Not all of the reviews of Jack the Giant Slayer are deadly. Some, in fact, are quite full of beans. Rafer GuzmÃ¡n in Newsday writes that it is the kind of old-fashioned, entertaining fantasy-adventure you once saw regularly in theaters. Steven Rea in the Philadelphia Inquirer makes the case that it is far more accomplished, visually speaking, than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Snooze, I mean Journey. (Although Kyle Smith in the New York Post describes it as a junior varsity Lord of the Rings). And the Associated Press's Christy Lemire writes: Jack the Giant Slayer ends up being smart, thrilling, and a whole lot of fun. But they are clearly in the minority. Several critics take note of the fact that the film cost a reported $195 million to make. Bryan Singer's take on the old fairy tale has all things money can buy -- except a good script, writes Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times, adding, Despite some good acting, there may never have been a Jack tale that delivers so little pleasure for so many dollars. Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal dismisses the movie in a two-paragraph review, writing, It's hard to be jubilant, or anything close, about Bryan Singer's elaborate riff on the classic fairy tale. And Manohla Dargis in the New York Times is imnpressed only by all the digital magic tricks, noting that the special effects keep your eyes busy, even when the story sets your mind to wandering.
The guitarist came up with the band name in 1982.