Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Josh Hill I can vividly remember reading this story as a child and then later watching the film. I loved it back then. It seemed like the filmmakers had gone to the next level somehow to create this visual masterpiece that (unknown to me until I saw it) I had been waiting for my entire life up until that point.And while I have moved onto other things since that time (life gets in the way!) and James and the Giant Peach became just another happy, faded memory, I never forgot how much it once meant to me. So when it recently came up again, I got to thinking: would it still hold up after all these years? Should I refrain from watching it, lest it spoil the happy memory of it that I had from my childhood?Well, I gave in and watch it. It's never as good as the first time, and never as magical as when I saw it as a kid, but it was still a pleasure to see it again, and a great movie for the children!

Clifton Johnson I could have lived without the musical numbers, and the movie did not pull me in the way I hoped it would. BUT it probably captured the bizarre genius storytelling of Roald Dahl better than any other adaptation*, even down to the uneven plot and pacing.*Except Fantastic Mr Fox which is a whole different category.

Leofwine_draca JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH is a good watch if you like seeing classic works of children's fiction being given the commercial, Walt Disney treatment: i.e. the shoehorning-in of random American characters and an incessant, action-focused narrative that barely gives you a moment to draw breath.This film was made by The Nightmare Before Christmas's Henry Selick, still riding high on the coat-tails of his successful cult feature. It's that film's inferior cousin in every respect, feeling cheap and uninteresting throughout; the characters are poorly drawn and the protagonist unsympathetic, so it's very hard to like the film at all. It might look like Dahl's original book, but it has none of the magic or atmosphere.I always enjoy seeing stop motion animation wherever it appears, but it does look very cheap here - among the cheapest I've seen. It's no surprise that half the film takes place (boringly) in live action, as they ran out of budget for the animation. On the plus side we get a Pete Postlethwaite cameo, but on the minus side we get Joanna Lumley and Miriam Margoyles hamming it up in the worst pantomime tradition. The worst voice actor of the plot? Richard Dreyfuss, who wouldn't understand restraint if it bit him on the backside.

johnno74 A British orphan's, James Henry Trotter, dreams of emigrating to New York City are scuppered when his parents are killed surprisingly by a rhinoceros who appears 'from nowhere'. As a result, he is forced to live with his two spiteful aunts, Spiker & Sponge, who treat him like a labourer and feed him very bad food. One day, James receives a peach from a mysterious stranger. He explores the inside and enters in a strange world, which may lead to his dreams coming true again. James & The Giant Peach is based on Roald Dahl's weakest novel. Tim Burton and Henry Sellick's film adaption is a larger disappointment compared to the book. I, of course, mean no offence to them as their other films, The Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline prove a lot better than this garbage. Here are the reasons why James & The Giant Peach is toxic. What you, as a viewer, are analysing as you watch the film is a synopsis which is exactly the same as in the novel; completely random, lost and quite frankly, dumb. There is no reason why a rhino would eat a human being (or two as shown in the film), and in England as well. I'd probably understand if it was from a zoo, but that's where the characters belong. This brings me onto the next bad point; the acting. It is abysmal. There are too many repeated lines i.e. the aunts stating, 'Work, work, work' and lines such as 'How dare you disagree' said over and over again. Anybody who writes a screenplay needs to think carefully about the dialogue you use. Joanna Lumley was so much better as Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous and Victoria's mother in The Corpse Bride. But it's Paul Terry who makes a huge mess of the film. He overacts and quotes some of the worst lines in cinematic history. Even the songs cannot grow any excitement. Instead they include the most overrated melodies and over-repeated songs. That's The Life? It'll tire anybody sitting on a seat in a cinema and cause butt-ache. The songs are absolutely abysmal and the film is simply the worst to have been associated with Walt Disney Pictures (distributor), the second being the equally toxic Pocahontas, whose songs ain't as bad as on this. Good animation work though.