जैक द जायंट स्लेयर

As I left the theater after watching this movie I tried to put my finger on the reason why I felt so underwhelmed by what I had just watched. Perhaps it was the overly simplistic video game plot (save the princess), the lack of a well defined villain, or the lackluster development of any of the characters. In the end I couldn't precisely point to any single issue that derailed my ability to really enjoy this viewing. What this movie really lacked was the ability to engage the audience on any meaningful level whether it be emotional, mental or otherwise. In short, it's soulless. I don't know exactly what gives a movie its soul but I know when it's missing and this movie, unfortunately, was quite lacking.

In this retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk, the title character and a runaway princess are thrust into the sky when vines sprouting from the magic beans vault Jack's cabin into the sky. A race of giants exiled there by the power of a magic crown plots to return below and recapture the human kingdom. The King sends a rescue party of his knights and the princess's evil fiancé to rescue the princess, and the evil prince uses the magical crown in an attempt to seize the power of the giants to take over the kingdom.

It was refreshing to find a non ironic, non meta straightforward telling of this story, with some elements of charm and humor. The 3D is fairly unspectacular, although there are great sequences, such as the collapse of the vine which causes catastrophic damage below. The body count, for a family film, is quite high, surpassing some of the later Harry Potter movies. It is also notable that there are virtually no females in either the giants' or human's realm. The cast is fine, and Nicholas Hoult makes a fine Jack, and brings more life and personality to the role than he did earlier this year with "Warm Bodies."

Most elements of the film work quite well and it has the potential to work alongside dark family fare like "The Never Ending Story" or "The Dark Crystal."

After watching this film a couple times and reading reviews, I have to come to the conclusion that many critics don't watch movies and perhaps people fell for the critics misjudgment. According to critics on RottenTomatoes, etc, Jack the Giant Slayer falls into the mediocre realm badly over budgeted. That's the only thing I think they got right. To spend $195M or so on this film simply wasn't worthwhile. Easily less could be spent on a high quality film. But that's the risk in show business. Now let's get down to the real (good) stuff.

First, there was the claim this movie wasn't a family movie since it was too scary. You have to be kidding. Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit Trilogy were far more sinister and traumatic to watch. Orcs, trolls and goblins are not pretty sights and they do the same as the giants in this movie. So strike one for the critics. This film actually is produced by Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema so it fells into the Rings and Hobbit series.

The attack on it as a non-family movie with sinister overtones isn't true. There are witty, humorous parts of the film. Perhaps not as much as there should be. So, yes it could be more fun with a couple more lines or characters.

Critics are attack it for a weak script. I don't think they listened or followed the movie. Rather the script is very well written and conceived. It's almost poetic. It opens and ends with a creative story-telling verse and the script flows well.

Direction and special effects were terrific. Acting by the main roles was reasonable, not great, so it does fall short on this account but supporting roles were terrific. If you liked Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, this apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Definitely worth watching. An 8 or 9 out of 10. (( just to boost the ratings). But, it could have been done for less money.

I wasn't blown away by this flick, but I did enjoy it. And I also enjoyed...

1. No potty humor 2. No overt sexuality 3. No inappropriate language 4. No seemingly random 3D FX 5. No politically correct messages or characters 6. No strutting egotism

In short, it's not a Follywood movie and you can actually let your kids watch it without worrying too much. There is some violence, but...

The script is well written, the acting is better than good, and it moves along at a pretty lively pace. Not a classic, but good. It might have been better a little shorter, but that can be said of most movies these days.

I was surprised to hear so many complaints.

Unlike many of Hollywood's reimaginings of fairy tales, this film is actually decent. One can let children watch this in the same manner our grandparents were reading the original stories. It has morals, it is pretty, actors play well and, most of all, it is not condescendingly stupid. Instead, one can actually enjoy this on almost all levels.

It was funny to see actors Ewan McGregor and Ewen Bremner play in a film together again (Rents and Spud), but they had no real interaction. Nicholas Hoult was OK as the hero of the story and Stanley Tucci, as usual, a great villain. The one that was rather disappointing was the princess, clearly a role that was not really thought out much more than "cute damsel in distress, ready for the rescue". Her father wasn't much either, but at least he had lines. Also, for a movie "made in USA" a great many English actors. Even the story was set in England, as we see in the end.

Bottom line: while not the best movie ever, it was certainly an entertaining blockbuster that retained a lot of the feel and plot of the original fairy tale. It also manages to have an insane body count without actually showing any blood. The US rating system is idiotic for sure. Anyway, the movie was fun. I can recommend it for an easy watch.