User reviews

James and the Giant Peach is a stop motion/live action adaptation of the late Roald Dahl's book in the early 60s when being transitioned into film (like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The BFG, The Witches, Matilda, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox) about a young boy named James, who climbs into the peach and meets anthropomorphic stop-motion insects and stumbles upon an adventure of a lifetime. Many critics and fans of Roald Dahl alike were amazed about how faithful this movie was to the book, but there are two problems that I do have with this adaptation.

1) The beginning was quite dark and might frighten younger kids along with other scenes.

2) The rhino in the sky and the scene where James battles it wasn't explained enough. That's it for the criticism.

The positive aspects of this movie were excellent. The live action sets and the stop-motion animation have an astounding charm to the book. The character designs are pretty unique and the Jack Skellington cameo as the captain of the skeletons was amazing. The acting is very superb. The stop-motion insects were good, the two mean aunts named Spike and Sponge were tolerable, and the main character James is very likable. Even the action is very good. Music/songs written by Randy Newman (The Toy Story trilogy, The Princess and the Frog) were surprising good. Although not a masterpiece, James and the Giant Peach is an enjoyable family entertainment that stays faithful to the story from a great author.

8/10

True, it isn't as good as the book, which is a childhood favourite of mine, but it is still a delightful and charming film. The look of the film is splendid, with bright colours in most scenes and some very memorable scenes such as the killer sharks, and the peach was stupendous. The script is very clever and funny, especially with Centipede, who has some truly hilarious lines. The performances are exceptional, Paul Terry is very appealing as James and Pete Postelthwaite delights as the mysterious man, who is responsible for changing James's life forever. There is also a terrific voice cast, including Simon Callow, Richard Dreyfuss, Susan Sarandon and David Thewlis who breathe fresh air into the screenplay, but it is certainly Miriam Margoyles and Joanna Lumley as the ghastly aunts who steal the show. I do however have two complaints of the film. I did find Randy Newman's songs forgettable, and they occasionally mar the film's pacing, and Paul Terry's singing voice just was a bit weak. Other than that, it is a delightful film, with an 8/10. Bethany Cox

As a child James and the Giant Peach was one of my favorite books, so it was interesting to see how it would be formatted into a film. They actually did a pretty good job, although the book is much better. The animation was nicely done, and I liked the way the characters changed from life form to animated form- it gave the film a real surreal type of film. The songs were quite poor, and were obviously aimed at the kids to 'liven' things up a bit, after all some may say the story ventures on the dark side of things. It's nice to see a film aimed at children that can also appeal to adults as well, although it does help that many of us are very familiar with Roald Dahl's stories. In summary quite a good effort.

I really enjoyed it, and so did my 3- and 5-year-old (and yes, we read the book). The animation and live-action scenes showed a lot of love. Though elements of the story seemed a bit hurried or neglected, they weren't anything a fairy-tale fantasy couldn't absorb in stride. The music works well enough for this non-fan of musicals, and I prefer serviceable and inoffensive tunes to the treacly jingles and melodramatic scores of the usual Disney classics.

My only real complaint would be with the ending, as it really is unclear how the aunts drove across the ocean (did they obtain their own crocodile tongues?), and the slice of NY upon landing has a grim, Munchkin-town quality. Still, everything up to that point has left you with lots of goodwill towards the movie's makers.

The visual style is a bit "freaky" and the characters are a bit offbeat but that gives it some charm. I loved the banter between all the different insects who have a rivalry but are all good people. Their adventure is very engaging. The only downside is that sometimes the film is a bit over the top which makes it hard to empathise with James because his struggles can seem a bit comedic.

It's very sweet and cute, but kind of gets a bit stale/boring after some time. Those two aunts were absolutely disgusting in every way. And I really loved when he sang my name is James. That was so sweet, emotional and adorable.

I remember that I first learned of Roald Dahl's "James and the Giant Peach" when I saw a stage production of it, shortly after which I read the book. I liked both very much. The movie version isn't any kind of masterpiece, but still worth seeing as a way to pass time. I always find it interesting when years later I see who all does the voices: Richard Dreyfuss, Susan Sarandon and David Thewlis, to name a few (Miriam Margoyles also stars).

So, I would say that this movie does have a Tim Burton feeling (Roald Dahl plus Tim Burton; imagine that!). As long as we understand that this is pretty much intended as a children's movie, it's quite enjoyable.

There is sooo much I like with this movie. It has imagination, a sense of wonder and characters you either love or hate. And the blend of live action and stop-motion animation is a delight. The songs incorporated in this story is not very memorable but sweet and fit their purpose. And you simply have to love to hate Margoyles and Lumley in their parts as the aunts from hell. They treat poor James so horribly that I thought that "Cinderella had it easy"! Compared to "nightmare before Christmas" I actually liked this movie better. It has more of a heart even if the story itself may be just a bit less interesting and inventive. There are so many good scenes but among the highlights is the arctic adventure and the New York sequence. But, mind you, the opening is very deceptive and might scare younger parts of the audience. Otherwise, a must-see!!!

The team of Henry Selick and Tim Burton ("The Nightmare Before Christmas") was the right choice for adapting this Roald Dahl book, or any Roald Dahl book for that matter, to the screen. What Dahl needs is someone who can appreciate the dark and morbid humor to be found in his stories -- they DON'T need to be given the sanitized Disney treatment.

Still, this is only a so-so version of the book, one of my absolute favorites when I was a child. The animation is cool, but there was no way the filmmakers were going to be able to compete with my childhood memories of reading this book over and over again.

It's probably not even fair for me to review the movie for that very reason.

Grade: B

I wanted to watch this movie for a while. There are not many around animated this way and I did love The Nightmare before Christmas and Coraline. So, I finally gave it a try. I was not particularly impressed. I found the story somehow bland and uninspiring. Also, any little moral message in it is basically lost in a number of events that I presume are supposed to be exciting but are rather dull. The songs are not really bad, although they don't save the film. Perhaps I'm just too old for this, although I still love other family films like the ones mentioned at the beginning. I find this film just OK, I wouldn't watch it again.

The 1996 Disney filmization of Roald Dahl's first book for children, 1961's "James and the Giant Peach," is a delightful confection that, like its original, should prove as much fun for the adults as the kiddies. The film hews fairly closely to its source material, with some important differences, and really is quite the exemplar of modern-day animation arts. In it, we are introduced to James Henry Trotter, an orphaned boy whose miserable existence with his two witchlike aunts takes a decided turn for the better when a mysterious old man gives him a bagful of magical green crystals. These crystals cause the previously barren peach tree in his front yard to grow the titular giant fruit, and James soon meets, inside the stone of the fruit, six new friends, giants all: a grasshopper, a spider, an earthworm, a glowworm, a ladybug and a centipede (the book's silkworm character, for some reason, has been omitted). The seven make a hazardous trans-Atlantic journey to NYC aboard the peach, a journey that tests the mettle of each of the team indeed. The film differs from Dahl's book in that the journey to NYC is a goal, rather than a happy accident. The film also tones down the book's violence (James' aunts are not killed in the film), turns the shark into some kind of killer robot, and, most unwisely, drops the entire sequence with the Cloud Men in favor of a haunted pirate ship not at all present in Dahl's text. The nature of the rhino that ate James' parents is also, strangely, much altered. The filmmakers have added some musical numbers to the mix, and although Randy Newman's charms are usually lost on me, I found his five contributions here to be quite entertaining. The picture blends live action, stop-motion animation and what looks to be (in James' dream) animated collages seamlessly and effectively, and the whole production really is something of a technical marvel. Despite the changes, this is one very winning entertainment indeed.

I was surprised that people thought this film was average, or so-so. I found it to me a movie that was so much fun to watch.

Starts out live-action, than it seagues into stop-motion animation. Some of the scenes are very memorable (the pirate attack) and the voices are delightful. Not as good as Nightmare Before Christmas, but every bit as imaginative.

An orphan with terrible aunts for guardians, befriends human like bugs who live inside a giant peach, who take the boy on a journey to New York City.

Although I am not the biggest fan of "Nightmare Before Christmas", I love the aesthetic that Tim Burton and Henry Selick have. We get another taste of that here. Selick directs, Burton produced... it may be a bit less Burtonesque because it is based on a Roald Dahl book, but I feel like some of their sensibility still got in there, especially with the aunts.

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a positive review, praising the animated part, but calling the live-action segments "crude." I would have to agree with that. I liked the live-action bits, but they seemed out of place and it might have been best to go full-animation.

I watched this movie because somewhere I ran into comparison with Nightmare Before Christmas. It is far from bad movie, but Tim Burton is just a producer here and comparing this with movies Burton wrote and directed is nothing but blasphemy. My main objection to this movie are pretty much boring songs. It's unbelievable that this movie was nominated for Best Music Academy Award. Out of all Disney animated movies I saw so far this one has definitely the worst soundtrack and not even one song that became evergreen hit. Overall, I have no objections, but no commendations either. Average Disney flick suitable for children only.

6/10

This classic from the classic 1961 children's novel by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) was created and directed by Henry Selick (The Nightmare Before Christmas) in 1995, five years after Dahl's death. Dahl had refused numerous film proposals for the book, but his widow approved this one. Selick's plan was to make either the insect companions or the entire film stop-motion animation, but due to budgetary concerns, the film is approximately 1/3 live action time-wise, and completely stop-motion animation during the peach journey adventure, which works just fine.

Newcomer Paul Terry does a fine job as James, both in the live acting and the voice-work. However Joanna Lumley should definitely be indicted for and convicted of scene theft, if not film theft, as one of James's two vicious aunts.

The stop-motion insects are voiced by Simon Callow, Richard Dreyfuss, Jane Leeves, David Thewlis, and (my favorite) Susan Sarandon as a mysterious Spider. In the live-action part, Pete Postlethwaithe has an important role.

I have not read the original much-loved and much-revered (especially in the UK) novel, so I cannot comment on the film's faithfulness. However, as an adult I found the film cute, interesting, enjoyable, and entertaining -- and at 79 minutes it never palls. It's a film that can and will be enjoyed by viewers of all ages, so it's excellent for multiple generations and thus, for instance, holiday and other family gatherings.

James and the Giant Peach may not have the cult status of Nightmare Before Christmas, but, aside from mixing live-action bookends with the all-animated center of the film (not a great idea; should have been all-animation), it's a faithful and wonderful adaptation of Roald Dahl's classic dream-like story. The animation is superb, the voice talent wonderful (Susan Sarandon's sexy Eastern European Miss Spider takes the cake), and, as Time Magazine said, the film in many ways surpasses the book. Though there are flaws in the screen story by Karey Kirkpatrick, their effect on the overall emotional ride of the film is negligible. After seeing it again recently (first time in several years), I was amazed at what an incredibly beautiful film it is, beautiful colors and design and effects like teacup clouds and the cloud rhino. I especially loved the mechanical shark and the ships' arctic graveyard sequence where Centipede redeems himself by diving into the water to find a compass to get the peach back on course. Overall, a great film.

Several movie adaptations of books written by acclaimed children's author Roald Dahl were made during his life, the most famous one being the 1971 adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", entitled "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory". However, no adaptations of his 1961 story, "James and the Giant Peach", were made before this one, which was made several years after Dahl's death in 1990. I first saw this movie shortly after it came out on video, when I was ten years old and only familiar with the first little bit of the book. That was a good first viewing. Just last month, I finally read the entire book for the first time, with the intention of watching the movie again afterwards, which is just what I have done after all these years. Now that I'm completely familiar with the source material, I still think this is a good adaptation.

James Henry Trotter is a young boy who lives happily with his loving parents in England by the sea. Unfortunately, his life changes significantly for the worse when his parents are killed by a rhinoceros, and his new guardians are his horrible, abusive Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker! Now living a miserable life, he dreams of a better life in New York City, a place his parents told him about before they died. Early one morning, after saving a spider from his bug-hating aunts, he meets a mysterious man outside, who gives him a bag of magical crocodile tongues, and tells him they will make his life better! Sadly, James accidentally trips and spills them, and they go into the ground. However, after that, these magic tongues cause a giant peach to grow on a dead peach tree in the garden! Sponge and Spiker claim it to be their own and use it to make money. At night, James crawls through a hole in the peach, and in the centre, he finds a bunch of human-sized insects (Old Green Grasshopper, Miss Spider, Ladybug, Centipede, Earthworm, and Glowworm). Like James, these creatures long for a better place, so they roll the peach off the hill with James and the creatures inside! They start out on a journey across the Atlantic Ocean to New York, but many dangers await them along the way!

This successful 1996 family adventure follows the general idea of the book well, but there are quite a few differences, such as what happens to Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker when the giant peach starts rolling off their property. Some things that aren't in the book (not necessarily bad things) were added here, and some memorable parts of the original story were skipped. It would have been nice if they had included the "Cloud Men" part. Still, most of the film is entertaining, with some impressive special effects, a good combination of live action and stop-motion (with some CGI), some humour, and a rather exciting fantasy adventure for both kids and adults. Paul Terry, who plays James, didn't end up with a long film career after this movie, but was still a decent child actor. Some of the characters could have been better crafted to make them really stand out, especially some of the giant insects, though some of them provide a lot of the good humour in the film, especially the arrogant Centipede, and the Earthworm with his pessimism. One part of the film I certainly didn't care much for was the rhinoceros in the sky, but most of the scenes, whether live action or animated, are at least pretty good. With all its merits, I still can't say I agree with Siskel & Ebert's "Two thumbs up! Way up!" comment, but it is a reasonable family fantasy film, worth checking out if you're into this genre, regardless of your age.

I can't believe the high rating that the movie "James and the Giant Peach" received. Obviously the people that rated it high have not read the book. Even so, looking at the film from the view of never having read the book, I still think this peach is rotten. For anybody who hasn't read the Roald Dahl book, do it. It is a wonderful story, and the movie pales beside it.

What a pleasant feel good film this little gem is !

After the sugar and sweet opening, including a hair raising song in the very worst Disney Style, Burton and Dahl break in and off we go, on an adventure that is fun and cheeky and in which not all the sharp edges have been blunted, thank Goodness.

Before we can go on a journey with the Giant Peach however, first Little James have to be orphaned. And he is, in a matter of fact voice-over that makes for a surprise element here. A bold way to get the plot in motion, and it works ! Many keep on wandering what or who that rhino was, that took the life of the parents just like that, on a whim. Well, anybody can be swept away by the rhino in the sky, or so the nasty aunties will have you believe anyway...

The visuals are stunning, the dialogues are bubbling fizzing electrical fun and brought wonderfully and lovingly by a great cast, and direction is clear cut, sharp and focused.

A lovely film, that makes you wonder what is Selnick & Burton and what's genuine Roald Dahl.

A splendid film that makes you go out and want to read a great book (again). What more can we possibly ask of a peach?

Hmmm, well ... about that Rhino in the stormy clouds ... Maybe ... If it's based in Britain, couldn't we tempt it to take a holiday somewhere in, say, Bora Bora or the Halls of Montezuma ? The English are quite accustomed to their climate, but their rhino gives us, here in the Lowlands, more than our share of rain and sleet too !!!

When "Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory" came out nearly 40 years ago (as of the date this review is being written), Roald Dahl, who wrote the classic book "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory" upon which the film is based, reportedly hated it. Although the film was a minor hit, Dahl refused to sell the movie rights to "Charlie & The Great Glass Elevator" and any other book he wrote. Since his death in 1990, "James & The Giant Peach" is one of Dahl's many books to be adapted into a movie, and you have to wonder whether Dahl would have approved of the final product.

"James & The Giant Peach" is a memorable film, and its animation is quite excellent. However, I feel as though the "Disneyfication" of it brought it from a potentially great film to a mediocre one, even to Disney's standards.

"Disneyfication" is a word I made up. It basically means that the Disney company takes an already great and original story, like this one, and tries to fit it in with its other children's films by adding songs and making anthropomorphic characters a little too in-your-face.

The original book, written by Dahl in 1961, was essentially a cooler Cinderella story that boys could enjoy and buy into. The novel has random plot points, but you accept them while reading the book because that was what Roald Dahl was known for. Every child should read Dahl's books. Whether or not that would be detrimental to their enjoyment of this film remains to be seen.

If you haven't read the book, you'll wonder why and how James' parents were killed by a rhinoceros in the sky (it was a real rhinoceros that escaped from the zoo in the book), how on Earth James was sent to live with abusive aunts, and who the mysterious man that gave James magic pills was and why he didn't just take them for himself if they were so magical. Plus, having a boy take pills from a stranger should not be in a children's film. Too many questions.

Well, James spills these magic pills (or beans, or worms, or whatever they are), resulting in a dead peach tree on his aunts' property bearing fruit for the first time in years. Not only that, but the one peach that grows instantly balloons to 100 times the size of a normal peach. Once James ventures inside the peach, he goes from being human to being a stop-motion animated human. He makes friends with the giant bugs that grew inside the peach, they cut the peach free from its tree, and roll into the ocean. Their quest is to go from London to New York City.

It's random, of course, but it's vintage Roald Dahl. It's pure fantasy, and there's a fun kind of magic. The story appeals to kids who want to escape their humdrum life, as well as those who don't have many friends. The solution to all James' problems comes in this unexpected way, and it's fun to watch James and his insect friends on their journey.

In fact, all the scenes that were animated were nearly perfect, and contributed greatly to the story. I thought the character of Centipede (voiced by Richard Dreyfuss) came off as slightly too desperate an attempt to be the comic relief of the movie, as if he was trying to be the Genie from "Aladdin" (1992). The rest of the characters were great, though. My favorites were Miss Spider (Susan Sarandon) and Grasshopper (Simon Callow). I even liked the cameo by Jack Skelington from "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (1993), also directed by Henry Selick.

I thought the unexplained plot holes and inconsistencies (outlined earlier) derailed the real- life parts of the movie. I also thought James' horrible aunts Sponge (Miriam Margoyles) and Spiker (Joanna Lumley) could have been more over the top, and far less likable. It seems as though Disney made them too safe, worried that they would scare kids. These characters should scare kids, but Disney made them too tacky and goofy (no pun intended). I especially hated how they occasionally spoke in rhyme, as if they were "Sesame Street" villains.

I also didn't like the songs in the movie. Yes, Randy Newman is a great composer, and he wrote great songs for "Toy Story" (1995) and (later) "The Princess & The Frog" (2009). Here, his writing and composing style are out of place. The score is great, mind you, as he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Score. The songs, however, felt contrived and unoriginal, with "Good News", the song during the end credits, being the exception.

I hated the song "My Name is James", for instance. It felt like a cheap knockoff of "Part of Your World" from "The Little Mermaid" (1989), and the lyrics were uninspired and highly repetitive ("There's a city that I dreamed of, very far from here, very very far away from here, very far away"). If they had just cut out all the songs in the movie (except "Good News"), the movie would have benefited greatly.

As far as Roald Dahl adaptations go, this movie was more faithful than others. As a kid's movie, it's pretty good. As a Disney movie, it's second rate. The animation is strong, but the real life segments and the songs are the true brown spots in this film. Had they been cut out, this story would have been a lot sweeter and juicier.