James and the Giant Peach (1996) User Reviews

A timeless stop-motion/live action entertainment although not a masterpiece

[gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297 · 8/10 · 9 October 2011]

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

A delightful adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl!

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 8 September 2009]

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

The book is better, but a nice adaption

[Meredith-7 · 8/10 · 10 July 1999]

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.

A classic in my home

[Dave Wilson · 11 February 2002]

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.

A Companion to "Nightmare Before Christmas", Sort Of

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 16 December 2015]

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.

A good adaptation from a classic children's book

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 20 May 2012]

I remember when I was a kid and would slip in my Nightmare Before Christmas VHS tape, one of the trailers that was on it was James and the Giant Peach. I always wanted to see it, but my parents didn't buy the movie. I think because the film at the time had gotten Luke warm reviews, but over the years it seems like James and the Giant Peach got a cult following and an audience to boot. After all, we don't really get some of these great animated films that were from the 90's. Plus whenever there's a dark family film, a lot of parents tend to look down on it. I think today's parents have become a little too protective in my opinion. However, I had the opportunity to see the film yesterday and gladly watched it. I admit, my hopes were maybe a bit high, but I can see why the reviews were mixed on this one.

James Henry Trotter is a young boy who lives with his parents by the sea. On James's birthday, they plan to go to New York City. However, his parents are later killed by a ghostly rhinoceros from the sky and finds himself living with his two cruel aunts, Spiker and Sponge. He is forced to work all day and they threaten him with beatings to keep him in line and taunt him about the mysterious rhino and other hazards if he tries to leave. While rescuing a spider from being squashed by his aunts, James meets a mysterious man with a bag of magic greens, which he gives to James to make his life better When James is returning to the house, he trips and the green beans escape into the ground. One peach is soon found on a withered old tree, and it grows. The aunts use the giant peach as an attraction, making lots of money as James watches from the house, not allowed to leave. That night, James is sent to pick up the garbage. While doing so, he grabs a chunk of the peach to eat. A large hole appears inside the peach and James ventures inside, were he finds and befriends a group of life-size anthropomorphic bugs who also dream of an ideal home and decide to travel to New York.

I think if I saw this as a kid, I would've adored it. As an adult, I see that there scenes that lead to no where and there are some things that are not explained in the film that are explained in the book. I remember reading the book in elementary school and if you didn't read the book, I think you would be totally lost with the whole killer rhino ordeal. Also the aunts are so one note, first off, how is it this kid has the kindest parents in the world with the nastiest sisters who are extremely ugly and obviously hate kids? Yeah, I'm sure when the parents were writing their wills they said "Now, if something happens to us, who will take care of James"…"How about your parents who call and write letters daily and adore him?"…"No, I don't think they'll like him living with them"…"True, how about your 2 evil ugly sisters who hate him and love to beat him?"…"Perfect!".

However, the animation is absolutely wonderful and really takes you back into Nightmare Before Christmas, in fact, there is even a cameo appearance by Jack Skeleton. The songs are charming and all of the characters are great too, even if not consistent. Like I don't get how the spider says she doesn't like socializing with anyone, but is clearly singing and dancing with them in the next scene without complaint. But for the kids, this is a great film that gives them hope to dream. I wish I would've seen it as a kid. But I still like it despite the flaws, considering that I think I'm just nitpicking at this point. I can understand why James and the Giant Peach found it's audience and where it will end up in the classics one day.

7/10

Cute but not quite great

[kikiboo_8 · 6/10 · 31 October 2021]

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.

not the pits

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 2 July 2007]

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.

Utterly delightful and a must-see!!

[jangu · 9/10 · 22 November 2002]

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!!!

A dark and riveting classic

[briancham1994 · 7/10 · 31 May 2020]

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.

Just OK

[Lomedin · 5/10 · 20 February 2012]

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.

A Peach of a Picture

[slowbob · 10/10 · 13 January 2005]

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.

One of My Favorite Childhood Books Comes to the Screen

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 17 June 2009]

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

Bizarre and Annoying (May contain some spoilers!!!)

[mr composer · 3/10 · 23 February 2001]

What could be a very beautiful and captivating story was a wasted unusually long 79 minutes of time. The human characters were very annoying. The music (sorry Randy Newman)was terrible. The score was not bad, but the songs simply reeked.

As far as the story, I confess that I've never read the book that it's based on, but I found parts of it charming, and other parts a bit strange. Ok, the abused orphan boy, and magical giant peach, leading to boy's escape to NY is very nice. The fantasy elements are introduced by these glowing green seeds which produce the peach.. and therefore everything inside is fantasy. But what about these other absurities? What's with the mechanical shark? What's this rhinocerous that comes from a storm cloud and kills James' parents?

Don't get me wrong, I love absurdities. But I also like consistency and this movie just seems to have no guidelines of what should be fantasy and what should be reality.

Sad but true, the most entertaining aspect of this film was the amusement I received from James' speech impediment, ("I'm not afwaid of you!"). On a side note, just like "Nightmare before Christmas", the animation is great! But this movie sadly needed some Burton and Elfman touches.

Wonderful

[Arkaan · 12 October 1999]

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.

Visually stunning, mediocre adaptation of a great book.

[TOMNEL · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

James and the Giant Peach is a beloved book by Roald Dahl, and unfortunately, the love was not mutual for the movie. Henry Selick, director of the "Nightmare Before Christmas", did some good things and some bad things with the story, luckily most were good.

James is an orphan, after his parents were killed by an escaped rhino from the zoo. He lives with his awful Aunts Spiker and Sponge. One night, a strange man gives James some magic worm-looking things (He says what they are, but it's a long list), which escape and end up going into the peach tree. A giant peach is grown, which gives his aunts the idea to charge people to see it. One night James goes into the giant peach, becomes clay animated, and meets some big bugs who have also become clay animated, and the adventure begins.

Many translations from the book don't make sense. The rhino is in the sky, and the climax of the movie has James fighting the sky rhino, which was ridiculous. The mechanical shark is also quite bizarre. The plot bounces around, never really going anywhere that's important. But with the negatives, comes the positives. This movie looks really great. The whole film is very stylish, from the dark beginning to the lively animated middle to the special effect heavy ending. James is also a likable kid, as are the bugs, so the characters are pretty good.

Overall, this is a pretty good movie, that could've been a masterpiece.

My rating: *** out of ****. 77 mins. PG for mild language.

James and the Giant Peach

[jboothmillard · 7/10 · 9 September 2005]

For a Roald Dahl book based film, this is not a bad attempt to bring a popular story to life. James Henry Trotter (Paul Terry) is a lonely boy who lost his parents who were eaten by a rhino. He is now living with his horrible guardians Aunt Sponge (Miriam Margoyles) and Aunt Spiker (Joanna Lumley). He dreams of getting away and going to New York, then one day an Old Man (Pete Postlethwaite) gives him a bag of magic "crocodile tongues". He unfortunately loses these tongues, but they go into the nearby tree and make a giant peach! Later, James goes inside this peach and meets insect friends, Centipede (Richard Dreyfuss), Grasshopper (Simon Callow), Miss Spider (Susan Sarandon), Miss Ladybug (Jane Leeves), Earthworm (David Thewlis) and Glowworm (Margoyles again). They begin the epic adventure journey to New York with the help of seagulls, and along the way encounter mechanical sharks, a northern ice place, skeleton pirates, and the rhino, but they do get there eventually. Tim Burton produced this film, with the same stop-motion animation as The Nightmare Before Christmas. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Music for Randy Newman. Very good!

Disappointing

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 30 November 2017]

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

Great for adults or children of any age

[angelofvic · 7/10 · 16 December 2014]

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.

Peachy, Just Like The Book

[ferbs54 · 8/10 · 11 July 2008]

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.

What a sweet nightmare.

[ephuycke · 7/10 · 17 November 2020]

As a diligent child of the 1990's, the VHS's for both "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" on regular rotation on my family's VCR. Even though "Nightmare" was populated by monsters and ghouls and skellingtons, the film that scared me more was "James and the Giant Peach," because unlike "Nightmare", that film interacted with deep fears that I carried through my childhood about being abandoned, about being alone, about being undefended from the stormy forces of the world that wanted to trample and obliterated everything that made me feel safe. "Nightmare" was spooky up until the characters started actually talking but its central conflict was basically a midlife crisis; "James and the Giant Peach" was legitimately upsetting.

Both films are full of singularly beautiful images that are so different they seem to compel your mind to pursue them. It's a type of world-building that all great animation does that eschews logic in favor of something like a self-perpetuating dream, where the mind shows itself an image so strange and possessing that it automatically does the imaginative work of generating a rationale for that image. When we see a graveyard under the arctic sea teeming with sunken ships and menacing skeletons or a massive rhino made of storm clouds and smoke come galloping out of the horizon or the kindly woman's face of a giant spider tucking our hero into sleep, we don't just take those images at face value, we follow them and they bloom into something greater than the sum of their parts.

Selick leaned further into the macabre, the grotesque, and the uncanny for this film, and it makes for a more emotional and ultimately affirming story. James is confronted with deep terrors from without and within, a rhino made of storm clouds and smoke as the chaos of an unreasonable world, and the aunts that neglect and starve and beat him as the hell of an abusive homelife. James's test is to create an entire life for himself, a shelter with his magic peach, a family with his human-sized insects who would be monsters to anyone else.

Rewatching the film as an adult, I loved the first two thirds of the film, but the third act felt underwhelming. James defeating the rhino by basically just telling it that he isn't afraid of it felt limp when the rest of the story was so filled with such potent metaphor and association. It may have worked better on the page, but cinematically it fell flat. The same goes for the dispatching of the aunts, although I think that would have been forgivable if we'd gotten a really strong confrontation with the rhino.

Also, Randy Newman's score felt at odds with the look and tone of the film. Selick may have thought the film would benefit from moving in a different direction than the work that Danny Elfman did on "Nightmare," but looking back now, the choice for Elfman just seems so obvious for "James and the Giant Peach." It would have give a necessary sense of dread while also providing a upbeat counterpoint. Also, I don't think I would miss the songs if they were removed. Animated musicals were the order of the day in 1996, but the songs add nothing that the dialogue isn't able to do on its own.

Great book, lousy film

[Muldernscully · 1/10 · 31 January 2002]

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.

And Now The Weather Forecast: Rhino Has A Giant Cold...

[wobelix · 9/10 · 27 November 2004]

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 !!!

A Delightful Film for the Family

[moviewizguy · 7/10 · 28 May 2007]

James' happy life at the English seaside is rudely ended when his parents are killed by a rhinoceros and he goes to live with his two horrid aunts. Daringly saving the life of a spider he comes into possession of magic boiled crocodile tongues, after which an enormous peach starts to grow in the garden. Venturing inside he meets not only the spider but a number of new friends including a ladybug and a centipede who help him with his plan to try and get to New York.

This film is truly delightful for the whole family. It's sweet, funny, and has a great musical score. I liked the stop-motion animation, which was fantastic in this film. It really had a lot of imagination to it, too.

There are even some great action scenes, although some might scare little children. The characters are lovable in the film. This isn't a masterpiece, but it sure is just a film to watch with the family if you have nothing else better to do.

This is a classic? Honestly?

[TheSeaLion · 4/10 · 5 October 2013]

It is mind boggling how much praise this film gets. The film is overblown with the only redeeming qualities being the animation and sets, and to a lesser extent, the acting. Everything else is done poorly, especially the songs and the acting from Paul Terry (James).

This film has so much set up with no pay off and leaves things that are crucial parts of the story unexplained or illogical. For instance, what was that giant rhino and if it was just smoke and noise how did it eat the parents? What was the mechanical shark? Where did Pete Postlethwaite's character come from? See what I mean?

In all honesty, the animation was fantastic and the sets did have a Tim Burton-esque feel to them, but that is about it.

If you are looking for a clumsy, unorganized and not too thought out movie, than look no further than "James and the Giant Peach".