Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

cricket crockett . . . which I saw in a double feature today after seeing this original version--which is perhaps a technological advance for its time, but totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint. In this 1902 version of Jack's story, produced by the infamous robber baron Thomas Edison, Jack dresses like a girl, disobeys his mom to climb the beanstalk, spies on the Abraham Lincoln-sized "giant," steals his valuables, and finally kills the taller than average crime victim as he's descending the beanstalk to recover his valuables. Jack is egged-on, aided & abetted at every turn by a magic wand-waving fairy godmother, who turns Jack & his mom into royalty at the close, heaping further riches upon this thief (not all that different from how Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, & Edison himself were able to loot America and lord it over everyone else at the turn of the 20th Century, before the U.S. enjoyed modern business regulations). JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, on the other hand, is about a nice boy who knows his place, only kills giants (actual ones, not a 6' 4" guy!) to save humanity, and does not have a larcenous bone in his body. With no nudity, little swearing, & few scenes of graphic violence, the latest remake is perfect for the 8 to 80 demographic. Though JACK THE GIANT SLAYER runs 104 minutes longer than this cluttered original, it is much easier to sit through, and is NOT the hard-core homage to criminality that is the elephant-electrocuter's morally reprehensible 1902 mash-up.

MartinHafer One reviewer referred to this film as "pathetic" but I am not sure that this is really fair. Sure, by the standards of 2006, this is a pretty bad film. However, given when it was made, it's a truly exceptional film and should be compared to its contemporaries--not today's films with our great special effects and film techniques.In 1902, almost every film was less than five minutes long. Plus, sets were often pretty non-existent and the same could be said about writing. Often, actors just got up and gesticulated madly or seemed to have no idea what to do until the director yelled out instructions--and it was pretty obvious at times. Films where everything was planned and scripted and told a good complex story were a real rarity. Because of all this, I am very charitable towards JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Sure, the backgrounds look like painted backdrops (which they were) and some of the props were less than stellar, but for 1902 it was a real marvel! The film told the story very well and was even better than such films as THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ or FRANKENSTEIN (both from 1910)--films which also had props, sets and were well-planned but were also made almost a decade later! So, this wonderful curio is a great piece of history that might just make many of you laugh at its production values, but I still thought the film was quite charming and we owe a lot to such monumental films--after all, the care and quality that went in to this film really encouraged other film makers to try harder.

Snow Leopard For its era, this was rather an ambitious and creative attempt to film the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" with as much visual detail as possible. Certainly, few of the camera effects are going to impress anyone now, but they are not at all bad given the limitations. It's really a children's story, and any children who saw this in 1902 would probably have enjoyed it more than enough to justify the effort of making it.For all that the technical limitations are obvious, and the visual effects in the rudimentary stage, this version does clearly communicate the basic story in a generally entertaining fashion. To be sure, even in 1902 there were pioneers such as Méliès who were already doing more impressive things. But this one is by no means bad, and features like this, while their defects are obvious, still hold their appeal for those of us who enjoy seeing what the earliest movies were like.

wmorrow59 I'd like to take this opportunity to salute Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk on its 100th birthday. This short film is one of America's earliest surviving narrative motion pictures. Perhaps it goes without saying that we're lucky this film can be viewed in the 21st century, seeing as how so many of its neglected contemporaries are gone forever. In watching this film today we have not only a rare opportunity to witness a great advance in cinematic storytelling, but also to peer into a lost world of Victorian theater, specifically children's theater. Where filmmaking is concerned, Jack and the Beanstalk does not represent the thrilling quantum leap forward that Porter's Great Train Robbery (made the following year) most certainly would, but it's a charming work in its own right, and can be viewed as a necessary step in the director's development towards his famous achievement.Strictly speaking, this film is a photographed stage play in which the special effects are stage effects, but that in itself was something of a novelty in 1902. Many of the earliest films of the 1890s and early 1900s consisted of only a single shot, representing what we would call 'actualities' filmed in natural locations: trains rolling past, ocean waves, street scenes, etc. The actors of Jack and the Beanstalk perform in full costume, and emote before painted backdrops as the familiar story is related in several lengthy shots presented in a methodical fashion. Although Porter's production lacks the verve that France's Georges Méliès was bringing to similar material around this same time, it does boast a moment or two of cinematic (as opposed to theatrical) wit. I like the early scene where Jack falls asleep and the Good Fairy 'directs' his dream, which is enacted for us, and includes such details as dancing bags of money and a woman hatching out of an egg. There's also a nice moment later when, after climbing the beanstalk, Jack takes another nap and the Good Fairy once more appears to him in a dream, this time treating him to a magic lantern show concerning the giant he's about to face.Someone who posted about this film previously called it "pathetic," and asserted that the filmmakers lacked imagination. I suggest in return that a certain amount of imagination is required to appreciate exactly what filmmakers were dealing with in 1902 when this medium was brand new. We're all so accustomed to going to the movies and having TVs in our homes, popping in videos & DVDs whenever we like, but what about the people who made these first films? In 1902 most people had never seen a movie or a movie camera. This was an entirely new technology, and there must have been numerous problems for the filmmakers, e.g., simply moving those bulky cameras, loading the (incredibly flammable) film itself, technical difficulties with lab work, etc. Making motion pictures was still a brand new, experimental process. Mechanical breakdowns and disappointments must have been a common occurrence for the pioneer producers. But we should also consider how much fun it must have been to be present at the birth of a new art form, the thrill of making discoveries that advance that art form, and the great excitement experienced by the original audiences who saw these films when they were new. In short, it takes imagination simply to view and appreciate a film like Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk, and we should count ourselves as fortunate that we can still do that.