Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official JUMPER Review Thread


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 of 14 norrisMc

norrisMc

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2006

Posted February 14 2008 - 11:53 AM

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?
Norris

#2 of 14 Brett_M

Brett_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,304 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2004
  • Real Name:Brett Meyer
  • LocationMos Eisley Spaceport

Posted February 14 2008 - 01:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

"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.
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it meant to roast in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.

#3 of 14 Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,467 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted February 15 2008 - 04:57 AM

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.

#4 of 14 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,592 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted February 16 2008 - 01:52 PM

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.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#5 of 14 ChrisBEA

ChrisBEA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,657 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 19 2003

Posted February 16 2008 - 04:22 PM

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.

#6 of 14 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,901 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted February 16 2008 - 11:38 PM

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


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#7 of 14 norrisMc

norrisMc

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2006

Posted February 17 2008 - 10:59 AM

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.
Norris

#8 of 14 Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter

  • 1,962 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted February 17 2008 - 12:07 PM

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.

#9 of 14 ErichH

ErichH

    Screenwriter

  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2001

Posted February 17 2008 - 06:10 PM

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

#10 of 14 Chris

Chris

    Lead Actor

  • 6,790 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 1997

Posted February 18 2008 - 01:58 AM

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+
My Current DVD-Profiler


"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07

#11 of 14 Greg Kettell

Greg Kettell

    Screenwriter

  • 1,109 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 1998
  • Real Name:Greg K.
  • LocationNY Capital Region

Posted February 25 2008 - 01:45 AM

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.

#12 of 14 DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator

  • 13,051 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted June 08 2008 - 03:56 AM

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.

#13 of 14 EricW

EricW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,309 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2001

Posted June 20 2008 - 05:21 PM

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.
"now, if that's a fact, tell me... am i lying?"

#14 of 14 todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor

  • 6,842 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted October 18 2009 - 12:34 PM

 Even with its flaws.  I enjoyed this movie. 
Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users