The official subreddit for the Cinema Therapy YouTube channel. Making sense of life, one blockbuster at a time! Be awesome to each other, and *watch movies!*
Episode Response
As I'm sure many of you are aware, Jono and Alan were recently compelled by their Patreon subscribers to give reactions to Labyrinth - a movie they seemed to have already known going in they didn't like, and the results were... maybe not ideal.
Among the most common responses to this, were that if these two knew they didn't like the movie going in, they still should have been able to find a neutral position from which to analyze the themes of the movie that were less derisive of the characters and the props and design and thereby meet the demands of their patreons, and if they couldn't, they should have declined.
This entire dialogue got me thinking. Not too long ago the guys reacted to Hook. Now, I haven't seen Hook since I was a kid. The release date would have put me at about 10 years old, and I distinctly remember not liking it. I remember vaguely in the broadest terms what I didn't like about it, and anything else is kind of a blur.
When the Cinema Therapy episode dropped, I decided to watch the episode anyway for some insight into qualities about the movie I might have missed, but only kind of half listened. It ended up being one of those - one of those 'hit play on the video and then start browsing in the other window and descend into ADHD browsing hell' kind of listens, so all I really remember getting out of it was that Jono saw Hook later than I did at a vulnerable time in his life when he was really feeling the conflicting pressures of being a provider and being an involved father and the movie made feel very seen.
Now, I don't have Jono's education, or any invested Patreons to disappoint, but I do have a nagging curiosity about whether I myself could rise to the challenge to look past a strong dislike of a movie and come away with anything worthwhile to say about it.
Fair content warning: I hate it. I still hate it. I promise that I didn't go into this experiment looking to roast it, but some of my takeaways may feel 'roasty' to anyone that's deeply invested in this movie. As soon as resolved I was going to do it, I immediately starting feeling a nagging little undercurrent of dread as I looked into where and how I could watch the movie and queued it up to my Chromecast, keenly aware that I would rather be watching Dead Boy Detectives, but I didn't. I watched Hook, and without any further adieu, here is my 2024 attempt to find value in that movie.
The first part of the movie is definitely more accessible for me. If there's anything Spielberg knows how to do it's leverage a cute kid. Jake and his sister Maggie are flawless and adorable. My first empathy gap revelation of the movie was that in 1991 I didn't understand all the angst about scheduling issues when Peter missed Jake's baseball game. I could understand being disappointed, but I was raised by a brick mason Dad and a mom who worked on an assembly line in manufacturing (like Roseanne). Neither of them was ever in a position to make their own hours or attend school events. This was just 'life' to me. I didn't feel especially harsh on these kids because they were kids, but I definitely viewed them as fortunate to have one stay at home parent who's life revolved around them rather than neglected.
So here I start to interpret the opening conflict of the movie as Peter is unable or unwilling to realistically assess himself and communicate with his family so they can have realistic expectations of him. Moira talks to him about her concerns that he's not spending enough with her family, but he doesn't talk to her back about changes that he could make in his career that might increase his availability, but decrease their income and affect their living standard and their ability to make trips to London and what not.
I understand that you wouldn't put a scene like that in a movie like this. A couple negotiating their family management isn't the thrill ride adventure people paid the cost of entry for, but just saying, if I look at it through a lense for conflict resolution, that's what stands out to me. I see a lot of anxiety and a lot of love in Peter's constant struggles to manage risk around his family. 'Jack, you'll slip and break your leg', 'Jack, don't lean out the window'. I don't look at this and think 'Peter needs to lighten up' I look at this and think 'Peter is in crisis/burnout mode and needs support'.
So then Act 2 starts when Hook kidnaps Peter's children to compel him back to Neverland so he can take his revenge. We find out Wendy was Peter's childhood love interest, until she became too old and then her daughter Moira became Peter's love interest, and eventually we'll come to learn that Tinkerbell has been and will continue to be infatuated with Peter Pan and WHY DOES EVERY SINGLE WOMAN WITH MORE THAN 3 LINES IN THIS MOVIE EXIST TO MOTHER PETER PAN AND VALIDATE HIS DESIRABILITY? WHY IS NOT ONE, NOT TWO, BUT THREE BUSTY MERMAIDS PRESSING LIPS TO PETERS THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE HIM FROM DROWNING?
Alright, I'll stop yelling. And I know, of course, the answer is that because being kissed by beautiful mermaids is a an erotic fantasy for boys and putting Peter in a situation where he's drowning is simply the device that facilitates that. It's just frustrating some days to be faced with the reality that you extend that kind of empathy as a matter of habit and that same empathy frequently won't be extended to you.
You know how Jono said that he found almost everything about Labyrinth to be deeply unpleasant and ugly? I feel that, because that's how I felt about Neverland. I have enough literary context on Peter Pan coming in that the appeal of Neverland and being a lost boy is freedom, but Peter's actual experience of Neverland, seems horrible. Right off the jump, Peter's experience of Neverland is an outsider is to be ridiculed and rejected. And you could say 'well that's because he's an adult', but that doesn't track for me because that's how the lost boys treat each other too. There are no 'lost girls', but if there were, they would immediately be relegated to the role of 'mother', like Wendy was.
The lost boys immediately decide that the problem with Peter is not just that he's old, but also that he's fat, and they need to solve Peter's fatness by hazing him. Firstly, Robin Williams has never been fat, but if even if he were, yikes. This is a horrible montage for anyone that's experienced fat shaming in their life.
And this doesn't get addressed, either. Peter as the closest thing to an adult doesn't model compassion or caring for these boys. His aversion to cruelty is framed as something that holds him back, and Peter's path to success in the narrative is regressing, heaping greater and more savage amounts of cruelty on the boys around him than they're able to return. When he regains his ability to fly, he celebrates it by pantsing Rufio, pointlessly piling more humiliation on a character who's already been thoroughly demeaned. It doesn't feel like Peter left any kind of impression with the lost boys, beyond the experience of being a starry eyed small kid gazing up at the guy who dominated and bullied you, and hoping that one day you're big or powerful enough to be in a position to dominate and be a bully too.
Dustin Hoffman is a treasure, but I don't think they got the right balance of menacing and buffoon right with him. When precious Maggie scolds him, her criticism is that he 'needs a mother'. The movie repeatedly beats us over the head that men's behavior, no matter their age, can and should be attributed to the quality or quantity of 'mothering' in their life. So men need to be powerful and free, but women need to regulate and nurture them. I guess that's what the movie is really about. Not about how part of being an adult is being able to communicate hard messages to your family and empathize them when they struggle with disappointment or hurt. Peter talks a lot about how he loves his children, but for me, the beats of the movie don't honor this thesis.
So anyway... if you stuck with this write up for this long, I'm genuinely surprised. The results are in, and I still hate Hook. I don't think I'll be watching it again any time soon, but I have infinitely more empathy for Jono and Alan for trying to sit through and pick out positives in a movie they hated.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I found this a really interesting read and actually agree with all your takes. Cool thought experiment. I watched Hook well after its release as a kid and found it depressing and boring. I was childishly upset that cute Jeremy Sumpter Peter Pan had grown up into some grumpy old man lol. The movie didn’t have the shimmering magical allure of the original story for me. Also ew weird that Peter just went for Wendy’s daughter when he couldn’t get Wendy.
I’m starting to realise that I have pretty different tastes to Jono and Alan and the Labyrinth episode drove this home. They get really excited about classic, cut-and-dry storytelling and cinematic effects, whereas I find more subtle, atmospheric and slightly ambiguous storytelling much more interesting, especially if it has a bit of a surreal element. I love peeling back layers of symbolism to unpack all the messages. Nothing wrong with either preference IMO and I wouldn’t want to push them into analysing content they’re not into.
I enjoy their channel and love the therapeutic insights, but I’m personally a bit meh on some of the movie centric stuff because it doesn’t touch as much on the kind of analysis or content that floats my boat. I’m considering ending my Patreon sub not because I’m pissed at them but just because I don’t think I’m getting enough utility/enjoyment to justify a financial expense. Still love their mission and the wholesome corner they have paved in the internet.
Are you confusing Hook with the 2003 Peter Pan? Jeremy Sumpter was Pan in 2003. Robin Williams was Peter in Hook (1991).
I agree with you on Jono and Alan's POVs at times, however. They seem to prefer storytelling that is less ambiguous (and honestly, more attuned to the male gaze).
I think they're wonderful people and I've learned a lot from their videos. It's just rare that one hurts my feelings as a film viewer, but this one is one of a handful that actually stung and made me feel unseen, unheard, and misinterpreted as a female viewer.
I meant that I had first watched the 2003 Jeremy Sumpter Peter Pan and then a couple years later saw 1991 Hook on TV about 15 years after its release. So in my head I always pictured the character as Jeremy Sumpter and was upset at the idea of him turning into a tired grumpy old man when I watched Hook. Just my 12 year old self’s reaction haha.
Yeah it niggles me a little as well that they aren’t as enthusiastic about more subtle, atmospheric, arguably female-oriented storytelling. It does feel very mildly representative of the male-dominated establishment overlooking female-oriented art and refusing to take it seriously. (Which is why the Labyrinth episode felt a bit ick IMO.) Like OP said, it’s sad that we routinely extend our empathy to understand male characters and male-oriented storytelling like sexualised mermaids but don’t often get extended that same empathy in return.
I would happily eat my hat on this point if they come out with a really good episode on a Sofia Coppola movie.
But I guess that’s their tastes and that’s fine. Agree the Labyrinth episode was a misfire but they are inherently good people and took accountability. They have demonstrated that they strive for feminism and did a good review on Barbie for example. I think they find it easier to relate to female characters when their stories are told through a more “male” lens with traditional plot development and clear exposition. At any rate, I appreciate that they are actively learning and doing their best. 🩷
Thanks, I totally get it now! :)
And oh, man, I would love for them to take a look at Sofia Coppola movies -- I would include Lost in Translation, but I think they would just focus on the Bill Murray character. I do keep wishing more people appreciated Antoinette, which is weird and wonderful.
If they're looking for a more prestige female-forward movie, I'd love to see them look at more of Jane Campion's body of work, for instance.
I truly loved and appreciated that they got Barbie. That really meant a lot.
Eeeee Jane Campion is a kiwi like me!! I had no idea she was a New Zealander until I just googled. I need to check out more of her work. I would be thrilled if CT covered it.
Marie Antoinette is such a misunderstood film 🥲 poster child for men trashing art just because it’s girly.
For me Hook was one of the childhood repeat watches. I don't remember how old I was but I had to have been older than 7 (because that's when I learned to read, and because English isn't my first language, I had to know how to read in order to deal with the subtitles).
I haven't watched it since I was 11 or 12.
Your post got me thinking if I should watch it for nostalgia!
I'd recommend it. It's pretty interesting to go back and see what holds up and what doesn't with 30 more years of education, experience and insight under your belt.
Yup!
A few years ago, I rewatched The Jungle Book (the 1967 animation). It was my early-childhood repeat watch (dubbed into my native).
At some point, I watched the VHS daily.
I still remembered some of the songs 20 years later!
I happened to find the DVD, and I had to buy it.
Funnily enough, my mother also had childhood nostalgia memories with the animation, so when the live-action version came out, we were set on going to see it!
And, as a side note, I really liked it, too! It was different enough, but not too different, yk. I don't remember what mum thought of it, but anyway.
Oooh, I need to catch the live action of that sometime. So many movies have come out so fast!
I Wanna Be Like You is still such a bop XD
Cool thought experiment, and a very well written essay! As regards Labyrinth, it's quite simply not a very good film. Patrick Willems did an essay recently on muppet movies and he and guest Griffin Newman recognise that Henson's considerable talents did not lie with directing movies. Labyrinth is an amazing achievement in terms of puppet artistry, and rings every last drop of Bowie's charisma out of him and into the celluloid... But as a film it's just honestly not that great. Muppet fans can get intense though.
Re Hook, I have a lot of thoughts, and I think it has become hugely influential on a lot of people for good reason, but those reasons don't extend to the point that it isn't an extremely flawed movie. Part of the trouble is that Peter Pan as a story is extremely weird and contains a lot of pitfalls. I think people tend to misunderstand it, or at least fixate on its worst/least interesting features. The "growing up sucks" escapist fantasy angle I think is the worst way to approach it as a story, including because Neverland does NOT provide a compelling alternative to anyone over the age of about 7.
Where I think the story works best is where it engages with fatherhood, and more specifically the pitfalls of being too distant and/or too controlling, and the fear that drives those choices. I think the 2003 version with Jason Isaacs as Hook is the best version of the story for that reason. Spielberg's tendency to go for big emotional beats could do something amazing with that, but it also fits poorly IMO with his populist instincts. I think Hook was doomed as an event movie, but could have ROCKED as a more contemplative, small scale film.
But man. Dustin Hoffman, Dante Basco and Bob Hoskins all fucking kill it, and sometimes that's enough
I saw Labryinth when it came out. I was 19 (big Jim Henson AND David Bowie fan) and I loved it, but I loved it in spite of its faults. I don't know if it was Jennifer Connelly's acting or the directing or a bit of both, but I felt she was never anything but mildly surprised at everything that was happening. I think the theme of 'life's not fair' is something more people need to take to heart though.
Thanks. I watched P Willems version and I love his channel. He's such an absurdly clever and funny guy!
When I was looking up Hook I saw there's a movie called Wendy that came out in 2020 which I feel like I saw a trailer for at some point and then promptly forgot. I might have a look at that and see if it brings a take on Peter Pan that resonates more with me.
I think both Labyrinth and Hook are not very good films if I'm being honest, but Labyrinth is the more interesting of the two, to me.
One thing that I didn't really anticipate though going in was recognizing the lost boys, and the way it took me back to that weird little stretch in the 90's where 'precocious boy' movies were all the rage. That weird little post Mighty Ducks/Sandlot renaissance where we started getting like, remakes of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer and Dennis the Menace and even The Little Rascals. What a weird time...
I actually really enjoyed this. And I always felt "meh" about Hook and loved Labyrinth but haven't seen either in years- maybe I'll watch both at some point this weekend!
Thanks! I'm glad somebody got something good out of it, even if it was just a little validation.
Thank you for this review. I have never understood the mystic of this movie for people. And I too was a child when I saw it in theaters. I saw it with my grandpa.
A core memory of mine is when Tinkerbell kisses Peter and my grandpa gagging. I asked him about it later and he said that she was a stalker. Plus he's married and it isn't okay to kiss married men.
Sounds like Grandpa had his house in order. Good on him!
I 100% agree with you, and oh man, especially on the ugliness. Hook is visually ugly, and I hate the "imaginary" pastels and Play-Doh colors, the skateboarding and overly adoring Lost Boys. It's awful.
I also hate the "bullying is fun!" subtext and its view of women, and agree with you about that as well.
There's just a mean-spirited smugness over the whole thing that doesn't work for me. Williams and the child actors do the best they can, but they are too twee and twinkly when they aren't being sort of terrible people, Tinkerbell is the Worst (and evidently JR was just as bad out of character, earning her the nickname "Tinkerhell" on-set), and Hoffman overacts to a ridiculous degree.
Anyway, Hook is for me still unwatchable (I tried again recently and couldn't get through 25 minutes).
And it doesn't hold a candle to the real GOAT -- the gorgeous 2003 live-action Peter Pan from PJ Hogan (still my perfect and most preferred adaptation), where Jason Isaacs shows the kind of moving, fragile, funny, and terrifying Hook that existed on the page. Hoffman's is paper-thin -- Isaacs' Hook is in three dimensions -- he truly loves, hates, envies, and fears Peter all at once, and his rage and loneliness are all right there.
The 2003 film soundtrack is also one of those rare instances where someone else got it a lot more right than John Williams (who is a genius, but everyone has off days).
Preach!!
I heard this too, but I am reserving judgement because I question how fair and equitable the treatment of women on a typical movie set and just 'within the industry' in the '90's was.
Peter missing the game wasn't the real issue. It was Peter promising to attend the game and then not showing up. That's why Jack was so upset about it. My own parents did stuff like that to me. They'd promise to show up and then not. It still hurts me over 20 years later. That's my only qualm with your write up.
I HATE Tinkerbell making a move on Peter. It actually contributed a lot to my dislike of Julia Roberts. As an adult, I can separate my dislike of that from my dislike of her but it took me a while. I really hated that whole part.
That said, Hook will forever and always hold a special place in my heart but your post is pretty spot on with it's issues. Every piece of art has problems. Every film, song, painting etc will have critics and that's okay.
And as someone that has zero interest in Labyrinth, this whole drama has been fascinating to watch. I didn't even watch the Cinema Therapy episode on it because of my lack of interest. I think there are some fans of CT that have taken the parasocial relationship a little too far (this is not directed at you OP-just a general statement).
That is true, and a good point. I had brought that up in my first edit, but it started to feel like a dead horse, so I snipped it out with intentions to revise and then got caught up in other stuff and never came back around to it.
But yeah, Peter's bad habit of overpromising things he can't deliver was definitely meant to compliment my assessment of the conflict. I didn't want to dump on the guy, because I can absolutely understand not wanting to let the people that you care about down, but I was flabbergasted when his first instinct when Jack was so hurt and mad at him was to promise to come to SIX games next season.
It made me think of a vid I watched recently on the nature of people pleasing and how it's meant to project selflessness and flawless service, but at it's core it's kind of selfish, because it's designed to protect the ego from admitting to yourself and others that you can't actually do it all, that as a human you have limitations and are inevitably going to have to pick and choose.
This is a sad level of pettiness you've just put on display.
Apparently you don't believe they should be allowed to make mistakes without revenge, even when they were accountable to it?
I think if this is a form of 'revenge', it isn't a very effective one, considering all it really amounts to is some sassy but earnest opinions on the internet, and a couple of hours of my time watching and writing.
Congrats on missing the entire point of OP’s post
I didn't though. They were clearly trying to demonstrate that you can feel subjectively one way about a movie and still make an effort to do an objective breakdown of the content.
But perhaps instead you missed my point. If that was the only point of this post, there'd be no reason to call it out specifically as "a film that Jono and Alan both love". You simply could have said "hey, here's how I would have approached it for a movie I don't like". But that's not what happened. What happened was a demonstration that was specifically chosen to "trash" something they both love to make a point about them trashing a movie others love. What is that, if not revenge under the veneer of insincere education?
I stand by my comment, and I'll happily take your downvotes.
In my opinion, OP wasn't trying for revenge or to "trash" something they loved, they were trying to demonstrate what it feels like when someone goes in to "perform" an opinion they already know will be deeply negative, to someone (in this case, the CT audience) eager to connect on their own feelings of love, nostalgia, connection, and interpretation. And honestly, OP was way nicer than Jono or Alan were.
Jono and Alan analyzed Labyrinth because their patrons voted, pleaded, and paid for them to do so—and then they proceeded to spend an entire video mocking, snarking, and making fun of every single thing about the story—even proceeding to smugly mock people who liked it and to ask them why anyone else would.
As a patron and subscriber, yes, this hurt my feelings, and yes, I found it incredibly tone-deaf and unnecessary. Am I mad at Jono and Alan? No. I think they handled this with a lot of class, and I think they're good, smart people doing a lot of good in the world.
However, I do also think it -- ONCE AGAIN -- demonstrates that Jono and Alan mean well, but they aren't actually very good at reading, interpreting, or discussing movies that are meaningful to women or the female gaze.
Nor are they great (based on their "cute" reaction to "Love, Actually") at calling out actually abusive or toxic undertones in media toward women, either. When I pointed out what a terrible movie LA actually is, in terms of how it treats its female characters (who are pursued, stalked, body-shamed, mocked, lusted after, and betrayed, and with zero visible love, just male limerence), Alan responded politely that they "did the best they could" and it was supposed to be fun. Then more recently, they sided with Andie's horrible boyfriend/friends in "The Devil Wears Prada," lambasting the main character for "selling her soul for shoes," which is not at all what happens. Gah. Anyway.
It's beginning to be apparent that this is a genuine blind spot with them.
Now this might be because the Labyrinth video was only the second thing I've seen from this channel, but I feel like I'm missing some context.
I saw the video and agree this happened.
This is where I get confused. I see a lot of people saying the same thing but I don't understand where the class is. The main apology on the channel is a lot of words that only say "sorry for not analyzing the movie". Jono made a separate post that seems to amount to "sorry I didn't research why people liked it". Neither of those apologize for the content of what was said, at best only apologizing that the audience had a chance to hear it. The growth based on those apologies is "don't upload roasts to the channel" and not "work through subconscious bias and don't mock people". Despite this I see a lot of "accountability kink" and praising them for not actually addressing anything of substance. I feel like either I'm going crazy or there is something I'm not seeing.
I'll admit I don't have a strong emotional interest in this situation (two videos isn't enough to get attached to a channel); it is more like a puzzle to get to the bottom of so if this isn't worth your time, please disregard this message.