*** Official JUMPER Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[norrisMc]

I thought it was only o.k.

Great effects and locations.

Diane Lane and Sam Jackson were good I thought. Their characters were the most mysterious.

I'm assuming the sequel will involve Diane Lane having to hunt down her own son. Right?

 

[Brett_M]

"Mysterious" is right, as in no character development. If this excuse for a film gets a sequel, it will be the last seal broken, ushering in the End of Days.

Great premise, poorly executed. Hackneyed script and way too many producers.

Worst of all, it was dull.

 

[Quentin]

It's pretty horrible. Not even craptacular.

Christensen is awful. Bilson is a non-entity on screen. Jackson is hamming his utterly undeveloped character because he doesn't know what else to do. And the story is the most undeveloped, erratic, scattered mess I've seen in ages.

Liman tries to give it some life...time to move one and forget this one.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I sort of wished Hayden Christensen and Jamie Bell had switched roles in "Jumper" because Hayden is just too frikkin' boring as a leading man, plus his character is written kinda stupid, for instance, for a guy who is jumping into a dangerous situation, why doesn't he just do a little surveying of the situation instead of just blindly jumping into a bad spot. I think Jamie Bell would have been a much more interesting actor to watch in the lead role. Rachel Bilson is fine as the love interest, she's too cute for words at times, but it's still just a secondary role. The film is literally a little too jumpy in spots, and the introduction of the Paladins as a group of people hunting down jumpers never quite gelled with me. Sure, they are headstrong in their mission, but the film doesn't quite delve into the deeper reasons why such a power should not exist amongst the population at large, and what they are prepared to do to protect the rest of the non-jumpers.

I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.

 

[ChrisBEA]

The film doesn't delve into anything. It is a short mad-lib movie that needs the holes filled in by the viewer. It is all build up and no payoff.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Jumper". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[norrisMc]

They definately should have fleshed out the characters more...

Jamie Bell, Sam Jackson and Diane Lane are all strong actors who should have strong characters. Lane was criminally underused.

 

[Lord Dalek]

A trainwreck, pure and simple. The acting was stiff, the special effects weren't special, there was no plot, and nothing really seemed to happen in it.

All in all a surefire dud.

 

[ErichH]

Looks like they just filmed the outline script - as in there's no script.
You get a 2 minute flash back that should have been the first act. The rest is a chase sequence. At the end you don't care about any character, but you are glad it's over.

Move on folks - nothing to see here

 

[Chris]

Generic popcorn sci-fi flick with a few "fun" moments; probably the best element is the fact that it doesn't flesh out the characters.. which I tink could have went into a real mistake ridden area, instead, it just lets the audience assume whatever they want.

I didn't think the acting was -as bad- as portrayed, though it wasn't the greatest. Some cute dialog mixed in with long stretches of nothing.

I've definitely seen much worse.

C+

 

[Greg.K]

On one hand, I thought the effects were well done, and the movie visits quite a few locations around the world, adding the the believability of the whole thing.

However, Wooden.. err _Hayden_ Christiansen was a terrible choice for the lead, and that pretty much sunk the movie for me.

While I liked Jackson's performance, the reasons for the Paladins doing what they do is barely explained, and the explanation given doesn't really make a lot of sense.

This is one of those movies where the inevitable "making of" featurette on disc will likely be more interesting that the movie itself.

 

[DaveF]

I watched Jumper last night at the second-run theater, and I agree with the previous comments. The core idea -- that there are individuals who can "jump" to any place in the world they've already seen, and consequently live outside and even above the law -- is intriguing and filled with potential.


However, the story lacks all purpose. The protagonist has no purpose in life except to steal and live a life of egocentric pleasure. The antagonist has no purpose but to kill the protagonist simply because he finds his existence offensive. And the conclusion is just stupid, lacking any conclusion. It clearly was a ploy to make a series of even worse direct-to-video sequels.

And this is all a shame. The idea of the movie kept me interested throughout. But the competently executed action scenes were weren't engaging. The characters were dull, with the emotional excitement of faded wallpaper.

The supporting lead, played by Jamie Bell, was the highlight. He was the one character with some semblance of depth and the one person in the whole movie that seemed to fit the created. Had the movie centered around him, and had he had an equal enemy, Jumper would have had a better chance.

 

[EricW]

just caught this on bluray.

imho, this flick got a bad rap. it's not all that bad, and i was entertained for the whole movie. will i watch it again? maybe if the sequel is better i'd revisit this one. yes the movie left alot of info/backstory out, but not all action movies need backstory, and many that do, still suck. and while the movie didn't tell you much, it doesn't mean it isn't there or wasn't created. just like the first season of Lost, i think this movie competently 'teased' the viewer with the tip of the iceberg. again, i know i'm in the minority.

anyways, what i liked: the movie's world seemed to be thought out. the whole physics of the jumping were consistent with the movie's logic, including the Paladin's gadgets that they used to fight the Jumpers. some of the fight scenes escalated with some cool ideas on what a jumper could do when attacked.
what i didn't like: the main character just isn't likeable, and not even in an anti-hero kind of way. the director does this in an in-your-face way in the scene where Christensen's watching a newscast of flood victims and the reporter says there's no way to get aid to the victims. the character promptly goes to his money stash and jumps to London to pick up a girl. the character also isn't very intelligent, which makes him annoying.
anyways, for me the pluses outweighed the minuses. best movie of the year? no way, but it's not the crapfest so many are making it out to be. and if there is a sequel to this i'll definitely rent it.

 

[todd s]

Even with its flaws. I enjoyed this movie.