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.
"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.