Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

cricket crockett . . . which I saw in a double feature today after seeing this original version--which is perhaps a technological advance for its time, but totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint. In this 1902 version of Jack's story, produced by the infamous robber baron Thomas Edison, Jack dresses like a girl, disobeys his mom to climb the beanstalk, spies on the Abraham Lincoln-sized "giant," steals his valuables, and finally kills the taller than average crime victim as he's descending the beanstalk to recover his valuables. Jack is egged-on, aided & abetted at every turn by a magic wand-waving fairy godmother, who turns Jack & his mom into royalty at the close, heaping further riches upon this thief (not all that different from how Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, & Edison himself were able to loot America and lord it over everyone else at the turn of the 20th Century, before the U.S. enjoyed modern business regulations). JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, on the other hand, is about a nice boy who knows his place, only kills giants (actual ones, not a 6' 4" guy!) to save humanity, and does not have a larcenous bone in his body. With no nudity, little swearing, & few scenes of graphic violence, the latest remake is perfect for the 8 to 80 demographic. Though JACK THE GIANT SLAYER runs 104 minutes longer than this cluttered original, it is much easier to sit through, and is NOT the hard-core homage to criminality that is the elephant-electrocuter's morally reprehensible 1902 mash-up.

tedg I'm writing a book about "folding" in film, a situation which in its simplest form is seen as a movie within a movie.This is the earliest example I know. The movie itself is about 12 minutes long. There are no dialog cards because presumably all viewers would know the story in detail already. Modern audiences will find the presentation pretty hokey. But there are two episodes within this that have an interesting effect. There is a fairy godmother which to my knowledge is not in the original story. She is invented just for the movie. She manipulates events somewhat. Among her interventions are the creation of visions for our hero.The first time is in a dream, and the second in "real life" (or perhaps a dream). Both illustrate what is to come. These are presented in the movie as a movie that the fairy "projects" onto the background. At the end she appears again to merge the two worlds. Ted's law of abstraction holds even in this early example: the distance between our world and the world of the movie is the same as that between the movie and the world of the movie within.Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

wmorrow59 I'd like to take this opportunity to salute Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk on its 100th birthday. This short film is one of America's earliest surviving narrative motion pictures. Perhaps it goes without saying that we're lucky this film can be viewed in the 21st century, seeing as how so many of its neglected contemporaries are gone forever. In watching this film today we have not only a rare opportunity to witness a great advance in cinematic storytelling, but also to peer into a lost world of Victorian theater, specifically children's theater. Where filmmaking is concerned, Jack and the Beanstalk does not represent the thrilling quantum leap forward that Porter's Great Train Robbery (made the following year) most certainly would, but it's a charming work in its own right, and can be viewed as a necessary step in the director's development towards his famous achievement.Strictly speaking, this film is a photographed stage play in which the special effects are stage effects, but that in itself was something of a novelty in 1902. Many of the earliest films of the 1890s and early 1900s consisted of only a single shot, representing what we would call 'actualities' filmed in natural locations: trains rolling past, ocean waves, street scenes, etc. The actors of Jack and the Beanstalk perform in full costume, and emote before painted backdrops as the familiar story is related in several lengthy shots presented in a methodical fashion. Although Porter's production lacks the verve that France's Georges Méliès was bringing to similar material around this same time, it does boast a moment or two of cinematic (as opposed to theatrical) wit. I like the early scene where Jack falls asleep and the Good Fairy 'directs' his dream, which is enacted for us, and includes such details as dancing bags of money and a woman hatching out of an egg. There's also a nice moment later when, after climbing the beanstalk, Jack takes another nap and the Good Fairy once more appears to him in a dream, this time treating him to a magic lantern show concerning the giant he's about to face.Someone who posted about this film previously called it "pathetic," and asserted that the filmmakers lacked imagination. I suggest in return that a certain amount of imagination is required to appreciate exactly what filmmakers were dealing with in 1902 when this medium was brand new. We're all so accustomed to going to the movies and having TVs in our homes, popping in videos & DVDs whenever we like, but what about the people who made these first films? In 1902 most people had never seen a movie or a movie camera. This was an entirely new technology, and there must have been numerous problems for the filmmakers, e.g., simply moving those bulky cameras, loading the (incredibly flammable) film itself, technical difficulties with lab work, etc. Making motion pictures was still a brand new, experimental process. Mechanical breakdowns and disappointments must have been a common occurrence for the pioneer producers. But we should also consider how much fun it must have been to be present at the birth of a new art form, the thrill of making discoveries that advance that art form, and the great excitement experienced by the original audiences who saw these films when they were new. In short, it takes imagination simply to view and appreciate a film like Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk, and we should count ourselves as fortunate that we can still do that.

Jesster-3 This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.Watch something else.