Let's face it: "Zathura" is basically a carbon copy of "Jumanji", with the former based in space and the latter based in the jungle. Both involve children playing a seemingly innocuous board game that shockingly comes to life, with the players needing to finish the game in order to survive.
With two such similar premises, how is that "Zathura" ended up as a completely superior film to "Jumanji"?
In my view, the reason begins and ends with the casting. Tim Robbins, kind enough to take time out from his busy politicking schedule in order to actually do some acting work, was perfectly cast as the father and added a sense of legitimacy to the film. The boys themselves were excellent young actors. Jonah Bobo as 'Danny' in particular was very impressive; it's easy to recognize his talent and emotional range as he goes from contrite younger brother to jealous sibling to frightened school kid within the span of a few frames. Josh Hutcherson's understated performance grows on you as you realize that his role is to play the sullen, long-suffering older brother.
In contrast, "Jumanji" had the overly exuberant (synonyms for "incredibly annoying"?) Robin Williams hamming it up yet again in one of his most unlikable roles, a cameo by Frasier Crane's wife (Bebe Neuwirth) and two nondescript kids. 'Nuff said.
I could go into plot points, but the basic premise of a game that comes to life about sums it up. The difference is that the audience actually cares about the fate of the kids in "Zathura", whereas the average viewer is probably rooting for Robin Williams to be eaten by a wayward lion in "Jumaji". If you're in the video store and are trying to choose between the two films' (and if you can get past some questionable language by Jonah Bobo's character in the beginning of the film), go with "Zathura".
22 out of 46 found this helpful