martin-randle Firstly look at that poster... see that scary monster on the front with those massive teeth? Yeah? Not in the movie!There are monsters, some the size of dinosaurs and one more like Godzilla in proportions, but they are all the same species, a sort of short tailed 6 eyed bull like reptile. The big one is the same CGI model but scaled up.The acting / dialogue is stilted and funny. It has a delightful amateur- dramatics quality to it. And the guy playing the general is hamming it up to Monty Python standards. Nothing about this is remotely believable but as another reviewer noted, the floaty castle is quite nice. Though powered by a fire that looked barely strong enough to toast marshmallows on. The CGI - is very bad, very 90s. Probably someone with a copy of some 3D software offered to do it for free. The worst is the whip effects of the beanstalk. Anyway I highly recommend you don't waste money on this - if you can watch it for free and make a drinking game or something silly out of it then you may have a better evening than I did.

Diane Ruth Jack the Giant Killer is one of Mark Atkins' finest achievements as a director and offers veteran star Ben Cross one of his best roles in years. This is arguably the most superb performance he has given since Chariots of Fire and will certainly please those who have followed his stunning career. The film is also a special effects extravaganza and benefits greatly from an excellent screenplay by the director himself. Location filming in England and some quite atmospheric cinematography provides a fitting look to the film, almost surrealistic and very powerfully disturbing. An exciting adventure in fantasy that never disappoints at any point in the story.

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!

mbell-592-882640 Where do I start? Some movies ARE so bad they're good. I love cheesy movies and was in stitches for most of such classics as 'Killer Clowns from Outer Space', Megashark vs Giant Octopus', and 'Robot Jox'. This I did not love. It was annoying. I'm just not entirely sure why this was simply bad and not cheesy. Awful acting, Awful plot (in fact, practically none), poor casting, poor direction, bad special effects. Actually, they weren't ALL bad - maybe the production was taken over seriously. Nope, that can't be it as it's already been pointed out the costumes and props were from entirely different time periods (CCTV cameras on walls anyone?)I think it was simply a lack of care about any single part of the filmmaking process. It's like someone just stood in the street, shouted 'Who wants to make a film that's very loosely based on Jack and the Beanstalk', and the least interested people within earshot all inexplicably volunteered. Don't watch this film (unless you're imminently dying and have nothing better to do when I guess it might actually make your remaining time feel longer)