Good concept, poorly executed.

Fantastic!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

"The legend of Jack the Giant Killer was born more than a thousand years ago in Cornwall, England, near Land's End. There was a time when the Kingdom of Cornwall lived in fear and trembling of the Black Prince Pendragon, master of all witches, giants and hobgoblins, who ravished the land. But at long last, Herla the Wizard drove Pendragon and all his witches from the Kingdom and exiled them beyond the reaches of the known world. Here on a misty isle, uncharted and unknown, Pendragon schemed and waited for the day when he would return to power in Cornwall. Then, after many years, the day came…"...This was a day of rejoicing as beautiful Judi Meredith (as Elaine) is crowned princess. The snarling Torin Thatcher (as Pendragon) arrives. He conjures up a giant to threaten Ms. Meredith. She is saved by handsome farmer Kerwin Mathews (as Jack). He is knighted Sir "Jack the Giant Killer" and becomes Meredith's protector...Seeing how millions of kids liked to spend Saturday afternoon watching Mr. Mathews battle special effects monsters in "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" (1958), producer Edward Small brought Mathews back with director Nathan Juran and villain Torin Thatcher. While less spectacular than the earlier effort, this one is still very good. It makes up for a smaller budget with imagination and excitement. The handsome hero, beautiful princess, snarling villain, cute kid, chimp, and special effects formula carries the story. And, there are memorable supporting roles by Walter Burke, Don Beddoe and Anna Lee.****** Jack the Giant Killer (5/18/62) Nathan Juran ~ Kerwin Mathews, Judi Meredith, Torin Thatcher, Walter Burke

Legend has it that the bigwigs at United Artists turned down Ray Harryhausen's pitch for the classic "7th Voyage of Sinbad", forcing him to go back to his home studio, Columbia. "7th Voyage" was a risky proposition at the time, needing a much larger budget than Harryhausen had ever accessed for various reasons including Technicolor (this would be his first color feature). UA and production director Edward Small passed on the film. Columbia finally acceded the necessary budget to Harryhausen and the rest is history. Not surprisingly, "Sinbad" became one of the top ten money-making movies of 1958, leaving the bigwigs at UA grinding their teeth since they threw the opportunity to finance it away. Four years later in 1962, United Artists attempted to make an adventure/fantasy of their own to cash in on the success of "Sinbad". No matter that "Jack" is nearly a carbon copy of "Sinbad" in plot, the studio had the audacity to hire the director, hero, and villain from "Sinbad" to appear in this poor imitation of someone else's success. Nathan Juran directed, while Kerwin Mathews became Jack, and Torin Thatcher phones in his villain, Pendragon. Unfortunately, the film suffers from the same penny-pinching that saw "Sinbad" thrown away. Not being able to afford the services of Harryhausen, the special effects animators could not effectively pull off the various giants and other creatures effectively. The stop motion animators were the very young Wah Chang, Jim Danforth and David Pal. The derivative designs of the giants are obviously taken from "Voyage's" Cyclops. There are not one, but two reptilian-squid monsters on view, a sea serpent and the Wyvern seen in the film's climax. Naturally, the two-headed faux Cyclops giant has to battle the sea serpent in a very rubbery ode to the Cyclops vs dragon fight in "Voyage". It appears to be played for laughs instead of terror."Jack" isn't all bad, there are several interesting things to see here. The attack of the witches on the ship at sea, filmed using a lurid purple overlay. The witches themselves are phosphorescent, done in day-glo hues of green and blue. This same effect was used years before in Disney's "Darby O'Gill" to produce the Banshee. There are economical cartoon animations for flames here and there, and a better princess than "Sinbad" had. Judi Meredith actually outshines Kathryn Grant especially when transformed into an agent of darkness by Pendragon. The Wyvern creature, while as cartoonish as the other monsters is the best realized and supplies a satisfying end to Jack's adventures. On the downside, this flick crams the most annoying leprechaun ever seen on film down your throat. Throw in a lost boy who becomes a chimpanzee, a Viking who becomes a dog, magical coins, a least one demon who looks suspiciously like Satan, and an army of hollow men. Whew. Still, watching that superimposed rhyming leprechaun played by Don Beddoe prance away over a rainbow is a bit much. Where's he going? Oz? "Jack" didn't fare well at the box office since the public realized they'd already seen this before. It was subsequently withdrawn and forgotten, most notably because Columbia sued UA over copyright infringement. However,in a burst of total surrealism United Artists re-issued the film some years later as a musical (!!!) and an obvious ploy to attempt seeking out whatever cash the mangled new version could earn. Unfortunately for the public, this wreck had the most terrible songs sung over the original film. This version was given new titles that looked like a child's drawings and was not widely seen. It did turn up on an Disney cable channel back in the early 80s, which is where I saw/taped it. It's a curio worth seeking out if you can stand listening to it, especially the climactic fight between Jack and the Wyvern which is overlaid with someone squalling "You can do it! lalalalalala You can do it!" which has a number of interpretations. In this case, however, one would guess the crooning is supposed to infer Jack's mental processes as he hacks the wing off the Wyvern. Not an unpleasant way to spend a rainy afternoon, especially if you've not seen "7th Voyage of Sinbad".

When I saw this movie as a kid in 1972? I enjoyed it.I am no longer a kid, and its no longer 1972. It was released in 1962 and it shows. Special effects have improved, and so have many aspects of movie making. Today the monsters may be scary for a 5 year old, but are laughable for a 10 year old. The only audience that may still enjoy this movie are the 6-10 year old audience. Maybe.I found the Leprachaun to be the best part of the movie, and he had very limited appearances.For its time, maybe it was worth a 6, but for todays audiences I'd avoid it. I give it a 5, but its probably worth a 4. Its watchable in a way because its so bad.

This is an okay film, but the vast numbers of glowing reviews leaves me puzzled to say the least. You'd think it was E.T. or Lawrence Of Arabia or something from the way so many fawn over it. I can understand having fond memories of watching this movie as a child, but otherwise... Even for the time it was made, JTGK boasts mediocre special effects. The stop motion is smoothly done, but the models used looked like they came out of Toys R Us, and I'm being kind in that description. The sets are equally cheap and cartoonish, and the lighting and cinematography would have been considered basic even for a television show of the time period. It certainly doesn't "hold up today" as some have claimed. The acting is wooden at best, even though some excellent character actors were used. I can only assume they were having to deal the best they could with a so-so script. I'll admit that the action scenes were suspenseful even with the distractingly cheesy effects, which probably can be owed to the director. Overall, it looks like someone took an old fantasy tale and ran it through a mid-century Hollywood "Quick Buck Maker 6000" machine. With all that said, it's not horrible and there are worse ways to kill an afternoon.