James and the Giant Peach Reviews
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
May 18, 2012
James and the Giant Peach is a very good film. But I did not think it was as good as Nightmare Before Christmas. The film is a perfect family film, but I felt it missed something to really make it special. The film is good, and I enjoyed it, but it's not as great as what everyone has claimed it to be. I personally preferred Nightmare Before Christmas. This is however a film that the whole family can enjoy, and despite its flaws it is a memorable film to watch. I enjoyed the film for what it was. Despite its flaws, this is a well done film with great special effects. James and the Giant Peach isn't as great as so many other animated classics, but it's still a good film. The voice cast here are great, and the characters are interesting and fun. I just feel something is missing to truly make this one a classic. On the technological stand point, this film stands out. As a whole, this is an entertaining film and despite its flaws is still worth watching. I enjoyed the film, even if it's not the best animated feature that I've seen. A good family film with heart, James and the Giant Peach is still worth seeing. A good cast and good story make up for most of its flaws. A fun adventure from start to finish, this film will appeal in the kid in all of us. Like I said, the beauty part of this film is in its details, but I feel the story, though good, could have been reworked a bit more, just to make it a bit more memorable. Still a film worth watching.
Eric A
Super Reviewer
August 9, 2011
This movie takes me back to 3rd/4th grade. One of those movies you couldn't forget even if you tried.
AJ V
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
This movie is really cool, it's based on a good children's book, directed by Selick (who directed Nightmare Before Christmas), and it's got wonderful clay animation. Why isn't it better than it is? Maybe because it was a little too goofy? Or it was the songs, I don't know, but for the most part this is a good movie.
murphmann93
Super Reviewer
June 23, 2011
Another childhood classic!
michael e.
Super Reviewer
January 23, 2011
with a heartwaming and magical story and great stop-motion animation, it saves this film, and makes it one of Henry Selicks best films
sanjurosamurai
Super Reviewer
January 18, 2007
inventive and fun, the film is benefited by a manageable running time and a unique plot. the film isnt too consequential, and at times even in this short film i found myself clock watching, but the art direction and adventuresome nature of the film kept me in it. decent kids movie.
Conner R
Super Reviewer
July 23, 2010
Who wouldn't want to live in a giant peach? This is just an all around great movie, showcasing everything the animation genre has to offer. It's one of my favorite children's books along with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl has such a great imagination and this definitely shows it. Stop motion claymation either works or it doesn't, this definitely works. I love all the voice actors and the characters they play, it's so weird and offbeat.
KJ P
Super Reviewer
July 24, 2010
Fantastically acclaimed and much deserved! James and the Giant Peach, soars with family fun, and is actually scary for kids, at parts. James finds friends in a giant peach, and sparks a great genereation of characters that I adored!
James A
Super Reviewer
The best line in the movie was "James, can I come in your peach". -Kid who wanted to come in James' peach.
deano
Super Reviewer
November 1, 2006
Like such stories of this, Tim Burton used his specialty, fantasy. His style of such formula had proved to be successful in the previous years The Nightmare Before Christmas. So why not do it again? With colorful characters and imagery to be seen only while using the imagination, stop-motion was a good idea, especially for films like this.
The acting and voicing is very warm, and young Paul Terry is convincible, as opposed to many other child actors who never had the right moment. Richard Dreyfuss, Simon Callow, Susan Sarandon, and Jane Leeves offer tender voices to the lovable creatures in whom James finds a new meaning to the word 'family'. Miriam Margoyles and Joanna Lumley are hysterical, if not over the top as the orphans wise cracking, crabby, and creepy aunts. Good direction and some often pleasing music accompany the actors as they compliment this journey of courage.
The imagery is remarkable. Tim Burton has always had a unique talent for a style of imagery and picture.
Amazing family mix of live-action, stop-motion animation and computer generated special effects based on Ronald Dahn's novel.
Like such stories of this, Tim Burton used his specialty, fantasy. His style of such formula had proved to be successful in the previous years The Nightmare Before Christmas. So why not do it again? With colorful characters and imagery to be seen only while using the imagination, stop-motion was a good idea, especially for films like this.
The acting and voicing is very warm, and young Paul Terry is convincible, as opposed to many other child actors who never had the right moment. Richard Dreyfuss, Simon Callow, Susan Sarandon, and Jane Leeves offer tender voices to the lovable creatures in whom James finds a new meaning to the word 'family'. Miriam Margoyles and Joanna Lumley are hysterical, if not over the top as the orphans wise cracking, crabby, and creepy aunts. Good direction and some often pleasing music accompany the actors as they compliment this journey of courage.
The imagery is remarkable. Tim Burton has always had a unique talent for a style of imagery and picture.
Daniel Mumby
Super Reviewer
February 17, 2010
Nestled in among all these is Henry Selick's James and the Giant Peach, a cracking children's film which marries live-action and stop-motion in almost perfect harmony. It came out in the same year as Danny DeVito's Matilda, and it is the better film of the two, being both more disciplined and better directed. It's an interesting and well-executed marriage of two mediums, which draws on the work of producer Burton and successfully brings out the dark themes of its story.
From an effects point of view, the film's marriage of mediums is not as visually impressive as, say, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. There are only a few moments in which the two worlds interact, and these moments do pass you by without a second thought. That last phrase, however, hints at the success of the film in using what we would now consider old-fashioned, organic effects. From the peach rolling through the village to James' transformation into an animated boy, we are constantly distracted from the effects by the story and the characters. Selick deliberately makes very little of James changing, seeing it as just another thing that happens in the story. This makes the madder sequences of the film all the more seamless, and that makes for great story-telling.
That said, the animated sections of the film (which make up the majority) are better directed. Unlike Burton, Selick has not yet managed to transfer his knack for directing marionettes into the world of 'real' actors. But that is not necessarily a criticism. Selick is not a worse director because he struggles to direct real-world sequences, just as the Wallace and Gromit films would not simply work better if they were live-action. Selick merely demonstrates that animation is his forte, as he has subsequently proved on both Monkeybone (which is a mess) and Coraline (which is terrific).
Aside from the visual effects, the film has a striking and weird visual style. Much like The Nightmare Before Christmas, Selick's previous work, there is a lot of Burton lurking in the background. The strange, impossible house in which James and his aunts live could have escaped from Vincent (his first short) or possibly Edward Scissorhands. The scenes in New York are reminiscent of Batman, insofar as there seem to be several time periods co-existing -- we have modern cranes, and yet the cop rings on an old-fashioned phone. Oddly enough, the cinematography does owe a lot to Roeg in its use of deep, rich, almost over-powering colour. The actors' faces in the opening scene are lit so brightly they appear the same colour as the peach, and the film's use of shadows and red light for effect is a faint reminder of Don't Look Now.
Like all of Burton's best work, this film is proof positive that children can not only tolerate darkness, but thrive on it. There are several genuinely dark and disturbing moments, but they never seem out of place or out of kilter with the overall mood of the film. This is a film which contains a rhino which emerges from a thundercloud and emits lighting, a mechanical shark which looks like an anthropomorphic U-boat, and a ship full of ghostly pirates at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. And that's not to mention the macabre nightmare sequence, which is somewhere between the Monty Python cartoons, The Fog and The Very Hungry Caterpillar. There are also references to Nightmare during the pirate sequence, both in the look of the bodies (no real surprise) and the Centipede using the word 'Skellington' when he first sees the Captain.
What is really interesting about these examples, and about James as a whole, is that they differentiate from the source without ever making us feel that the film doesn't do the source justice. All the changes are legitimate both in sustaining the plot and bringing out the dark themes; as with Coraline they will not majorly offend purists, because they make sense within the logic of the film. It would have been interesting to see the Cloudmen put on screen, since they are one of the scariest things about the book; but looking at the finished product you wonder how they could have been integrated into the story without damaging the film's internal discipline. In the book Spiker and Sponge are crushed by the peach; here it makes sense for them to survive because they represent a challenge to James' imagination; they are the real world trying and failing to crush his dreams.
The film has a very solid cast, and like all the best animated films you can imagine the animated characters being sculpted to resemble their voice artists. In the live action cast, Joanna Lumley and Miriam Margolyes are great as Spiker and Sponge respectively, resisting the temptation to ham it up and thereby creeping us out in all their macabre make-up. Pete Postlethwaite manages to make the very best of what could have been a throw-away role, turning the Old Man into the main catalyst for James' ambitions. Susan Sarandon and Simon Callow are the highlights of the animated cast, although Richard Dreyfuss is very likeable as the Centipede. As for the lead, Paul Terry gives a decent performance for such a young actor; he struggles with the singing but holds the film together.
James and the Giant Peach retains all of its sparkle and swagger fourteen years after its original release. It's a beautiful told, heartfelt and punchy animation with a bizarre but fascinating visual style; the very sight of the ocean, which looks like a swaying carpet of blue velvet, is enough to take one's breath away. It isn't perfect, due to little quirks in both the lighting and particularly the sound which can sometimes make it difficult to follow. But it is near flawless as a dark and creepy family film, with a great set of musical numbers and a host of likeable characters. If nothing else, all the quality on show here provided the perfect basis for Selick to excel himself with Coraline.
Big-screen adaptations of Roald Dahl's work have had a long and chequered history. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was disowned by Dahl after director Mel Stuart vetoed his choice of Spike Milligan for the lead. The Witches, directed by Nicolas Roeg (of all people), was picketed by the author just before his death, on the grounds that the ending was changed against his wishes. It's only recently that the Dahl estate has been more willing to allow adaptations of his work, and even then the results are rather uneven. While Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory really captured the dark and creepy undertones of the text, Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox alienated many audiences by its seeming condescension of the source material.
Nestled in among all these is Henry Selick's James and the Giant Peach, a cracking children's film which marries live-action and stop-motion in almost perfect harmony. It came out in the same year as Danny DeVito's Matilda, and it is the better film of the two, being both more disciplined and better directed. It's an interesting and well-executed marriage of two mediums, which draws on the work of producer Burton and successfully brings out the dark themes of its story.
From an effects point of view, the film's marriage of mediums is not as visually impressive as, say, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. There are only a few moments in which the two worlds interact, and these moments do pass you by without a second thought. That last phrase, however, hints at the success of the film in using what we would now consider old-fashioned, organic effects. From the peach rolling through the village to James' transformation into an animated boy, we are constantly distracted from the effects by the story and the characters. Selick deliberately makes very little of James changing, seeing it as just another thing that happens in the story. This makes the madder sequences of the film all the more seamless, and that makes for great story-telling.
That said, the animated sections of the film (which make up the majority) are better directed. Unlike Burton, Selick has not yet managed to transfer his knack for directing marionettes into the world of 'real' actors. But that is not necessarily a criticism. Selick is not a worse director because he struggles to direct real-world sequences, just as the Wallace and Gromit films would not simply work better if they were live-action. Selick merely demonstrates that animation is his forte, as he has subsequently proved on both Monkeybone (which is a mess) and Coraline (which is terrific).
Aside from the visual effects, the film has a striking and weird visual style. Much like The Nightmare Before Christmas, Selick's previous work, there is a lot of Burton lurking in the background. The strange, impossible house in which James and his aunts live could have escaped from Vincent (his first short) or possibly Edward Scissorhands. The scenes in New York are reminiscent of Batman, insofar as there seem to be several time periods co-existing -- we have modern cranes, and yet the cop rings on an old-fashioned phone. Oddly enough, the cinematography does owe a lot to Roeg in its use of deep, rich, almost over-powering colour. The actors' faces in the opening scene are lit so brightly they appear the same colour as the peach, and the film's use of shadows and red light for effect is a faint reminder of Don't Look Now.
Like all of Burton's best work, this film is proof positive that children can not only tolerate darkness, but thrive on it. There are several genuinely dark and disturbing moments, but they never seem out of place or out of kilter with the overall mood of the film. This is a film which contains a rhino which emerges from a thundercloud and emits lighting, a mechanical shark which looks like an anthropomorphic U-boat, and a ship full of ghostly pirates at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. And that's not to mention the macabre nightmare sequence, which is somewhere between the Monty Python cartoons, The Fog and The Very Hungry Caterpillar. There are also references to Nightmare during the pirate sequence, both in the look of the bodies (no real surprise) and the Centipede using the word 'Skellington' when he first sees the Captain.
What is really interesting about these examples, and about James as a whole, is that they differentiate from the source without ever making us feel that the film doesn't do the source justice. All the changes are legitimate both in sustaining the plot and bringing out the dark themes; as with Coraline they will not majorly offend purists, because they make sense within the logic of the film. It would have been interesting to see the Cloudmen put on screen, since they are one of the scariest things about the book; but looking at the finished product you wonder how they could have been integrated into the story without damaging the film's internal discipline. In the book Spiker and Sponge are crushed by the peach; here it makes sense for them to survive because they represent a challenge to James' imagination; they are the real world trying and failing to crush his dreams.
The film has a very solid cast, and like all the best animated films you can imagine the animated characters being sculpted to resemble their voice artists. In the live action cast, Joanna Lumley and Miriam Margolyes are great as Spiker and Sponge respectively, resisting the temptation to ham it up and thereby creeping us out in all their macabre make-up. Pete Postlethwaite manages to make the very best of what could have been a throw-away role, turning the Old Man into the main catalyst for James' ambitions. Susan Sarandon and Simon Callow are the highlights of the animated cast, although Richard Dreyfuss is very likeable as the Centipede. As for the lead, Paul Terry gives a decent performance for such a young actor; he struggles with the singing but holds the film together.
James and the Giant Peach retains all of its sparkle and swagger fourteen years after its original release. It's a beautiful told, heartfelt and punchy animation with a bizarre but fascinating visual style; the very sight of the ocean, which looks like a swaying carpet of blue velvet, is enough to take one's breath away. It isn't perfect, due to little quirks in both the lighting and particularly the sound which can sometimes make it difficult to follow. But it is near flawless as a dark and creepy family film, with a great set of musical numbers and a host of likeable characters. If nothing else, all the quality on show here provided the perfect basis for Selick to excel himself with Coraline.
MeetMeinMontauk
Super Reviewer
May 24, 2009
LOVE stop motion. Cute integration of real life and claymation. Very clever.
gor41
Super Reviewer
December 24, 2009
Comes alive when the peach appears and its host of misfit characters set off on their journey. Horrid aunts are good fun but the boy is a bit bland and some of the sets spoil the illusion a little.
Leigh R
Super Reviewer
November 12, 2009
Totally cute. Liked the part live action with the animation. And of course, it wouldn't be wonderful without all the fabulous little songs in there. HEE!
Anthony L
Super Reviewer
September 25, 2009
A very sweet version of the Roald Dahl story. Loved the animation!
RCCLBC
Super Reviewer
February 15, 2008
A childhood favorite, brought to the BIG screen. Not as good as the book...but an enjoyable journey.
Lafe F
Super Reviewer
July 14, 2007
I thought it would be as magical as "The Nightmare Before Christmas" but it was dry and very scholarly literature with forgettable songs. It was all animated with little puppets. I didn't find the idea of bugs crawling out of a peach particularly appetizing. James was a sweet polite boy. The bugs seemed like old adults. Younger children might appreciate this story more; I was bored.
