G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) review

Out of all of the delayed films of 2013, 'G.I. Joe Retaliation' has the most unique reason for why it was pushed back. It was originally set to hit theaters in June 2012, but was then pushed back just a month before it was set to come out to March 2013. While official reports say that Paramount did this in order to convert the film to 3-D, there are other reports stating that the move was made in order for re-shoots to add more scenes with Channing Tatum's Duke because apparently in the first cut of the film, he was killed off early on. While I'm not one for spoilers, I just want to address if this was true or not. As far as I can tell, they didn't change anything. Duke still dies at the beginning of the film and even if they did do re-shoots, it probably would have ended up the same way. So way to go Paramount, you just wasted 9 months and messed up both the film and toy industry... just to convert a film to 3-D and let's be honest, has there ever been a good post-converted 3-D film? There are none that I can think of.

But back to the review. This film comes in the wake of its predecessor, 2009's 'The Rise of Cobra', which did not receive much of a positive reception from both critics and audiences. In fact, dare I say it, most people hated the film. As for me, I thought the movie was okay. If you could get past the multiple flashbacks and some rather poor CGI, it was a fun little popcorn flick. So going into this film, I was hoping it would turn out better than the first film. Does it succeed at that? Well, for the most part, it does. Sure, at the end of the day, this is really nothing more than a mindless popcorn flick. But to the film's credit, it manages to improve on most of the problems of its predecessor even though it falls victim to some new problems that arise from it.

At the end of 'The Rise of Cobra', the terrorist organization Cobra had successfully infiltrated the White House by having their disguise specialist Zartan (Arnold Vosloo) take the place of the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce) through the use of nanomite technology. When in office, the false President frames Cobra's enemy, the special ops unit G.I. Joe, for stealing warheads and orders a military strike on them, eliminating the majority of the team except for Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), and Flint (D.J. Cotrona). As Cobra begins to take over the country, the three team up with the other remaining members of G.I. Joe, including Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and his apprentice Jinx (Elodie Yung), in order to stop Cobra from taking over the world.

The biggest advantage that this film has over its predecessor is that it's not as cheesy and over-the-top. I may have never seen the 'G.I. Joe' cartoon from the 80's, but this film seems more in line with that show than 'Rise of Cobra' was. Jon M. Chu also does a better job directing than 'Rise of Cobra's Stephen Sommers, not cutting to a flashback every five minutes. However, the plot does get a bit convoluted at times, like with the character arc for Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-hun), whose return from a supposed death in the first film is never explained. The way I see it, the only reason they brought him back was so that Snake Eyes could have someone to fight with. The fact that Chu's resume mainly consists of dance movies does seem questionable for the director of an action movie, but his experience with dance choreography does lead to some really awesome action sequences, although the hand-to-hand combat scenes are kind of filmed/edited poorly.

In regards to casting, it's much better here than it was in the original, led by Dwayne Johnson, who is excellent here as Roadblock. But in regards to the rest of the characters, the writing is pretty weak. The character of Flint is so unmemorable but is apparently so important that he's one of the main characters. You could have just given that role to Channing Tatum's Duke. But of course, he's killed off early, which just felt unnecessary for two reasons. To his credit, Tatum does a better job here than in the previous film and he does have really good chemistry with 'The Rock' so when he's killed off, the film just isn't the same without him there. Cobra Commander (not played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is just there because... he's Cobra Commander. Seriously, every time he appears, he just walks on screen for a few minutes and then leaves. But the saddest thing here is that Bruce Willis is not given anything to do as General Joe Colton, the original leader of G.I. Joe. They could have cast anybody else in the role and it would have had the same effect.

 

So all in all, 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' is still no masterpiece. Thankfully, it's not as ridiculously cheesy as its predecessor, but the film suffers from a convoluted plot when in reality, the story is fairly simple. It's just G.I. Joe fighting Cobra... that's all there is. This is compared to the plot of the first film which, when looking back, wasn't actually that complicated at all and was pretty easy to follow. While the casting is much better here than in the last film, most of the characters aren't given much to do or, in the case of guys like Channing Tatum, killed off too quickly. In the end, 'Retaliation' is just a slight bit better than 'The Rise of Cobra' but I don't think it's that bad. It's an enjoyable popcorn flick... just don't go in expecting too much out of it.

 

Rating: 3/5

My Week with Marilyn (2011) review

She was, and probably still is, the most famous woman in the whole world. She was a cultural icon and the quintessential American sex symbol, and even though her career was cut short in 1962 at just the age of 36 with her death, she is still remembered even to this day and has influenced many. But who was the real woman behind the persona of Marilyn Monroe, the most famous woman in the world? That is explored in 'My Week with Marilyn', a glimpse at Monroe's life during production of the 1957 film 'The Prince and the Showgirl' and is based off of two books written by the third assistant director of the picture, Colin Clark. The film explores the magical week that he allegedly spent with Monroe and how he became her confidant and ally. While we may never truly know if this really happened, this is a terrific film that takes a look at a side of Monroe that we rarely see. Top that off with Michelle Williams' outstanding performance as Monroe and you have a winner.

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), an aspiring filmmaker, lands a job as the third assistant director of Sir Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) new film, 'The Prince and the Showgirl', which Olivier directs and stars in alongside Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams). However, once production on the film starts, things start to become a nightmare for Olivier as Monroe is constantly late to the shoot each day and has trouble remembering her lines, often requiring assistance from her acting coach Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wanamaker). But despite the increasing tension on set, that does not stop others from admiring Monroe, including Olivier's wife Vivian Leigh (Julia Ormond) and co-star Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench). Soon, Colin and Monroe start to bond and as the two of them start to grow closer, Colin sees a side of Monroe that no one ever sees and tries to help her when no one else does.

 

There is some debate over whether or not Clark's story really happened, but that really doesn't affect the movie at all. Instead of just being a straight-up biopic (which would have been a much more daunting project), director Simon Curtis instead focuses on one point in Monroe's life and explores a side of her that we've never really seen before. One can only imagine what it was like for her to be the celebrity that she was and how much pressure it must have been for her and this film shows how she was a woman who just wanted to be loved for who she was, and Clark is just the person to do that, being someone who saw her as more than just the 'icon' and someone that she could trust. The film also does a nice job at showing not just the relationship between Clark and Monroe, but also Monroe with Olivier as well. The two of them represent different styles of acting; Olivier the old-school Shakespearean trained actor and Monroe the up-and-coming star from America.

But the biggest reason to watch this film is because of Michelle Williams' performance as Monroe. She nails the part so well that most of the time you forget that she's not really Monroe and that is the best thing that anyone can do when playing a famous person. Williams truly does capture the spirit of Monroe without fail. The rest of the cast is also superb. As Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh brings a presence to the role that only someone who is considered to be the 'next Olivier' can do. Eddie Redmayne also makes a solid impression in what can pretty much be called his breakout film role (I won't count 'Les Miserables' at this point). There's not a single bad performance from the entire cast, although some, including Emma Watson as Lucy, a wardrobe assistant who Clark has a brief romantic relationship with, and Dominic Cooper as Monroe's business partner Milton H. Greene, are somewhat underused.

 

In the end, while the story behind 'My Week with Marilyn' may or may not be true, it is still a fantastic film for a different reason. It's a film that doesn't try to glorify Marilyn Monroe because, after all, history has already done that for us. Instead, it takes a look behind the scenes at the woman that she really was. There really was more to her than most people ever knew, and this film explores that side of her perfectly. But really, this film wouldn't be as good as it was if it wasn't for Michelle Williams as Monroe. If you need any more proof as to why she's one of the best actresses working today (apart from her other work), just watch this film because her performance alone carries the film and you really have to hand it to her for being so dedicated in capturing the essence of Monroe.

Rating: 4.5/5

Ranking the James Bond films

When it comes to the greatest movie franchises of all time, the James Bond franchise is certainly one of the best, if not the best. Probably the greatest thing about the Bond franchise is that, because there have been 23 Bond films, everyone is bound to have their own unique list when it comes to ranking them all in order from best to worst. No two lists are ever going to be the same. So, with that in mind, here is my list of rankings for the 23 Bond films by Eon Productions. At the time I am writing this, I have not yet seen the 'unofficial' Bond films, including the 1967 'Casino Royale' with Peter Sellers and the 1983 'remake' of Thunderball, 'Never Say Never Again', starring the original Bond himself, Sean Connery and even if I did, I actually wouldn't even include them on this list. Finally, because I've already listed my picks for the Top 5 Best and Worst Bond films back in November during 'Bond Month', I won't be going into much detail about those films. This will be more focused on the other 13 Bond films I have not talked about yet. So grab your Vodka Martinis ('Shaken, not Stirred' of course), and let's get rolling...

23. A View to A Kill:



Roger Moore's too old, the lead Bond girl's nothing more than a Damsel in Distress, and the movie's just plain dull. The only saving graces are Christopher Walken as the villain Max Zorin and the main theme by Duran Duran.

 

22. The Man with the Golden Gun:



Same problems as 'A View to a Kill', except this one was only Roger Moore's second Bond film compared to his last, so age is not a problem here. The only reason this one's worth watching is Christopher Lee as the villain Scaramanga.

 

21. Moonraker:



James Bond... IN SPACE!! That is all...

 

20. Diamonds are Forever:



This was just a poor way to end Sean Connery's run as Bond for Eon. It's a film that's just way too campy to be taken seriously, though to its credit, it is entertaining.

 

19. Die Another Day:



I don't think this one is as bad as most people have put it out to be, but still it's not perfect. There's way too much CGI, Halle Berry's Jinx is not really that good of a Bond girl, and the second half is a bit of a mess. Still, Pierce Brosnan does a solid job as Bond alongside Toby Stephens as main villain Gustav Graves and Rosamund Pike as Bond girl Miranda Frost.

 

18. Octopussy:



'Bond 13' (no, I will not refer to it by its official title, which is hands down the most ridiculous title for a Bond film) is by far the most over-the-top Bond film to date. Bond swings on a vine and yells like Tarzan, swims around in a 'crocodile suit', and dresses up like a clown. Need I say more? But, for some odd reason, this is actually my 'guilty pleasure' of the series because of its over-the-top nature. That's what makes it so entertaining.

17. You Only Live Twice:



While this film certainly has some great set pieces and action sequences, things start to fall apart in the second half of the film. Not only does Sean Connery not really look invested in this film, but for a movie that serves as the first full appearance of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, perhaps Bond's most famous foe, he is not given much to do which is a shame because Donald Pleasance does a solid job as Blofeld.

 

16. The World is Not Enough:



This is a mixed bag of a Bond movie because there are good things in it and also bad things in it. First off, what's good about this film? Well, Pierce Brosnan gives what is probably his best performance as James Bond and Sophie Marceau's Elektra King is a pretty solid villain because, like 006 in 'Goldeneye', the relationship between Bond and Elektra is more personal. But while both Brosnan and Marceau do good jobs, Robert Carlyle is underused as the other villain Renard and Denise Richards... yeah there's no denying it, she's one of the worst Bond girls ever. I don't think she's the absolute worst (see Stacey Sutton from 'A View to a Kill') because at least she helps Bond a few times. This is really more of a miscasting.

 

15. Quantum of Solace:



To put it simply, Quantum of Solace is not as good as its predecessor, 'Casino Royale'. Why? Well, the main reason is because unlike the slower-paced 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum' is more fast-paced and there's not really much time given towards character development which, considering how Daniel Craig portrays Bond and how Casino Royale played out, should be essential to this film but it's surprisingly lacking here. Also, the editing is... kind of bad; there's a lot of fast cuts making it hard sometimes to see what's going on. Finally, the main villain is just boring. So, is there anything good in this film? Well, the one thing that does hold it together is Daniel Craig, who is still fantastic as Bond and the relationship between Bond and M is also handled well here. So while Quantum of Solace is by no means as good as Casino Royale, I don't really hold that against it that much because it is a true sequel to it.

 

14. Thunderball:



After the first three Bond films in the series, in comes this film and well, it ain't as good as the first three. There are two things holding it back. The first is the villain, who is just a generic eye-patch-wearing agent of SPECTRE. There's also the underwater sequences which, while well-shot for the time, just get monotonous and drag the movie out longer than it should be.

13. Live and Let Die:



'Live and Let Die' is a solid debut for the third Bond, Roger Moore, with some very memorable villains and easily the hottest Bond girl ever. Granted, the movie's not exactly perfect because there are times where the film goes really over-the-top, like during the boat chase scene (which is a pretty awesome action scene, by the way) where we see a lot of this crazy sheriff, J.W. Pepper (who also makes a return in the next film, 'The Man with the Golden Gun' (as if that film couldn't get any worse)).

 

12. For Your Eyes Only:



While this is a top-notch Bond film in regard to the more serious tone it takes compared to its more campy predecessor, 'Moonraker', this is not really my favorite of Roger Moore's Bond films because I actually think it's a bit too serious for a Roger Moore Bond film. I'm glad that the filmmakers decided not to do another over-the-top film like 'Moonraker', but I don't associate a serious Bond film with how Roger Moore portrays Bond. If this was a Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig Bond movie, it would much better but for Moore, not so much. But I'm not going to lie, this is still a solid Bond film. Speaking of Timothy Dalton...

 

11. The Living Daylights:



Because he only starred in two Bond films, Timothy Dalton (like George Lazenby before him), never got a chance to make his mark as James Bond, which is sad because he's perhaps one of the best to have ever played him. Dalton's Bond has a lot more edge to him than someone like Roger Moore or even Sean Connery and that's more in tone with the Bond that author Ian Fleming created in the original Bond novels. However, Dalton also could have done a lot better at humor. So how about his first of only two Bond films? Well, it's a solid Bond film with a good Bond girl and some really good Bond allies. The only problem? The main villains are really weak. There are two of them in this film and neither of them are any good. That is why I listed them as the worst Bond villains of all time back in November during 'Bond Month' because of the fact that there are two crappy Bond villains in one movie. So, my pick for the best Timothy Dalton Bond film is...

10. Licence to Kill:



In my opinion, the most underrated Bond film ever. I know 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' is also pretty underrated, but while that film has had a very positive reception from both critics and audiences since its release, 'Licence to Kill' has not been so lucky which is a shame because it's a damn good Bond film in terms of how Bond is portrayed and how this whole mission effects him personally. This is 'Casino Royale' before 'Casino Royale' even came out. Granted, the film does get a bit too brutal at times, like when one of the main henchmen gets locked in an air compression chamber and his head blows up. As the first Bond film to get rated PG-13, it's probably a bit too violent for a film given that rating. But the best part of this whole film is the villain, Franz Sanchez. While the character is a despicable bad guy, Robert Davi actually brings a bit of charm to the role, so much so that the filmmakers could have passed him off as Bond and I'd buy it. The bottom line is that no, this isn't the best Bond film, but it's one that's much better than what some have put it out to be.

 

9. Tomorrow Never Dies:



While I can't say 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is as good as Pierce Brosnan's first Bond film, it's still a solid Bond film and if anything else, it's much better than Brosnan's last two Bond films. It has a pretty good villain in Jonathan Pryce's Elliot Carver and one of the best Bond girls in franchise history in Michelle Yeoh's Wai Lin, one of only two Bond girls who can be considered as Bond's equal.

 

8. The Spy Who Loved Me:



This is easily Roger Moore's best Bond film. It's a Bond film that mirrors that of 'Goldfinger' by being a perfect mix of action and humor. Like 'Tomorrow Never Dies', it has a terrific lead Bond girl in Barbara Bach's Agent XXX, another Bond girl who is Bond's equal and the way the two of them become connected makes for some great romantic tension. The film also features one of the series' best henchman in Richard Kiel's Jaws (let's just ignore his appearance in 'Moonraker', shall we?) and that makes up for a lead villain, Stromberg, that's just an okay villain.

 

7. Dr. No:



Why is the first Bond film ever only at number seven, you ask? Well, that is because Dr. No is admittedly really dated. There's no theme song (by that I mean there's no song performed by a singer), the main villain and lead Bond girl don't appear until the movie's halfway over, and there's no Q and any use of gadgets. That's not a bad thing; it just shows that this series obviously got better and better as it went on. This is still a really good Bond film, and while it is slower-paced, it's still a solid film and Sean Connery makes a name for himself as the first (and best) James Bond right from his first words. All together now, 'Bond... James Bond!'

 

6. Goldeneye:



While Goldeneye is only number six on this list, it is my personal favorite James Bond film and one that holds a special place in my heart because... it is the first Bond film I ever saw. Likewise, Pierce Brosnan is my personal favorite James Bond because he was the first Bond who held the position when I was young (though, ironically, I didn't see this film (or any of the other Bond films for that matter) until after Brosnan's tenure as Bond was finished). It helped bring Bond back to prominence just like Casino Royale would do 11 years later. Brosnan shines in his first outing as Bond, and Sean Bean also does an excellent job as the main villain, Agent 006, giving Bond a more personal villain to face than some of the other Bond villains. We also have solid turns from Izabella Scorupco as lead Bond girl Natalya and Famke Janssen as henchwoman Xenia Onatopp. All in all, it's one of the best Bond films ever and that is why it is at this spot in the list.

5. On Her Majesty's Secret Service:



Another underrated Bond film and sure, George Lazenby is no Connery, but he still does a fine job here and the film ends with the saddest moment in franchise history, one that was never truly resolved in future installments.

 

4. Casino Royale:



A film that brought back Bond in a whole new way, resulting in a grittier and edgier Bond film unlike anything we have seen before. Top that with Daniel Craig's terrific performance as Bond and you have one of the greatest Bond films ever.

3. From Russia With Love:



So if 'Dr. No' is the dated Bond film, then 'From Russia With Love' is the first Bond film to resemble later Bond films much closer. An engaging story, top-notch villains, and probably Sean Connery's best performance as Bond.

 

2. Goldfinger:



A perfect mix of action and humor. This is just classic Bond anyway you look at it.

1. Skyfall:



So why is 'Skyfall', the most recent Bond film, my pick for the best Bond film ever? Well, 'Goldfinger' is a classic Bond film, but when it comes to taking the character of Bond to a whole new level, 'Skyfall' takes the cake for that. I love the whole idea of Bond not only having to come back from a supposed death and try to get back in the game, but also to prove that someone like him is still useful in today's modern world and director Sam Mendes executes this perfectly. Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva is also a terrific villain, whose actions mirror those of the Joker from 'The Dark Knight' very closely. Like in 'Quantum of Solace', the relationship between Bond and M is terrific and Judi Dench is given her most substantial role as M to date (also her last and her send-off is both sad and well-handled). I just can't find anything wrong with this film and sure, in the end, Goldfinger might be the better film. But, as the Bond franchise celebrated its 50^th anniversary, it was honored with a top of the line Bond film, and that is why 'Skyfall' is my pick for the best Bond film of all time.

Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) review

We all know the classic that is 'The Wizard of Oz', the 1939 masterpiece starring Judy Garland as Dorothy Gale, a young farm girl who is whisked away to the magical world of Oz by way of a tornado. There have actually been multiple adaptations of author L. Frank Baum's 'Wizard of Oz' series. In fact, there were 10 other adaptations that came out before the one we all know and love and there were many more after that. In 1985, Disney made a 'sequel', 'Return to Oz'. While the film was neither a critical or box office hit, it has since gotten a cult following due to its much darker tone. Now, Disney is back with another 'Oz' film, 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', a prequel focusing on the Wizard of Oz and directed by Sam Raimi. Does Raimi's take on the story succeed? Yes, it does. Not to sound cliché here, but 'Oz the Great and Powerful' is really a great movie, with terrific visuals, a superb cast, and a well-written story.

In Kansas, a magician in a traveling circus named Oscar Diggs (James Franco) dreams of becoming a great man like Thomas Edison or Harry Houdini, even though he's really nothing more than a womanizing con-man. One day, as Oscar escapes from an angry circus performer via hot air balloon, he is caught in a tornado and winds up in the magical land of Oz. There, he learns that the people of Oz have been waiting for a 'Great and Powerful' wizard who will save them from the evil of the Wicked Witch. Oscar takes up the job, despite the fact that he's not exactly the Wizard Oz has been waiting for, and soon gets caught up in a conflict amongst the three witches of the land; Glinda (Michelle Williams), Theodora (Mila Kunis), and Evanora (Rachel Weisz). Not only must Oscar prove to them that he truly is 'the Wizard', but he must also prove it to himself as well.

In terms of visuals, 'Oz The Great and Powerful' is one of the best looking films I've ever seen. Out of all of Disney's recent $200 million March releases, this is miles better above the rather dark and grim lands in 'Alice in Wonderland' and the bland Mars landscapes in 'John Carter'. This is also one of those rare instances where it is worth it to see the film in 3-D, as the world of Oz is a visual treat for the eyes. But visuals aren't everything; what about the story? Well, the writing is actually really solid, most notable in the portrayal of 'the Wizard'. He has a solid story arc, as he changes from the womanizing con-man, who's also kind of a jerk, that he was at the beginning of the film to the kind and noble 'Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz'. Even by prequel standards, Raimi doesn't go the cheap route and instead makes subtle nods to the original film which work out much better than some other prequels.

There's also not a single bad performance from anyone in this film. Even those who some were saying gave the movie a 'high-school' vibe, namely James Franco and Mila Kunis, did really good jobs. Admittedly, Kunis probably is the weakest link out of the whole cast, but that's more when her character Theodora transforms into a certain character (one that the internet already spoiled but I won't do the same here) but she still does a great job. Franco also does a great job as 'the Wizard' and does bring the right attitude for the role of Oscar. The two standouts here would have to be Rachel Weisz, who's clearly having a lot of fun in the role of bad girl Evanora, and Michelle Williams, who perfectly captures the sweet and kind personality of Glinda. Finally, we also have solid performances from two of the side characters; Zach Braff as Finley the flying monkey, who gets some of the best lines, and Joey King as the China Girl, who's just cute as a button.

So, in the end, is 'Oz the Great and Powerful' as great as the original 1939 film? Probably not, but do I even need to explain how much of a classic that film was because I'm pretty sure we all know that by now. For what it's worth, Sam Raimi delivers what is easily the best Oz film since that film. Even amidst the breathtaking visuals, the story is still solid, the cast is terrific, and Raimi doesn't cop out when it comes to the film being a 'prequel' to the original film. It's also one of those rare films where it is worth the extra money to see it in 3-D because Raimi utilizes it much greater than most films that are just converted to 3-D in post-production just because studios want to make more money. Critics have been rather split on this film, but as for me, this is the first film this year that I highly recommend because in all aspects, it is a well-made film.

 

Rating: 5/5!

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) review

A genre that has recently been all the rage in Hollywood are retellings/updates of classic fairy tales. Last year, there were two 'Snow White' themed films ('Mirror Mirror' and 'Snow White and the Huntsman') and earlier this year there was 'Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters', a film that was delayed about a year before it finally hit theaters in the dead month of January. The latest film of this 'genre', 'Jack the Giant Slayer', is another film that was pushed back from an earlier release date. Originally titled 'Jack the Giant Killer', this Bryan Singer-helmed fantasy film, based off of both the Cornish fairytale of the same name as well as 'Jack and the Beanstalk', was originally supposed to hit theaters in the summer of 2012 but was pushed back to March 2013 in order to give the filmmakers more time for post-production and marketing. It was also renamed 'Jack the Giant Slayer', most likely to reach out to a wider audience. But how about the film itself?

 

Like in the fairy-tales it is based on, the film follows the titular Jack (Nicholas Hoult), a young farmhand living with his uncle. One day, when Jack goes to the nearby kingdom in order to sell his horse to earn money, he receives some beans from a monk in exchange for the horse, who warns him 'not to get them wet'. Later that night, he is visited by Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), the princess who Jack 'rescued' earlier that day in the kingdom. Soon enough, the beans get wet and a giant beanstalk emerges from the ground, and Isabelle is dragged up it while Jack is left behind. In response, he joins forces with the King's elite guard, led by Elmont (Ewan McGregor) on a mission to find the princess. However, it turns out that this beanstalk serves as the gateway between the human world and a world of giants, who are keen on conquering the mortals below.

The best way I can describe this film as a whole is that if you don't go in with very high expectations, then you will have a better time with it. That is because, when you look at it, Jack the Giant Slayer has a fairly simple story. It's your basic tale of an unexpected hero who fights enemies and saves the princess that has been done before. So, that means that the movie is at a disadvantage because you can kind of tell what's going to happen. Still, despite that, the movie is very entertaining. It could have used a bit more humor though as the humor that is there in the film is really nothing more than a couple of cheap one-liners and puns. It also doesn't help that most of the giants' (except Bill Nighy, who plays one-half of a two-headed giant) actions are mostly played for laughs. They pick their nose, fart, burp, and so on. They're not really as threatening as the filmmakers want them to be.

But on the bright side, the cast does a solid job, especially Nicholas Hoult as Jack, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors having already done a great job earlier this year in 'Warm Bodies'. Like in that movie, here he is charming, engaging, and very likable. The other two main leads, Tomlinson as Isabelle and McGregor as Elmont, are also very engaging and likable and Hoult and Tomlinson have solid chemistry. Finally, Stanley Tucci steals the spotlight whenever he's on screen as the villainous Roderick. Probably the only member of the cast who's rather underused is Ian McShane as the King, who's not given much to do until the end. So all in all, Jack the Giant Slayer may be a simple story, but the film is backed up by a enthusiastic cast and is entertaining to the point where you'll enjoy it. But like I said, don't go in expecting too much because otherwise you are not going to like it. I'm still not a big fan of all of these new updates to classic fairy tales, but out of all that I have seen so far, this one is the best.

Rating: 4/5