The ancient war between humans and a race of giants is reignited when Jack, a young farmhand fighting for a kingdom and the love of a princess, opens a gateway between the two worlds.The ancient war between humans and a race of giants is reignited when Jack, a young farmhand fighting for a kingdom and the love of a princess, opens a gateway between the two worlds.The ancient war between humans and a race of giants is reignited when Jack, a young farmhand fighting for a kingdom and the love of a princess, opens a gateway between the two worlds.
- Awards
- 1 win & 4 nominations total
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
70U
Jack the Giant Slayer is a hit and miss for the majority of this film it provides all the classic clichés and parts that we would see in a well known children's fairytale and it provides a fair bit of the usual good special effects and action sequences but outside that there isn't that much good about it
Did you know
- TriviaStanley Tucci, the only non-British cast member, adopted a British accent to fit in. He said he had long wanted to perform with a British accent, and this film gave him the chance to do so.
- GoofsNear the end when the two headed giant swallows the bean and is torn apart; his hand lands next to Jack. The crown on two fingers of the giant, is bigger than Jack's waist, let alone his head.
- Crazy creditsThe Bad Hat Harry logo contains silhouettes of giants, who are first seen from a human point-of-view (their feet are seen stomping around) before they seen in their entirety.
- Alternate versionsGerman version was cut for violence (Fallon getting hit by arrows in the face and burning) to secure a "Not under 12" rating.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Bad Movie Beatdown: Review of 2012 (2013)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Jack el cazagigantes
- Filming locations
- Bourne Wood, Farnham, Surrey, England, UK(on location)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $195,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $65,187,603
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $27,202,226
- Mar 3, 2013
- Gross worldwide
- $197,687,603
- Runtime
- 1h 54m(114 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content