Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, This 'Giant Slayer' is not much fun

it's a swing and a miss

  • Critic's Rating C+
  • Readers' Rating B
<p>Nicholas Hoult is front and center as the star of 'Jack The Giant Slayer'</p>

Nicholas Hoult is front and center as the star of 'Jack The Giant Slayer'

Credit: Warner Bros

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I try not to pay too much attention to the reactions of others before I write a review, but sometimes it's hard to avoid.  I saw Devin Faraci refer to the film as "an atrocity" on Twitter, and I saw Harry Knowles argue that Devin's the wrong audience and that it's a kid's film so Devin's reaction isn't fair.  I've seen more reactions as negative as Devin's, and something I read actually compared the film to "The Princess Bride," which strikes me as something akin to blasphemy.  

I was surprised by the vehemence of Devin's reaction, but equally disappointed that Harry seems to dismiss some very real issues with the film by simply excusing it as a kid's film.  I think the frustrations I have stem from seeing things in the movie that suggest they could have pulled this one off.  I think they got more right than wrong, but it's unable to come together as a cohesive experience, and I'd love to know how the choices were made that ultimately make it feel like it missed the target.

Nicholas Hoult, seen earlier this year in "Warm Bodies," is given the title role here as Jack, a young man raised in a long-ago land where stories are told to children about a war against giants who lived in a kingdom in the sky.  He grows up believing in the stories, and when he's a young man, he finds himself swept up in a series of events that toss him into a shared adventure with a princess named Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), a knight named Elmont (Ewan McGregor), and a slimy Stanley Tucci character played, coincidentally enough, by Stanley Tucci.  Plus giants.  There are definitely giants.  And the way those giants are imagined is perhaps my biggest (no pun intended) problem with the film, but we'll get there.

The hardest part of making a movie like this is deciding what the reality of the film is going to be.  Are you tweaking the very idea of fairy tales by giving your characters a sort of self-aware attitude?  Are you playing it very straight and sincere?  Are you showing us the dark and horrifying version of the safe children's version we all know?  Are you doing it for kids?  For adults?  For fans of broad comedy or bone-rattling action?  I'm not sure there was ever a moment on "Jack The Giant Slayer" where everyone involved with it agreed on the version of the film being made, and as a result, it feels like it shifts gears almost constantly.

Hoult plays Jack as a fairly straightforward hero, and while he may have a few stumbles and stammers along the way, he seems to be the one person who can handle himself no matter what the film throws at him.  He earns the film's title with a single-handed score of something like three or four giants, and in each case, I there's some real imagination shown in how the giants are battled.  Hoult looks young enough to still be able to play this particular riff on the hero's journey, but he's old enough to be a credible action lead, and he is spirited, fully invested here.  It's interesting how much Hugh Grant there is in the Hoult's performance, and I wonder how much of it was just him soaking up the way Grant does things and how much is conscious.  You look at the beginning of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," and it's uncanny how well River Phoenix echoes every little nuance of what made audiences fall in love with Harrison Ford's work as Indy.  It does't surprise me, though, because Phoenix worked with Ford on "The Mosquito Coast," and Phoenix was one of those guys who was a sponge, soaking up things from pretty much everyone he met.  Hoult, like Phoenix, has grown up on film sets, and I would imagine "About A Boy" was a huge moment for him, and formative in ways he may not even realize.

Jack ends up in possession of some magic beans after a fairly quick opening that shows the way the real history of the war with the giants has been distorted by time and the way distant past eventually becomes shrouded in myth, and pretty quickly, he ends up losing one of the beans.  It gets wet in the space underneath his house, and as he's standing there in his living room talking to Princess Isabelle on a particularly nasty night (basically, she's Princess Jasmine from "Aladdin"), a beanstalk erupts from the ground.  That's the only way to describe it.  It just keeps pushing its way out until Jack, who has a fear of heights, goes tumbling off. Isabelle, on the other hand, gets trapped and rides the beanstalk all the way up.  When her father, King Brahmwell (Ian McShane), learns of her fate, he quickly orders his most trusted advisor Roderick (Stanley Tucci), the Knight Elmont, Roderick's loathsome assistant Wickle (Ewen Bremner), and Elmont's partner-in-arms Crawe (Eddie Marsan) to climb the beanstalk, find his daughter, rescue his daughter and make sure no giants are able to follow them down the beanstalk once the job is done.

Oh, and they've got to let Jack, a nobody who may have actually inadvertently caused all of this, join them on the adventure.

I kept waiting for the moment where Isabelle proves herself to be much more than just a princess, but the movie doesn't seem to have any agenda with her other than "look pretty and get rescued".  Eleanor Tomlinson, who plays Isabelle, is physically just right for the part, and she's good opposite Nicholas Hoult as Jack.  What she doesn't manage to do is overcome the script.  And honestly, up till the morning after that beanstalk grows, I thought it was uneven but generally enjoyable.  But then the giants arrive.  And, oh, boy… those giants.

I have no doubt that the exaggerated and cartoonish nature of the giants was intentional.  I have no doubt that they were designed that way in part because they didn't want to scare children too badly.  But they don't fit into the reality the film establishes.  It's like they had three or four different units running at once, all shooting different stuff, and they left it to the editor to figure out how it all pulls together.  In this case, I'd argue that it's a trick question, since it never all pulls together, and that's a shame.  "Jack The Giant Killer" might be best for very young kids, and I'm pretty sure that's not what the studio wants to hear.

"Jack The Giant Slayer" opens in theaters today.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    emunfred

    Repeated text. Needs edit.

    March 1, 2013 at 7:18AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DefRef And this is why one should take a peek at the published page after hitting the Publish button in the CMS.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:25AM EST
  • Funny-farm-animals-17_talkback_profile

    goodhorse

    Your review lines up with the (non) impression the trailer makes. It feels like they were searching for a theme and found none in the process. Waste of impressive talent and Hollywood money. Hopefully Singer makes good with X-Men 5.

    March 1, 2013 at 9:03AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Logo Lou

    Not paying attention to anything Harry or Devin says is a good idea in general, always.

    March 1, 2013 at 9:09AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    that guy

    You can't exactly complain about movie editing when you can't even edit your on article.

    March 1, 2013 at 9:20AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    that guy

    You can't exactly complain about movie editing when you can't even edit your own article.

    March 1, 2013 at 9:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan Holy fuck! Double irony!

      March 1, 2013 at 9:52AM EST
    • Or when you can't even check your own post for spelling, idiot.

      March 2, 2013 at 3:59AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      That Guy I got it right in the second post, idiot!

      March 2, 2013 at 2:31PM EST
    • Not good enough, idiot!

      March 2, 2013 at 4:33PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      That Guy If it was good enough for me it is certainly good enough for you, idiot!

      March 3, 2013 at 12:01AM EST
    • No!

      March 3, 2013 at 1:38AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      That Guy Whatever. I'm done.

      March 3, 2013 at 11:05AM EST
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    Um, about half of that review is printed twice.

    March 1, 2013 at 11:05AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    VoiceOfReason

    "It's like they had three or four different units running at once, all shooting different stuff, and they left it to the editor to figure out how it all pulls together."

    Drew... you have no idea how right you are. That is exactly what happened to this unfortunate production. There were so many crews, doing so many different things, running all around Longcross Studios to the various sets they had established trying to play catch up in such a way that they were running and gunning MAJOR scenes by the end of it... and poor John Ottman sitting all by his lonesome in a room trying to piece together what he could. It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to get the credit he deserves in trying his hardest to salvage these films. This was a mess from the beginning.

    March 1, 2013 at 12:11PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho It's worth remembering that this was originally supposed to come out about a year ago, then was pushed ALL THE WAY BACK until now. That usually smells trouble.

      The trailers and TV ads are trying to sell the film this way: "CGI giants". That's it. From what I can tell, there are literally NO OTHER REASONS to see this movie. If there's an interesting story or fascinating characters or anything that constitutes an actual MOVIE here, you wouldn't know it from the advertising. And I like Bryan Singer generally, but based on what I've seen, I see no actual reason to pay to see this film. I have no doubt that many others will though. CGI alone seems to sell tickets these days...

      March 2, 2013 at 4:06AM EST
  • Gamera1_talkback_profile

    KlarkKent

    Quite a shame. I had my doubts based on the stigma that follows the original Jack the Giant Killer (which constituted the bulk of one of the best Rifftrax live events that the former MST3K crew has done) but I was trying to keep an open mind based on the theory that its flawed movies with promise that should be remade and rebuilt from the ground up.

    March 1, 2013 at 12:53PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    briguyx

    I know you've been friends with Harry Knowles for years, so you shouldn't be surprised that his enthusiasm for movies has blinded him to the defects of many a bad film. He likes (and makes excuses for) just about everything...

    March 1, 2013 at 2:45PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Josh

    You point out many things that are wrong with the film, but you do a poor job giving out reasons for it. I.e. you say it doesn't know if it's made for adults or children, yet you don't offer reasons why you felt that way. You mention that it didn't keep to its reality, yet you don't describe why. As you mention that the look of the giants doesn't fit the story, yet beyond your own problems with the design, you don't say how they don't fit. You actually don't talk much about the story at all.

    I don't care to see this film, but I was interested to know A. what you thought about the story and B. what you thought about the characters. Beyond the princess acting like Jasmine (which wouldn't be bad considering she is one of Disney's stronger female princesses) and Hoult's acting, we don't get any indication.

    March 1, 2013 at 5:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Serpico Jones

    You have to be careful with Fecal Matter Faraci when Bryan Singer is involved. Devin hates Singer and has the reputation of walking into the theater with his mind already made up that he'll hate the film when it comes to certain directors. Harry is just a moron. He's an 8 year old trapped in the body of a fat and disgusting 40 year old.

    March 1, 2013 at 7:30PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dave

    Y'know, sometimes I get the feeling i'm the only one who wasn't excited about Singer on Days of Future past.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of Usual Suspects. And I appreciate what he did on the first couple of X-men flicks. But lets face it, he was kind of the leader of the frakked-up continuity. Easy to blame the other guy for the third flick, but Brian kind of started him on the path.

    People blame Whedon for the clunker lines in the first movie, but it was Singer that was OK with Berry's flat delivery and made the choice to keep them in the film. And you have to admit he's not the best director of action. I would've preferred someone fresh.

    March 2, 2013 at 6:29PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Dom No, I'm disappointed that Singer's back directing X-Men too. I thought the Vaughan/Goldman team did a great job restarting X-Men in First Class, but this is looking increasingly like Singer's going to bring back his cast and wipe out any more First Class films. It's like having Joel Schumacher return to make The Dark Knight after Christopher Nolan did Batman Begins!

      March 2, 2013 at 9:06PM EST
  • Yodachilliresize_bigger_talkback_profile

    BigAl6ft6

    I think it's telling my favourte moment in the film was an off camera voiceover of McGregor saying "I have an awfully bad feeling about this" Obi-Wan lives! Oh, and Staney Tucci was really good too, everything he does in here is fantastic, but he leaves too soon. Princess spent the first 30 minutes being built up as an independent character then becomes kidnap plot bait. The CGI giants are wonky, I absolutely loved the first bit when it popped out and Jack had to go hide in the water, but it gets really uneven after that. Did dig the final castle seige, though, trees on fire being used as projectile weapons is kinda cool. Catch the last 20 minutes if you ever see this flick pop up on TV. That's what I say!

    March 2, 2013 at 7:58PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web