Jack the Giant Slayer

Andres Gomez: Boring and with low quality animations.

Per Gunnar Jonsson: Me and the kids watched this movie yesterday evening. We all liked it quite a lot. This is a very enjoyable family movie. It is, not surprisingly, a new twist on the old Jack and the Beanstalk story. The basic elements are there, Jack, beans, beanstalks and, of course, giants. A few new elements are thrown in like a Crown to control the giants, a treacherous bastard responsible for the entire mess and a few other things. The giants are very well done. The CGI is good to very good most of the time. As can be expected, it is the giants that make up this movie. I would say that they are slightly scary (for kids) and rather funny at the same time. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the human actors. The acting is generally not so good and sometimes downright abysmal. It is rather surprising for such a relatively big production to have such poor TV-show quality acting. The bottom line is that it is a very enjoyable family movie. If you watch it as an adult I guess you must have a liking for special effects and CGI, which I do, in order to enjoy it.

Wuchak: ***Medieval fairy tale with a noble hero, a beautiful princess and hordes of barbaric giants*** Released in 2013 and directed by Bryan Singer, “Jack the Giant Slayer” has plot similarities to 1962’s “Jack the Giant Killer” with Nicholas Hoult playing the wholesome farm boy, Eleanor Tomlinson the winsome princess and Ian McShane the king. The rural protagonist slays a couple giants and rescues the royal maiden, but that’s where the similarities between the two movies end. This one lacks an evil wizard and his dark castle, which are substituted by the brutal giants and the colossal beanstalk that leads up to their awesome realm above the clouds. Despite the almost $200 million spent mostly on the CGI giants & their world, “Jack the Giant Slayer” just isn’t as compelling as “Jack the Giant Killer,” which had super-cheesy effects, albeit charming. Yes, the giants & their realm look superb, as far as cartoonish CGI goes, but more time & money needed spent on the characters and their story to hook the viewer. In other words, despite all the action/adventure and millions blown on CGI, the story’s generally meh. Nonetheless, the flick’s good enough if you favor CGI-laden films like “King Kong” (2005) and “Avatar” (2009). Hoult and Tomlinson are more-than-worthy as the protagonists with Hoult being reminiscent of Richard Thomas. I just wish the script fleshed them out more and made us care about them and their considerable challenges. The film runs 1 hour, 54 minutes and was shot in England (Surrey, Norfolk & Somerset). ADDITIONAL CAST: Ewan McGregor plays a knight, Stanley Tucci a royal bastage and Eddie Marsan his inane crony. GRADE: C+/B-

r96sk: <em>'Jack the Giant Slayer'</em> is a perfectly watchable movie. Nothing special, but it does enough. That's in my opinion, of course. A quick glance at Letterboxd shows a big split in its reception, but the majority - at least in terms of rating - are in agreement with me. The movie does start off a bit slowly, though once it got going I was enjoying it to be honest. It's nowt award-worthy, though it works as a passable fantasy adventure flick. I dug everyone on the cast, which features many people I like or have at least seen in other productions. Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson (the only one I didn't previously know of) give competent performances and suit each other well enough. while Ewan McGregor and Ian McShane are good value, among others. Ewen Bremner's Wicke is the only iffy character, though Bremner himself narrowly makes it work. I caught a glimpse of the special effects prior to watching, think it was on one of the movie websites when I was checking if it has sequels etc., and wasn't all that excited about what I saw. However, in the actual film the effects are all satisfactory to be honest. The look of the giants is decent.