Load of rubbish!!

Did you people see the same film I saw?

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Jack and the Beanstalk (1902) *** (out of 4) Nice version of the famous story from Edison with direction by Edwin S. Porter who was close to making his landmark film THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY. The story is about as well-known as you can get but young Jack (Thomas White) trades his cow for some magic beans, which end up growing high into the sky. He ends up climbing up where he encounters the bad guy who he must destroy. If you're looking for anything ground-breaking then you're not going to find it here. I'm sure many people will look at this 1902 film and see it as hokey but it's doubtful these people would be overly interested in the history of film. Those who are interested will find this to be a pretty interesting version of the classic story. Porter does a very good job at telling the story, although without any title cards they're certainly expecting you to already know the story. I really loved the visual look of the film including the special effects of the beanstalk growing. The "vine" used for the stalk was even attempted to look realistic, which wasn't always the case in this early films. The cow in the story is a man in the outfit, a common practice for the day and I can't help but feel this adds a bit of surrealism today.

This movie is great. Not only does it show the lengths to which narrative had increased at the time (and Edwin S. Porter's developing skill in creating such narratives), but it's actually a pretty good adaptation of a well known tale if I may say so myself.Early films often used adaptation as a way of telling a familiar story so that people would understand what's going on with aid of memory along with the general narrative structure. Since I have no idea how this film was regarded back then, I can't really say whether it was effective to that audience or not, but I think today, with our familiarity with cinematic devices, we don't need the help. This movie stands alone pretty well on its own.It's also very magical, which I enjoy. I love these early fantasy films like La Voyage dans la Lune and Jack and the Beanstalk. It seems fantasy film-making slowed down as film developed, mostly kept to science fiction, and only recently with CGI has been growing again.--PolarisDiB

One reviewer referred to this film as "pathetic" but I am not sure that this is really fair. Sure, by the standards of 2006, this is a pretty bad film. However, given when it was made, it's a truly exceptional film and should be compared to its contemporaries--not today's films with our great special effects and film techniques.In 1902, almost every film was less than five minutes long. Plus, sets were often pretty non-existent and the same could be said about writing. Often, actors just got up and gesticulated madly or seemed to have no idea what to do until the director yelled out instructions--and it was pretty obvious at times. Films where everything was planned and scripted and told a good complex story were a real rarity. Because of all this, I am very charitable towards JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Sure, the backgrounds look like painted backdrops (which they were) and some of the props were less than stellar, but for 1902 it was a real marvel! The film told the story very well and was even better than such films as THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ or FRANKENSTEIN (both from 1910)--films which also had props, sets and were well-planned but were also made almost a decade later! So, this wonderful curio is a great piece of history that might just make many of you laugh at its production values, but I still thought the film was quite charming and we owe a lot to such monumental films--after all, the care and quality that went in to this film really encouraged other film makers to try harder.

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.