Peter Suderman Reviews Jack the Giant Slayer

Peter Suderman reviews the bland blandness of Jack the Giant Slayer in today's Washington Times:

The most striking thing about "Jack the Giant Slayer" is how utterly unmemorable it is. In an already crowded forest of dull, formulaic, early-year films, "Jack's" commitment to formulized blandness stands out like, well, a skyscraper-sized beanstalk.

This version of the "Jack and the Beanstalk" has everything you would want in a big-budget fantasy: romance, action, adventure, traitorous villains and noble heroes. Everything, that is, except the smallest hint of anything resembling an actual personality.

Instead, there's a parade of familiar situations and character types. There's Jack (Nicholas Hoult), the young man who discovers his inner strength after a long journey, and Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), the young woman whose attention he craves. There's a horde of fearsome giants in the sky, a medieval castle ripe for invasion, and a hidden world in the clouds. There's a sympathetic rogue knight (Ewan McGregor), a kindhearted king (Ian McShane) and a dastardly adviser to the crown (Stanley Tucci). And there's nothing remotely interesting about any of them.

Read the whole thing. 

Comments

[Just Counterfly]

I'm waiting for Kurt Loder's review of Pete Suderman's review of Jack the Giant Slayer.

[Peter Suderman]

I'll be reviewing that shortly.

[mnarayan]

Flaunting your early access to reason material won't make anyone like you.

[Eduard van Haalen]

WTF is wrong with Hollywood? I heard the joke that they put all their creativity into their accounting, leaving nothing for plot, character development, etc.

Or maybe all these crappy movies are an indirect way to promote the occasional decent movie they put out, so that the audience is so relieved to see *some* signs of competence that they rush to see Lincoln?