MovieChat Forums > Jumanji (1995) Discussion > Roger Ebert's 1 1/2-star review

Roger Ebert's 1 1/2-star review

posted 13 years ago by IceboxMovies
18 replies | jump to latest

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/19951215/rev iews/512150303/1023

I always thought Ebert's review of Jumanji was one big overreaction. He seems so focused on how little kids might have reacted to the movie that he forgot to enjoy the movie at all. Granted, Jumanji is no masterpiece, but... it sure is fun. And speaking as somebody who first saw it when I was 5 years old, I've never been terrified by it -- as Ebert might have predicted. I can't imagine any little kids ever being traumatized by the movie, actually.

To be fair, he does say in his review:

Even for older audiences, there are few redeeming factors, because what little story there is serves as a coathook for the f/x sequences, which come out of nowhere and evaporate into the same place.

I'd say he's half-right. But not quite.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the film, but I think that as the horrors of the board game mount up, they begin to resemble the real challenges Alan faced when he was back in the jungle. Van Pelt reminds him of his father. The house is dressed up in vines to bring back memories of the jungle. Sarah has to come to Alan's rescue because she failed him when she was a little girl. These scenes certainly don't "come out of nowhere": they fit into the film's key themes. Ebert apparently overlooked all of this just because he was outraged that the movie didn't get a PG-13 rating.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] Redux006 12 years ago

I guess the producers of Jumanji failed to pay Ebert his asking price. He punishes anyone who doesn't buy his services by giving their movie a bad review. I've seen him give loads of movies a hundred times worse than Jumanji stellar reviews, like Prometheus. The guy's a shill, it's pretty obvious.

[–] enigmatic_man2 11 years ago

Any evidence of this besides the fact that he likes movies you don't and hates movies you like? Y'know, like any other human being on the surface of the Earth?

--
¡No hay la banda!

[–] Redux006 11 years ago

Sure, he gave Revenge of the Sith nearly a perfect rating of 3.5 stars out of 4. Sorry, but I don't have pictures of shady looking guys handing Ebert cloth sacks with dollar signs on the side.

[–] Vivacious-Virgo 12 years ago

I agree 100 percent. I just rewatched this movie on netflix to see if I'd love it as much as I did as a child and it didn't fail to entertain me again. I was disappointed to see Ebert's review. I hate it when adults feel as if they have to play down to children and make everything flowery and sunny.

I ADORED Jumanji as a child. I watched it so many times and one of my favorite things about it WAS the danger factor. I enjoyed the imagery and the thrill. So did my friends and family. Ebert was way off pulse there.

Also, I disagree with him about the film lacking plot and character development. I felt like the parallels from Alan to his father were definitely there and that the four leads bonded well enough together. I bought it.

Glad to see that someone else agrees with me that Ebert's review was way off.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] A_Llama_Drama 12 years ago

I don't think adults can review children's movies. As a kid, my video of this began to go faded and buzzy because I had watched it so often. I've just stuck it on Lovefilm and I'm still loving it. I agree with a lot of adult reviewers, it has a very wafer thin plot but I don't think it needs to be bogged under with a plot. It's a fun movie.

My teenage angst has a body count

[–] demache92 12 years ago

Agreed. Its a children's movie. Its not intended to be cerebral or anything, nor does it need to be. The plot simply serves to move the movie along from one scene to the next, and answer when, where, why, what, who and how. Except maybe it doesn't really explain the origin of the board and why it ended in New Hampshire, but I guess that's not really important.

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

The movie itself is likely to send younger children fleeing from the theater, or hiding in their parents' arms. Those who do sit all the way through it are likely to toss and turn with nightmares inspired by its frightening images.

Makes you wonder how Ebert would review something like Dr Who, with people being eaten alive by the dark, or stalked by creatures that only move when you're not looking at them...

[–] jsn_hylnd 11 years ago

He misses the point in a lot of the movies he reviews just watch his review of Rocky 3 or Home Alone.

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

I couldn't find his review of Rocky 3. I have read his famous review of Kick-Ass, though:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/kick-ass-2010

It made for an interesting comparison with his review of Shoot 'Em Up:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/shoot-em-up-2007

I'd say he had a hot button involving violence and children in movies. Hey, everybody has their feelings, and his was not a very disreputable feeling. Although I do hope that someone kept him away from a copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales...

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcarpenter-1 10 years ago

Even Ebert misses...

[–] Cypherven 10 years ago

Ebert was a liberal, but his views on film were sometimes too conservative.

Most kids who grew up in the 90's remember fondly this movie.

[–] Frantastic_Miss_Fox 10 years ago

The first time I watched this movie was at home with my family on VHS when I was about 5 or 6 and I'm not going to lie, it scared the *beep* out of me on the first viewing. It really freaked me out, but I still loved it and ended up watching it multiple times and still regard it as one of my favourite childhood movies. It's fun to be scared, that's why adults have horror movies, this is by no means a horror movie and I wouldn't encourage letting kids watch a proper horror movie but the scary parts of this movie make it more fun and exciting for kids. It's hardly the most terrifying movie ever made and nothing actually nasty or gruesome happens.

No, the storyline isn't the best screenplay ever, but it's still a decent story (especially for a family movie) that moves the story along. It has things for all the people watching it, no matter how old they are.

If he thinks this movie would terrify or scar children for life, I'd love to know what he thinks of Pinocchio (possibly the most disturbing kids movie ever made).

'You people. If there isn't a movie about it, it's not worth knowing, is it?'

[–] trisp 9 years ago

He gave Pinocchio a perfect 4 stars saying: "Was there ever a scarier, more exciting animated feature than "Pinocchio"?"

And this is something he said in his review of Spiderwick Chronicles, which he enjoyed: ". I've often hailed back to the really creepy moments in Disney classics, like what happens to "Dumbo" and "Bambi," and I've complained that recent family movies are too sanitized."

A little contradictory to what he said about Jumanji.

"The cold never bothered me anyway."

[–] Frantastic_Miss_Fox 9 years ago

??? That makes no sense! That guy clearly needs to figure out what he actually likes and wants in family movies. I think he's a bit confused.

[–] KahnuevsKrake 8 years ago

I watched the Siskel and Ebert clip where they review this film.

I love this movie, I must have seen it a hundred times when I was a kid, but I kinda agreed with one thing Gene Siskel said.

The message of the need to face your fears and childhood traumas is plastered all over the movie and it's a good message, but as Siskel brilliantly said "All that goes out of the window when all the animals of Jumanji come flying in the window".

While Alan did ultimately face his fears by preparing to take a bullet from Van Pelt, the fact that that time got turned backward to before the game started and Alan and Sarah get the chance to change "the past", get married and live happily ever after kinda spoiled that message a bit.

While it was moving scene when Alan makes peace with his father, I can't help but feel that the ending contradicts the films own message in a way.

[–] hnt_dnl 8 years ago

Yeah, this is a fun movie that actually holds up. And the effects aren't any worse (hell, probably better) than most of the CGI nonsense that comes out now. It's funny, fast-paced, with likable characters.