PAGING BRYAN SINGER’S TALENT, PAGING BRYAN SINGER’S TALENT…

Well at least he's not pointlessly remaking BSG yet. I really dug Valkyrie. It's not a deep movie, but it's a crackerjack thriller. This seems like a big step down. Was there a big clamor for JACK AND THE BEAN STALK to get adapted into a film? Because from what I remember, it's just a silly story for kids without anything interesting going on

I won't lie. The scene with the burning trees flying over the walls looked cool. Hoult looks alien though.

I think I'll watch the awesome TROLL HUNTER instead of seeing this in theaters. And then check this out on Netflix to MST3K it with the wife.

Fairy Tales are all the rage this past few years, huh? LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD, HAPPILY NEVER AFTER, HOODWINKED, ROBIN HOOD, BEASTLY, PUSS IN BOOTS, 2 upcoming SNOW WHITE flicks, HANSEL & GRETEL: WITCH HUNTERS, tv shows GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME. Now this?

Shrek (even though it's really been Disney's MO/monopoly for 70 years) really opened the floodgates on exploiting classic European public domain kid-lit. I do like fairy tales, but when told right. See: Henson's STORYTELLER, THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, GDT's oeuvre. Atmospheric, reverent, well-designed and shot, and a little bit scary.

The fact that this is so straight-faced is bewildering to me. A big-budget, dead-serious, action-y Jack And The Beanstalk is like a joke from "The Critic."

"This Giant is about to get JACKed..."

"It's green... it's mean... and it's BEAN."

"The bean STALKS at midnight."

"You've heard the fairy tale, but... you don't know JACK."

"JACK of all trades, master of of GIANT-KILLIN'"

Woof. This looks like a made-for-TV miniseries from the mid-'90s.

I feel like that sub-plot from Fables about Jack of the Tales producing a huge-budget trilogy based on his adventures is coming true, except for the part about this being a huge hit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

Woof. This looks like a made-for-TV miniseries from the mid-'90s.

At least it's not another tale featuring a Jack and giantism...

This feels like the train accident in SUPER 8.

Singer is another sad case of a talented filmmaker bitten by the Hollywood blank-check syndrome.

"Something giant is coming"

That's their tagline? That's terrible. It's like a pun, but... not really. They might as well have gone with "This movie has giants".

Remember the tagline for Clash of the Titans?  I bet this was thought up by the same person.

Dude, that was actually pretty good.  The Jim Henson one, not Gulliver's Travels.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

 

At least it's not another tale featuring a Jack and giantism...

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

"Something giant is coming"

 

That's their tagline? That's terrible. It's like a pun, but... not really. They might as well have gone with "This movie has giants".

I'm kinda fond of my "The bean STALKS at midnight..."

Not too often I can sneak in a Bunnicula reference.

To be fair, Jack the Giant Killer is a fascinating and fairly violent part of British folklore that goes well beyond beanstalks and such, but Singer is fighting an uphill battle no matter what. 

You can describe a magic bean stalk in a book, but there is no way to put that image on film and not have audiences laugh your movie right off the screen. The idea is inherently terrible. Even when I was younger I remember thinking it was a pretty crummy fairy tale

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

The idea is inherently terrible. Even when I was younger I remember thinking it was a pretty crummy fairy tale

I'm gonna regret this, but... And why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

 

I'm gonna regret this, but... And why is that?

 

The moral of the story is OK (he sells his family horse for supplies but is frivolous and buys magic beans, which comes back to haunt him), but... Eh.... Giants? Atop a big bean stalk? It's just kind of random, jumbled imagery, it doesn't do much for me

Best part of the whole thing is fe fi fo fum, and even then, that's not a reason to turn this story into some sort of mega budget tent pole picture

I just can't wrap my head around pop culture these days I guess, because to me the very idea is just boring as shit, I'm sorry

Looks like fucking shit. At least it kept Singer away from X-Men and we got the fantastic First Class. You've got all of that money and those resources at your disposal and THAT is the best thing you can think of?

I remain objective about the movie so far.  Too early to tell, even thought I'd rather see him do another stylish crime-suspense movie.

And I'm guessing there's not enough connection to this 1962 Jack The Giant Killer to get remake cred?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CvBbgDzQ94
 

Or... maybe Singer & Co don't want to be associated with an old Harryhausen imitation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

The moral of the story is OK (he sells his family horse for supplies but is frivolous and buys magic beans, which comes back to haunt him), but... Eh.... Giants? Atop a big bean stalk? It's just kind of random, jumbled imagery, it doesn't do much for me

 

Best part of the whole thing is fe fi fo fum, and even then, that's not a reason to turn this story into some sort of mega budget tent pole picture

 

I just can't wrap my head around pop culture these days I guess, because to me the very idea is just boring as shit, I'm sorry

 

 

I don't see how that's "random, jumbled imagery". For one, giants were fairly pervasive in English folklore, and two, there are some extremely easy metaphors one can draw from the random bits you mentioned that are perfectly substantial.

The original story is fine, it's a kids fable.  I don't see how a kid can believe in Santa Claus or some such nonsense and laugh at this story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I don't see how that's "random, jumbled imagery". For one, giants were fairly pervasive in English folklore, and two, there are some extremely easy metaphors one can draw from the random bits you mentioned that are perfectly substantial.

 

 

 

 If you really are into the idea of a Jack and the Beanstalk movie, good for you I guess, your wish has been granted. I view this as a frightening symptom of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Different strokes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

The original story is fine, it's a kids fable.  I don't see how a kid can believe in Santa Claus or some such nonsense and laugh at this story.

Because a bean stalk is not a free standing structure. It needs to grow up an existing surface of some sort. Even at age three I knew a giant bean stalk was a physical impossibility

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

Because a bean stalk is not a free standing structure. It needs to grow up an existing surface of some sort. Even at age three I knew a giant bean stalk was a physical impossibility

As opposed to a guy who can deliver the entire world presents in one night from a single sleigh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

As opposed to a guy who can deliver the entire world presents in one night from a single sleigh?

 

Quantum physics

PA All kidding aside, is that the bar we're using for what would make a good movie? The Santa Claus myth? Because frankly he is a random character too, assembled piecemeal from all sorts of folklore 

Look I'm sure giants and bean stalks have a glorious history full of culture and depth that is unknown to me, but none of this changes the fact I think the story is dumb nonsense that in no way stimulates my emotions or imagination. I'm not trying to slag off those who apparently dig this direction for blockbuster cinema, and they're welcome to cheer the release of humpty dumpty a few years down the line, but all I'm saying is that this is the absolute nadir of entertainment as far as I'm concerned. It's right up there with Hasbro movies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

 

 If you really are into the idea of a Jack and the Beanstalk movie, good for you I guess, your wish has been granted. I view this as a frightening symptom of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Different strokes

What the hell does what I said have to do with caring about this movie? And what folklore isn''t, to some extent, piecemeal? Something like the legend of King Arthur, for example, is the very definition of piecemeal.  
 

The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is full of random, jumbled imagery.  And pretty unrealistic too, now that I think about.

I guess I'll have to hate it now.  Aw, geez.

I have never been a fan of Singer, yes Usual Suspects is an entertaining flick thanks mainly to Spacey, Byrne and a solid script. Yes it is capably directed, but I saw nothing groundbreaking from him in this, just competence.

As for his other work, I see nothing to distiguish him. The Xmen movies did not impress me, Superman depressed me. Apt Pupil was watchable for the Stephen Kings bugnutz story, not for any great direction from Singer.

I have not seen Valkaryie, so cannot comment there, but all in all I think Singer is competant and overhyped. If he gets a good script and a good cast he will likely turn out a solid movie, if he does not, he likely wont. Maybe someone else can educate me, what height did Singer ever attain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

To be fair, Jack the Giant Killer is a fascinating and fairly violent part of British folklore that goes well beyond beanstalks and such, but Singer is fighting an uphill battle no matter what. 

I agree. There may be a million things wrong with this, but being based on old folk fairy tales is not one of them. Fairy tales, especially in their non-Disney forms are fucking awesome. I'd put "Hansel and Gretel" or "Red Riding Hood" or "Jack The Giant Killer" up against any modern genre story. The fact that they keep making movies about them and keep fumbling is in NO way indicative of anything wrong with the stories themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3nnui 

I have never been a fan of Singer, yes Usual Suspects is an entertaining flick thanks mainly to Spacey, Byrne and a solid script. Yes it is capably directed, but I saw nothing groundbreaking from him in this, just competence.

 

As for his other work, I see nothing to distiguish him. The Xmen movies did not impress me, Superman depressed me. Apt Pupil was watchable for the Stephen Kings bugnutz story, not for any great direction from Singer.

 

I have not seen Valkaryie, so cannot comment there, but all in all I think Singer is competant and overhyped. If he gets a good script and a good cast he will likely turn out a solid movie, if he does not, he likely wont. Maybe someone else can educate me, what height did Singer ever attain?

I feel his direction is rather pedestrian, so I'm with you. He seems pretty good with actors though.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

I agree. There may be a million things wrong with this, but being based on old folk fairy tales is not one of them. Fairy tales, especially in their non-Disney forms are fucking awesome. I'd put "Hansel and Gretel" or "Red Riding Hood" or "Jack The Giant Killer" up against any modern genre story. The fact that they keep making movies about them and keep fumbling is in NO way indicative of anything wrong with the stories themselves.

 

Exactly. In the right hands and with the right approach, the classic fairy tales are rife with great imagery and themes. I'm not satisfied with PK's "Hollywood sucks and I can't suspend disbelief" response.

The sole reason I might catch this on cable in the future is because Bill Nighy and John Kassir are co-voicing the two-headed leader of the giants.  Pretty amazing vocal pair-up right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3nnui 

I have never been a fan of Singer, yes Usual Suspects is an entertaining flick thanks mainly to Spacey, Byrne and a solid script. Yes it is capably directed, but I saw nothing groundbreaking from him in this, just competence.

 

As for his other work, I see nothing to distiguish him. The Xmen movies did not impress me, Superman depressed me. Apt Pupil was watchable for the Stephen Kings bugnutz story, not for any great direction from Singer.

 

I have not seen Valkaryie, so cannot comment there, but all in all I think Singer is competant and overhyped. If he gets a good script and a good cast he will likely turn out a solid movie, if he does not, he likely wont. Maybe someone else can educate me, what height did Singer ever attain?

Apparently Singer directed the fuck out of Public Access, his first film, and a movie I still cannot find a copy of.  It played very well at Sundance and that's how he got Usual Suspects.  I like Suspects, I think it's a great movie, but mostly from the script...Singer's direction did more help than harm.  I was a fan until the limp dick one two punch of Apt Pupil and X-Men...X2 was good, but not great.  Superman sucked, and Valkarie was decent, but I still cannot underand the decision to have a group of vastly different ethnic actors speak in their native tongue while all playing Germans.
 

Singer's filmography is possibly one of the most bizarre of all top-tier Hollywood directors. It's like he picks potential projects out of a hat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Olson 

I feel like that sub-plot from Fables about Jack of the Tales producing a huge-budget trilogy based on his adventures is coming true, except for the part about this being a huge hit.

Ditto. I keep hoping that this is just really expensive viral marketing for a secret 'Fables' film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Singer's filmography is possibly one of the most bizarre of all top-tier Hollywood directors. It's like he picks potential projects out of a hat.

Could it be that bad ol' hat of Harry's?

Ick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

 

Because a bean stalk is not a free standing structure. It needs to grow up an existing surface of some sort. Even at age three I knew a giant bean stalk was a physical impossibility

Um, technically, so is a giant.
 

I still have unwavering faith in Singer's potential to make great films solely on the basis of "X2". I wasn't too keen on his other movies (although I enjoyed a few parts and performances of "The Usual Suspects"), but I consider "X2" one of those 'give the director a lifetime free pass, no matter how much shit he might churn out later in his career' movies.

How anyone can see that movie as anything less than a masterpiece ("good, not great"? blasphemy!) is beyond me. I hated "Superman Returns", but I'll always believe Singer is a major talent, because of how much he nailed that second X-Men movie. He just hasn't picked the right projects since, but when he does again, I expect epic awesomeness.

To this day, I still believe "X2" is top-to-bottom the best example of a comic book movie done right. Everything in that movie just clicked from the performances to the storytelling to the direction (especially during the action sequences). There's one lousy scene at the end, but aside from that it's fucking flawless in my eyes. When it comes to comic book movies, it is a God among insects. And no one can ever tell me different.

Well, there is the "X2 doesn't age well" movement, which I don't particularly agree with either.  God help me, the movie is, from top to bottom, just as good as it was when I first saw it in theaters.

It's just ridiculously well cast, consistently well performed and filled with iconic moments (Magneto's escape in particular).  Its flaws notwithstanding, I'm still in awe of its craft.

I love Usual Suspects and his X-Men films, Superman works as a nostalgia kick, Valkyrie I enjoy as a 70's style WWII thriller in the vein of The Eagle Has Landed and Apt Pupil was delightfully fucked up. Bryan Singer hasn't directed a miss for me yet.

But this doesn't look great. Seems like the Superman aftermath and all the Valkyrie controversy really messed him up and he's just taking the safest option he can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

Well, there is the "X2 doesn't age well" movement, which I don't particularly agree with either.  God help me, the movie is, from top to bottom, just as good as it was when I first saw it in theaters.

 

It's just ridiculously well cast, consistently well performed and filled with iconic moments (Magneto's escape in particular).  Its flaws notwithstanding, I'm still in awe of its craft.

Yup however I could have done without the 20 minutes or so within Prof X's head with ol one eye trying to convince him to kill all humans. Also don't know how cool I am with Prof having that much power in general. Superman was good for the first half and then.........ugh. other than that he hasn't missed a step.
 

X2 is a sugar rush of a movie, lots of fun to be had, but its shallow as a puddle and leaves no time for anything to just breathe. It's very well marshalled by Singer and probably his best-directed movie, though.

I think Singer struggles to find resonance in any material he tackles, outside of the most obvious metaphors (X-Men as gay kids, Superman as Christ). Because of that I think he struggles mightily with non-ensemble narratives - put him with a group, perhaps containing a nominal lead (Wolverine, Verbal Kint, Stauffenberg), and he does great, but ask him to construct a film around a single protagonist and he can't quite pull it off. If you had to pigeonhole him I'd say he's basically the Richard Donner of this generation - solid, an excellent craftsman, and capable of flashes of greatness, but he's not a top-tier talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude hallenbeck 

I love Usual Suspects and his X-Men films, Superman works as a nostalgia kick, Valkyrie I enjoy as a 70's style WWII thriller in the vein of The Eagle Has Landed and Apt Pupil was delightfully fucked up. Bryan Singer hasn't directed a miss for me yet.

 

But this doesn't look great. Seems like the Superman aftermath and all the Valkyrie controversy really messed him up and he's just taking the safest option he can.

100% agreed.