ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Glatpoti It is so daring, it is so ambitious, it is so thrilling and weird and pointed and powerful. I never knew where it was going.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Vincent Black Why did I watch this again? I think it is out of the dark corner of my mind, that same need to see a house fire or why the police have a building surrounded. I honestly wish I knew why I watched this movie. It is not like anyone paid me.No one in this movie is anything close to resembling an actor. Vicki Glover had little to say, but when she did, it looked as if she was about to vomit. Then she would mumble something you couldn't hear or comprehend. Harry Dyer spouted out his lines, he seemed to question himself, constantly with a look of puzzlement on his face. Maybe he was wondering if there was going to be a paycheck or not. Jamie Atkins obviously slept with the director to land this role. Jamie is still inside the paper bag. Then they tossed in Ben Cross and Jane March. Who? The most "talented" movie extras they could find. Good thing there was no nudity or I would have to remove the one point from the movie I am forced to give them.I don't rate the CGI in a film. But really they should have gone with a model village and wrestlers in rubber suits and that would have been better. The props look unbelievable and the one scale model of a cannon on a freight car is so tiny that the focal blur gives it away.This movie was so bad, don't even jokingly give it above 2 stars. There is nothing to redeem this movie or the people who made it. Instead go watch a house fire down the block or stand out in the rain for two hours with a cardboard sign "This Space for Rent". Either one would be better than watching this movie.

skeddles This is not the movie your are looking for. You meant to look up Jack the Giant Slayer, released the same year. I thought maybe this was just a localization, like Americans wouldn't know the word "Slayer" or something. Nope.This is the ripoff version, with actors you've never heard of, low budget special effects, cliché characters, an army that's comprised of 10 people, plot holes the size of a giant beanstalk and much much more.Now I haven't watched the other one yet, but I can guarantee you it is better.I couldn't even comprehend this movie, it just made no sense. You will ask "What the heck just happened?" at least 15 times during the movie.It's not even bad in a funny way, just disappointing. Like you feel bad for the actors and artists who put effort into this movie. And I'm pretty sure the movie poster was designed by someone who didn't even watch it.If you're looking for a fantasy movie, go watch Jack the Giant Slayer. If you're looking for a bad movie to laugh at, go watch the room. If you're trying to watch every movie ever made, save this one for last, and if you're lucky, you'll die first.

Andrewatkins1981 Holy Christ. Why? Why make this film. I don't mean why bother making such a bad idea, why bother ripping off a recent big movie? I mean why bother wasting my time with a dull pointless plot, characters and concept.Dull as gray. I mean it takes some serious apathy to take the idea of a giant robot building kid climbing a tree to find a queen in a magic flying castle where his *SPOILER* Dad who's been trapped in an alternative time strain maintains the furnace of said flying castle. I mean I think that's what going on but you know what there's so much going on that I don't care about it was like watching that welsh soap opera that's on the that digital channel that you accidentally stop on when flicking through because you can't remember the number for E4 and you want to see if they're showing Big Bang theory during the afternoon but the phone goes so you stop flicking and the TV stops on the Welsh channel.... see I'm so bored of even thinking about this movie.So there's some kid, some girl who we never discover who she is, though based on the set up she could be his sister, then we meet some parents who it turns out aren't his parents, but by this time I didn't care... and we were only 6 minutes in.Kids gets magic beans in the post (nice to tell a story people can relate to) he throws them all away but *SPOILER* they all re-appear at the end by the magic of continuity errors.Beanstalk grows over night into a poor digital effect... *SIGH* kid climbs it for some reason, I forget why, but it's Jack and the Beanstalk so he has to, the reason is irrelevant.Oh do you like pointless shots of a kid walking across hills? Well this film has 10 minutes of that, but they're boring so I don't recommend them.They mess about in a flying castle which looks like a stately home on the inside. There's some tart in the bath who's sexy but bad but dull as well.Everyone else stands around on earth looking up at the beanstalk doing nothing about it apart from telling the massive crowd of 3 to back away.I must have fallen asleep for an hour or 2 minutes as then for some reason dinosaurs or something attack a church yard in Liverpool, trashing half the city causing dozens of pounds worth of damage. Though the people who show up to see Paul McCartney perform are disappointed that they got the wrong end of the stick when someone told them about an annoying Liverpudlian dinosaur.The film them ends in a lot of poor green screen close up shots, emphasizing the style and theme of no budget.The giant robot then arrives, yeah giant robot, in a scene that even the Power Rangers would be embarrassed to show....The film gets better as it goes along, as each minute we're closer to the end credits.You know what, Eff you, you go watch it, I did.

Tina Thomas Jack the Giant Killer is set in a fantasy world made up of elements of different times. Critics complain about this but the story itself is solid despite the dramatic license taken. True, there are no "giants" but perhaps this is made this way to show that there were no "real giants". However we do know that the prehistoric creatures did exist now, right? The mixing of elements of different points of History are what makes the movie a timeless fantasy. One reviewer was correct about the story borrowing from elements of other stories such as "Jurassic Park", and "Aliens" but I have no clue where in the bloody hell he got the comparisons to "Roots" and "Brigadoon"...Really? Come now...I had more of a human-like "Dr. Who" comparison come to mind toward the end with that flying castle and such...This movie is a race against time and evil. It also has other conflicts- -man vs. nature, man vs. man, man vs. evil, etc...When there are more two of the major types of conflict present, then it makes a movie worth watching. Now let us get to the performances. First I will say that given the fact that this is a timeless fantasy, it cannot be set in a definite year. Not even the music indicates what time period it should be set in and I feel this is to keep the movie from being boxed into a period of time. When done deliberately it is not a flaw but great writing. The critics who said otherwise didn't get it. This viewer did. It is NOT boring to say the least.There is comic relief from the military characters--especially the general (Steve McTigue). He's hilarious as the bumbling general!Then there are Jane March (Serena) and Harry Dyer (Newald Kutchins). Evidently Newald is the only human she's had feelings for since her mother. She wants revenge for being kidnapped by giants (she says) but it's obvious that she wants more than that. Then there is Jack (Jamie Atkins) and Lisa (Vicki Glover). While it is obvious that there are feelings there--strong ones, more interaction comes from the other characters. In fact it is the others characters that are driving the story aside from the Serena plot.Even though it is called "Jack the Giant Killer", the support characters seem to drive the story to it's climax. For me this is a first. I would expect more interaction between Jack and others but the entire cast worked well together to bring this project home. Now I will get to what people seem to be waiting for me to make a comment on. Ben Cross as "Agent Hinton". Very good performance. The man always delivers and Hollywood screwed up by not utilizing him more over the years. This is one actor who does NOT short change his fans--PERIOD. And if it makes the lot of you feel better, he says it's a "bad movie". Then again, I'm not an actor, I'm a viewer. An average viewer is going to find this film sort of campy and fun since it can be watched with the kiddies.This actor got a huge break with the show "Banshee" last year, and if he doesn't finally get the attention he deserves for his work over the past 40 years, then Hollywood is seriously on an acid trip or something of that nature. One thing I will say for both Ben Cross and Jane March is that their talents are vastly under-utilized. She is one of the first actresses that I have seen in a long time that will allow a character to breathe through her. HELLO Hollywood: Get her on your bloody radar.As for the movie itself, you will find no sex, guts or gore so the whole family can watch it, which is probably the real reason why critics raised hell over it. Nobody needs to have that in a film to sell it. That is a myth. Despite this, I noticed that the performances were never complained about. They didn't complain about the use of CGI which was also well done. All in all it is NOT a waste of money if you want a movie the family can watch. Just do not expect a certain time period for it because it really is not meant to have a certain time period. This way the kids can enjoy it and then the grand kids. This is not the first story I've encountered of this nature, either. Get the DVD, grab some popcorn and enjoy it...Movie theater tickets are priced through the roof in a lot of places anyway!