Fee-Fi-Fo Fun! Or my review of “Jack The Giant Slayer” ***1/2

Warner Bros. Pictures release. © 2013 Warner Bros. 

Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson

Ewan McGregor

My two favorite reviewers Roger Ebert and Peter Travers(Rolling Stone magazine) really split on Jack The Giant Slayer. After seeing it, I have to say I’m leaning a bit towards Ebert’s enjoyment on this one. And while biting cynical merciless attacks are what make me enjoy Peter Travers on a usual basis, I think the barbs were uncalled for here. After reading his review, all the negative rants he had to spew were fairly baseless, even praising the banter between Jack(Nicholas Hoult) and Elmont(Ewan McGregor) but he does so comparing that to the lack of spark between Jack and the Princess(Eleanor Tomlinson) Well, if you’re not expecting anything above a fairy-tale romance and want some simple entertainment, I think this one delivers. In fact, for me, the fanciful scenic lands in the clouds combined with all the choreography of defending a castle, all get high marks in my book. I love moats, castle keeps, inner wards, allures… etc… and the very competent director Bryan Singer has fun with all of this I think. 

Even Stanley Tucci as the ‘human’ villain is fun and as Ebert says, he hams it up “..a bit just shy of mustache twirling”. Then like the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies.. once again Bill Nighy is invaluable for motion capture acting beneath all that CGI. (he gives Andy Serkis a run for his money in faux creatures performances)  

Stanley Tucci

The two critics split on the CGI of the giants too. Peter thought they looked like tacky leftovers from Clash of the Titans, where as Ebert called them “pretty awesome”. As a CGI artist I’m somewhere in the middle. It’s funny in the beginning as the back story of the giants are told as stories to the children they are illustrated/animated in the quick style of computer games, and then of course when they meet the giants for “real” all the layer of skin pores, hair, dirt etc.. all are added to make them exist in the “real” environment, and I think it’s pulled off pretty well as the multi-million budget attests to. So it is sad that this movie isn't doing as well as it should. It’s fun and action packed  and compared to some like, I’m sorry, but the laborious movie The Hobbit this one is a roller-coaster ride! I didn't see it in 3D and while there were a few scenes that I’m sure might have had a “look out… duck!” feel to them, I don't think I missed out... and if anything... enjoyed it more... just watching the regular 2D fun.

In conclusion I must say it was interesting to research the difference between “Jack the Giant Killer” and “Jack and the Beanstalk” and variations like “The Brave Little Tailor”…  For instance Mickey Mouse assumed the role of both the later ones.. And I remember being entertained as a kid, battling giants and the land in clouds etc.. and was even reminded of farcical treatments like Abbott and Costello’s Jack and the Beanstalk. So the updates in technology and sensibilities were a welcome one for me. Although one final thought… central to almost all the old stories was the giant’s “wife”. And as Ebert points out in this new one,       “… where are the lady giants and the teenage giants and the baby giants?”  

Déjà Vu all over again… or my review of Oblivion **1/2

As I begin my review I must mention a certain twinge of pain as this is the first time I’ve written about a movie since the passing of the wonderful Roger Ebert. Almost on a consistent basis I used Roger of The Sun Times and Peter Travis of Rolling Stone as springboards to begin my ideas. They provided a balance in my thoughts that from now on I’ll have to keep from spinning out of control. It’s not that they always thought the opposite, although they often did, it was more the balance of ‘tone’. Peter has a real bite and cynical view on movies where as Roger was always just buoyant about movies even about movie he didn't like. It was along the lines of Roger would say, “Sorry, but your movie sucked.” And Peter would say “Your movie sucked!”

So! For now, until I figure out otherwise, I’ll just quote Peter…. and well…. he pretty much did say Oblivion sucked… well… not really. The word he did use, which sent me to look up all the uses of the word, was “derivative”… And I must say I have to agree. He was basically saying there wasn’t one thing in this movie you haven’t seen in other science fiction movies from The Matrix to Wall-E even. I don’t remember if he mentioned one movie in particular but ***spoiler alert*** …actually it’s only a spoiler if you have seen Oblivion or the film David Bowie’s son Duncan Jones wrote and directed called Moon with Sam Rockwell then you know the “big twist”. The difference is Moon’s story goes waaaaay beyond “the twist” with good science fiction,good character study, good story telling.  Here?  Much like the memories that haunt the main character, I was haunted by other movies.

Now some reviewers, which I can only assume are the “bought and paid” for ones, use the term “mind-blowing”? Well this movie is the perfect example of the over-use of that term. If you want to possibly say 'mind-blowing visual effects'? I might chime in on that one. The visuals are stunning.The exploded moon (although derivative of the Time Machine remake), the off-shore water transformers, the small cruiser ship and droids, the post-apocalyptic landscapes all were spectacular all the way through.

Morgan Freeman / Nikolaj Coster-Waldau

 Andrea Riseborough 

But the effects combined with some good action and some well done suspense seemed more like smoke and mirrors in hindsight. This seemed more to cover up some major plot holes and the fact that Morgan Freeman is barely in the movie and sadly wasted when he was. Having gotten hooked on Games of Thrones it was nice to see ‘Jaime Lannister’ Nikolaj Coster-Waldau but again, barely utilized. Even though the runaway plot wants to send him into oblivion too Ha!pun there… anyway he’s actually able to make a presence, almost even more so than the two female leads Andrea Riseborough and  Olga Kurylenko that basically function as plot device to make Tom Cruise the action hero. 

Olga Kurylenko

Tom should have stuck with great literary adaptations in science fiction like he did in the past with Minority Report from Philip K. Dick or War of the Worlds from H.G. Wells to have strong solid good science fiction at the core and not some story the director Joseph Kosinski just sort of thought up as a sci-fi fan. Kosinski who also did the lackluster Tron:Legacy, does have some talents, like I said, I enjoyed the flow and incorporation of effects and it made for a mostly enjoyable movie experience… I would even recommend it for… let’s say less discerning fans of great science fiction.