Pan (2003) movie having higher rating than Hook (1991.) A list of reasons why I personally feel the situation is unavoidable and deserved. And why in my opinion the 2003 movie should have even higher rating, both as a movie in itself and as a Peter Pan related movie. (And I think it actually does, the avarage rating when correctly calculated is higher than what IMDB's system claims.)
PETER PAN (2003): Storyline follows the original novel and even amazingly faithfully.
HOOK: Utterly alternate universe.
---> Staying true to original is essential if not even crucial, in book-to-movie adaptation buisness. I think it's only natural that those close to the original material, get rated higher than wild alternate universe stories, because the fans of the original material usually watch and rate all availble adaptations and appreciate the faithful follower most.
PETER PAN (2003): Peter's character is a young boy who's written quite novel-faithfully.
HOOK: Peter's the complete opposite of that in every sense, and taken completely out-of-character even to begin with. Hence, the reason why they claim baby Peter ran away is bullcrap.
---> Same reason as above. Too far from the original and loved is just too far.
PETER PAN (2003): No silly Robin Hood costume on poor Peter.
HOOK: That silly Robin Hood costume on poor Peter.
----> Peter Pan is a unique and tragic character. A Robin-Hood-rip-off costume that reminds of the Disney cartoon's shallow elf Peter, does not work. At all.
PETER PAN (2003): A lovely combination of the novel's darkness and magic in Neverland's atmosphere. Gives me the timeless, ancient feel of wilderness.
HOOK: The atmosphere of Neverland felt too modern and neither dark nor magical.
---> In short, in "Hook" it didn't feel like an adventure in a magical but dark world. I don't know, maybe it was partially the lack of unnatural season changing. Unless it happens in "Hook" and I just forgot. Anyway, it's not all there is to the feel in the 2003 movie.
PETER PAN (2003): Hook has a passionate depth to his lonely side, and more importantly he's truly a sinister and dark character. Right down to his hook that actually looks like the brutal killing tool that he uses it as. Especially the double-hook he tries to crack Peter's head with in the hide-out before he tries to poison him.
HOOK: Hook is more of a comedy character whose actor doesn't take even the few dark moments too seriously, probably because the movie's tone is supposed to be rather childish/light. His hook is a cute, little shiny thingy that I'd hang my coat to.
---> I think this is especially huge flaw with Hook because this is the title character. And especially as the movie's beginning tries to paint the character oh so sinister and scary. ("The children were screaming...The children were screaming!" and so on. The lowest moment probably was when we hear Hook saying "You made a boo-boo" in a rather baby-talkish way. Agh!)
I know that movie is more for children, trying to scare them and then have them laugh at the same character. But this nonetheless takes away from the point of the character.
PETER PAN (2003): Includes a lot of lines from the novel and very psaaionately/emotionally stated; (hence, part of the fine efforts to capture the darkness and depths of the novel.) For one, Peter (Jeremy) says the "To die would be an awfully big adventure" with feeling and expression, and I especially love Hook's (Isaacs') "WHY is he?! What is he?! I'll have one last story before you die; the story of Peter Pan." He looks and sounds like he's completely lost it.
HOOK: Especially at the end the characters throw a bunch of lines from the novel and sounds like they're saying them just to be saying them, with no personal interest in what they're uttering. Like Peter's "To die would be an awfully big adventure" and Moira's "I see them in my dreams so often that..." ect. Just said them, no passion. It may be that the lack of emotion in the lines, in the movie "Hook" was intentional as the original story existed in it as a novel and perhaps they were just...Well, anyway.
-----> Maybe this is just me, disliking powerful lines stated as if they weren't meant.
PETER PAN (2003): Indeed, the over-all tone is intense and means business, even in the comedy parts.
HOOK: The tone is over-all childlike with little for adults to get sucked into.
----> Even my middle-aged mother really enjoyed this 2003 movie "even though it was a fairytale thing" - her tone of voice oozed delight when she commented that during the end credits. She never said anything like that about the movie Hook. And hence, she isn't too into fairytale things.
PETER PAN (2003): A fun, new character (or rather a replacement character); Aunt Millicent. In my opinion, she blended in well and added genuinely endearing aspect.
HOOK: I found Peter's daughter Maggie rather annoying / the way they had focused on her in the oh-look-at-this-cute-little-girl-ain't-she-cute-always-talking-so-wisely-about-mommies-ain't-that-cute!!!11 way. Don't get me wrong, I love children, real and fictional. It's just how they over-did little Maggie here. And Rufio put me off a little with his punk style and totally teenage age...So not something I expected to find in Neverland among The Lost Boys, much less leading them.
PETER PAN (2003): Tink's devilish, sassy and sweet as she should be.
HOOK: Tink's too nice and...grown-up! Making her not-so-interesting. I guess it's logic with Peter grown-up and changed too but still I feel like they made her even basically too out-of-character. But Julia Roberts portrated that version wonderfully. Great emotion. Because of that I enjoyed this Tink even though she wasn't very interesting. But of course I enjoyed the 2003 film Tink much more.
---> So...the general characterisation distracts me in "Hook".
I am VampireOutlaw at IMDB.