xs
xsm
sm
md
lg

The Giants Movie [best] | Jack And

The cast also does its best with the material. Nicholas Hoult makes for a likable, everyman hero—not a born warrior, but a clever survivalist. Ewan McGregor, sporting a goofy Prince Valiant haircut, is the film’s secret weapon; his Elmont is a swashbuckling, honorable soldier who brings a much-needed dose of charm and wit. Stanley Tucci, as the treacherous Roderick, seems to be having the time of his life, chewing the sparse medieval scenery with a modern, smarmy villainy. The brief scenes between Ian McShane and Eleanor Tomlinson also hint at a more interesting political drama that the film never fully explores.

You demand tight scripts, deep character development, or a consistent tone. jack and the giants movie

The characters are archetypes, not people. Jack is “the clever farmer” because the script tells us he is, not because he does anything particularly clever until the final act. Princess Isabelle is branded as “spirited and rebellious,” but her primary action is to get captured repeatedly—first by the giants, then by Roderick, then by the giants again. For a film that tries to nod to modern feminism, it reduces its female lead to a McGuffin in a corset. The cast also does its best with the material

Furthermore, the film’s pacing is bizarre. The first 30 minutes are a leisurely set-up. The middle 60 minutes are a repetitive slog through the giant kingdom (run, hide, get caught, escape, repeat). The final 30 minutes are a chaotic, large-scale siege that borrows heavily from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (right down to a giant battering ram and a king’s last stand). It’s as if the filmmakers had three different movies in mind and stitched them together. Stanley Tucci, as the treacherous Roderick, seems to

In the glut of post- Lord of the Rings fairy tale adaptations, 2013’s Jack the Giant Slayer arrived with a curious mix of ambitions. Directed by Bryan Singer (of X-Men and The Usual Suspects fame), the film takes the humble English fable of “Jack and the Beanstalk” and blows it up to a $200 million, CGI-heavy, medieval war epic. The result is a cinematic contradiction: a film that is simultaneously breathtaking in its scale and surprisingly weightless in its execution. It is a giant-sized entertainment that, much like its titular characters, has big feet but not always a firm footing.

So why isn’t Jack the Giant Slayer considered a classic? The answer lies in a script that is as thin as the beanstalk’s upper branches. The screenplay, credited to a committee (Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dan Studney), never decides what it wants to be. It swings uneasily between grim dark fantasy ( The Dark Knight with giants) and campy adventure ( The Princess Bride with less wit). The tonal whiplash is constant.

Jack the Giant Slayer is a classic example of a movie that is greater than the sum of its parts in some ways and far less in others. As a technical achievement in CGI and world-building, it is often stunning. As a piece of storytelling, it is functional at best.

The cast also does its best with the material. Nicholas Hoult makes for a likable, everyman hero—not a born warrior, but a clever survivalist. Ewan McGregor, sporting a goofy Prince Valiant haircut, is the film’s secret weapon; his Elmont is a swashbuckling, honorable soldier who brings a much-needed dose of charm and wit. Stanley Tucci, as the treacherous Roderick, seems to be having the time of his life, chewing the sparse medieval scenery with a modern, smarmy villainy. The brief scenes between Ian McShane and Eleanor Tomlinson also hint at a more interesting political drama that the film never fully explores.

You demand tight scripts, deep character development, or a consistent tone.

The characters are archetypes, not people. Jack is “the clever farmer” because the script tells us he is, not because he does anything particularly clever until the final act. Princess Isabelle is branded as “spirited and rebellious,” but her primary action is to get captured repeatedly—first by the giants, then by Roderick, then by the giants again. For a film that tries to nod to modern feminism, it reduces its female lead to a McGuffin in a corset.

Furthermore, the film’s pacing is bizarre. The first 30 minutes are a leisurely set-up. The middle 60 minutes are a repetitive slog through the giant kingdom (run, hide, get caught, escape, repeat). The final 30 minutes are a chaotic, large-scale siege that borrows heavily from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (right down to a giant battering ram and a king’s last stand). It’s as if the filmmakers had three different movies in mind and stitched them together.

In the glut of post- Lord of the Rings fairy tale adaptations, 2013’s Jack the Giant Slayer arrived with a curious mix of ambitions. Directed by Bryan Singer (of X-Men and The Usual Suspects fame), the film takes the humble English fable of “Jack and the Beanstalk” and blows it up to a $200 million, CGI-heavy, medieval war epic. The result is a cinematic contradiction: a film that is simultaneously breathtaking in its scale and surprisingly weightless in its execution. It is a giant-sized entertainment that, much like its titular characters, has big feet but not always a firm footing.

So why isn’t Jack the Giant Slayer considered a classic? The answer lies in a script that is as thin as the beanstalk’s upper branches. The screenplay, credited to a committee (Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dan Studney), never decides what it wants to be. It swings uneasily between grim dark fantasy ( The Dark Knight with giants) and campy adventure ( The Princess Bride with less wit). The tonal whiplash is constant.

Jack the Giant Slayer is a classic example of a movie that is greater than the sum of its parts in some ways and far less in others. As a technical achievement in CGI and world-building, it is often stunning. As a piece of storytelling, it is functional at best.