Why does Jumanji have such a low Rotten Tomatoes score?
I loved Jumanji when it first came out back in 1995 and have rewatched it sporadically over the years. I think it holds up as a fun, imaginative fantasy film. The characterizations aren't out of this world or anything, but I find nothing bad at all about them. Robin Williams and Kirsten Dunst especially I found to be memorable. I read Roger Ebert's review, and he seemed very hung up on the idea that these kids were actually in peril, and he didn't like that. He gave Zathura(A similar premise by the author of Jumanji Chris Van Allsburg) a higher rating because the kids in that movie weren't actually in danger of getting killed. To me, while I do like Zathura, Jumanji spoke to me a lot more for the very reason that there WAS consequences to the game. Jumanji in many ways is like a kid friendly version of Hellraiser. You open the box, and all this peril comes out, and if you're lucky and resourceful enough, you might be able to survive. So what gives?
In a way Jumanji was like the mid 90's version of Avatar. It was more about the spectacle than a movie with any real substance.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
And another thing: Jumanji doesn't even have enough ratings on RT to have a "consensus." RT is a tool, and is very useful for discovering if movies will be worth your while. Obviously you will not always agree with said consensuses (sp? Heh). RT even has separate "critic" vs "user" ratings to help you make your decision.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 16th, 2016 12:15 AM
