|Page 1 of 50:||          |
|Index||491 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
For all haters.
To me, there's an important message hidden in this film. I feel that the makers of this film wanted to deliver a message. In this genre of film, almost all the "gifted" individuals turned out to be some superhero or saviour of mankind. Like Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Daredevil, X-men, Fantastic 4.. just to name a few.
But the question is, if we really got these super-human powers, who will actually sacrifice it all for the good of man kind? This is the message the makers of Jumper is trying deliver to the audiences. The guy in this film, without giving too much away, is nothing but a selfish prick. All the things he does with his power is for himself, no one else.
To me, the most meaningful scene in this film, is the few seconds when he watched the News of TV, saw a bunch of people get caught in flood, and then emotionlessly turned it off.
He could have gone and saved those people, and become a stereo-type hero. But he didn't. He got superpower, he use it to enjoy life. It's that simple.
But isn't it what we would all do, if we got his power? This ain't an Oscar winning film, but it got a clear and simple message. Which I believe allows it to beat all superhero films, simply because it's more realistic.
"With greater power, comes greater responsibility"? Bullocks. Get real. We're all selfish animals.
I'm a big science fiction fan, and was very intrigued by the idea for
"Jumper". Samuel L. Jackson always lends credibility and I was
interested to see Hayden Christensen for the first time since Star Wars
( I haven't seen "Awake" yet). I persuaded a friend to come with me
based on the special effects in the trailer.
The plot goes much like this; Boy discovers he has the power to teleport himself. Boy learns to control his powers. Boy lives idyllic life of leisure and travel until he discovers that people are chasing him, and that he is caught up in a war between people who can teleport, and those who hunt them.
Unfortunately, "Jumper" isn't much more than a geography tour. The story is well laid out, and the main character behaves in a believable way. if you've ever imagined having the power of teleportation, you will buy into this premise big time.
Sadly, the movie fails to build on that premise, and action sequences aside is quite boring. My friend fell asleep! There is no chemistry whatsoever between David and Milly, and their romantic relationship is unrealistic.
Jackson plays the same character he always does, Rooker is under-utilized although Jamie Bell adds some much-needed momentum when he arrives.
All-in all if you want to leave your brain at home for a night, Jumper might be for you, but I would recommend waiting for the DVD.
I saw this film last night, and i must say i was pleasantly surprised,
I have been reading lots of comments on IMDb to get an idea of what to
expect, lots of people were negative about the acting performance of
Hayden Christensen, well i don't agree, I think he handled the
character in an interesting fashion, considering his character left
home at the age of 16 or so, raised himself and used his abilities to
support himself in a wild and fun manner. So he is not your average run
of the mill kid, nobody knows what he can do and he can basically do
and go where he wants, creating an aloof type of character, so under
these circumstance i think his performance was okay, maybe not worthy
of an academy award but totally interesting to watch, I enjoyed his
intensity. Overall i thought it was a great film for what it was,
special effects are great, and the story holds together in most
aspects. The concept of Jumping is something we have all thought about
at one time or another, just like time travel. I think that a lot of
people who comment on IMDb have no idea of what goes into making a
movie, but just like to be critical as possible. When i go to the
movies i want to be entertained, this movie certainly did that!! Check
it out and don't forget the popcorn!!!
Some people have unrealistic expectations. This movie is aimed mostly
at teens and sci-fi fans or anyone wanting a good popcorn movie to kill
two hours of their life. If that's not your thing then don't complain
if you didn't like it.
If you can't stand Hayden Christensen, then don't see a Hayden Christensen movie. It's as simple as that, folks. He's not Johnny Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio, don't expect an Oscar worthy performance. However he's not bad on the eyes and as shy as he is, he's not unbearable on screen.
Personally I thought it was entertaining from beginning to end, not memorable. Acting was bearable, Sam Jackson played a badass as usual. There was a bit of humour, I liked Jamie Bell's character. It's a fun concept and with and imagination like mine the possibilities of such a power are unlimited.
I did feel that you never really connected with the characters on an emotional level and the plot was very straight forward and basic. No twists and the ending was fairly dull.
It did bring up some interesting points, like real world superpowers. Yet as an Alan Moore fan this isn't anything particularly new.
Stunning effects, swooping camera angles, and an interesting concept
more than make up for the film's defects - namely Hayden Christensen -
reprising the gloomy, wounded, misunderstood, petulant anti-hero role
he played so ineffectively in the Star Wars prequels.
The other performances were sound (Samuel L Jackson's hair included) with Jamie Bell particularly outstanding as the nervy Griffin. His performance adds to the frantic energy of the film and every scene without him is the poorer for it.
While the pacing and energy of the film keeps you glued to your seat, it is only on reflection that I realised how unsatisfying the story ultimately was - leaving me with an "is that all?" kind of feeling. The answer, of course, will probably be 'No' as this film seems to have been made with the idea of sequels firmly in sight.
All in all - a tightly made film, with the scenes inside the Colosseum worth the price of admission alone - if only they'd cast someone else in the lead role!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After falling into a lake covered in ice, David Rice teleports himself
into a public library. He leaves home and goes to New York to hone his
skills, which he uses to rob banks. After 8 years David finds that he's
not the only one, and that there's been a war going on for centuries.
Now those people sworn to kill Jumpers are after him.
Hayden Christensen was wooden as a board as Anakin in the Star Wars prequels, but out of nowhere showed he actually has some acting chops when he played a lying journalist in Shattered Glass. Well, now he's back in the sci/fi genre and for some reason he decides to jump back on that wooden board. I don't know why, but it seems that sci/fi films bring out the bad in him.
Jumper is an intriguing idea, it has the opportunity to bring a new series to film. The idea of people who can teleport to anywhere at anytime has been done before yes, but now we have people who have been sworn to kill them and that they've been doing it for hundreds of years. Sounds pretty epic, but Jumper doesn't really jump into any of that, they only mention it. Why? I have no clue, to me it sounded more interesting then what they were actually showing us.
The filmmakers had a great chance to go back in history and show us this war, as one character mentions, but not once do we get any idea of any of it. There is a lot more story to tell with these Jumpers, but we never get any of it, we only scratch the surface. Are they that confident that it will do so well that they will give a bit more in a sequel? Or did they really have no idea what they were doing and just hope the audience liked the jump scenes.
Those jump scenes by the way are nicely done. No, they never reach the coolness of Nightcrawler from X-Men 2, but they are very well done. One second your in New York and the next your sitting on top of Big Ben in London. With a film like this you know the special effects will either make or break the film, because so much of it relies on that. The believability that these people are actually teleporting themselves to another location. They pulled it off for the most part. My complaints are pretty much what other people will probably have. They teleport in open area, for everyone to see, but unless there's a fight going on no one seems to notice, or care. Also, wouldn't Christensen be really fat by now? 8 years of teleporting means he never moves anywhere. He won't even slide 2 feet over on a couch to get a converter. Does teleporting burn calories as well? You know those people sworn to kill them, one is Rolan, played by Samuel L Jackson. Jackson does what he always does, be a bad ass mofo. Here is sports white hair and spews off some dialogue that only God should be at all places at once. Are they the good guys? After all, our so called hero is robbing banks and breaking Italian Collisuem rules. Christensen isn't really likable, so many people will end up routing for Jackson to take him out. They fight scenes are too special, they consist of jumping and using a device that Scorpion from Mortal Kombat should sue for. Once you take away all the jazz from the jumping, you're left with nothing really.
The story is boring. Guy can jump, people find him and try to kill him, he gets away. In between he gets back together with a girl he use to like when he was a kid, they go to Rome because "hey, all girls will put their lives on hold to go to Rome with a guy they knew back in Highschool but haven't seen for 8 years...and maybe I'll have sex with him too." Bilson is cute, but she is given nothing to do besides ask questions. The real star here is Jamie Bell, who plays Griffin, another Jumper. He's the person we really want to follow in this story, he's funny, kicks ass and takes no crap from anyone.
By the time the film is over you're left sitting in your seat asking yourself, but what about this and what about that. There are so many loose ends in Jumper it's funny. We never know what happens to his father, we never know what happens to Griffin, we are never given anything but a sentence for a back story on these people. Also, the last 5 minutes seems like a last minute addition to try to tie one of those loose ends up. It seems way too forced, but you know it has to happen because there is no way this film can end without them going back to it. These loose ends will most likely be sorted out in the sequel. That's how films like this are probably going to end now, leave so many things unanswered that there just has to be another one.
Unless you want to see another special effects ridden sci/fi fest, skip Jumper cause there is no real substance. No real story or plot, no character development and no fun...well, there was a bit of fun, but there should have been so much more.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I don't normally ever write reviews for movies, (usually I am content
with allowing others to draw their own personal opinions) but after
witnessing this train wreck of a movie I felt strongly compelled to
anyone out there about this...this *insert loathsome
adjective here* disaster of a movie.
So to start, is jumper a bad movie?
Well let's just say that about 1/3 the way through I found myself wholeheartedly rooting for the paper thin religious Zealot character played by Samuel Jackson oh and by the way I'm an Atheist-that's how bad this movie is! Really when a movie has you empathize with the stereotypical and underdeveloped 'bad guys' then you know it's complete and utter trash. The problem lies not in the movies overall concept, (which I will admit is somewhat interesting), but in its bland characters- out of the 3 'heroes' not one of them is likable in the least (and in fact the conceited main character David is almost unwatchable).
Christensen's character David is just so narcissistic and self-absorbed I was dumbfounded by it all. From his first lines, "This morning I saw the sun rise over the pyramids, had breakfast in Paris, and then caught some waves in Australia, all before lunch. But I wasn't always like this..." to his very last, he remains nothing but an arrogant selfish prick. Also, he is a brat who lacks even an ounce of human compassion. I mean there is just so much wrong with his character and yet the movie barely seems to notice. Throughout the movie he never grows as a character, he never learns anything. Instead, he does everything for himself. Not only does David posses NO redeeming qualities, even worse,he robs banks and doesn't save innocent people from dieing (first in the Tsunami and then in Chechnya-he literally just lets some poor guy get run over by a tank- that's our hero for ya!). You really could not make his character more unlikable if you tried (well maybe if you had him murder puppies but still he is pretty close to the absolute worst).
While the movie tries to get you to hate him, I couldn't bring myself to blame Jackson's character for wanting to kill Christensen, and in fact by the end of the film (I am using the term film here very loosely) I am sure most will find themselves rooting for Jackson against Christensen and his brain dead girlfriend! Throughout the movie, I saw Jackson's character as the only pathway to redemption namely my redemption; if he killed Christensen I would finally be allowed to leave the theater- Christensen would be dead and I would be free, everybody wins!
The worst part of all of this is that the movie isn't even so bad its good its just bad. Few movies have made me sick to my stomach but this one did- for 2 hours all it stands for is egotism and awful kindergarten acting. That said, can I say anything positive about this movie? Hmmm well the special effects were a bit above average (though they did little to make up for the fact that I had to spend time with the vapid Christensen).
Please, please don't be fooled by the preview. While it looks a little like "X-men" it has much more in common with "The Ugly American" (As a side note the director either hates Americans or, more likely, is a self-absorbed SOB).
There is just so much MORE wrong with this movie (Rachel Bilson, did they lobotomize you before shooting?)- Just don't see it. Take my word for it, your time and money are better spent elsewhere to say the least. I knew little about this movie before going into the theater to see it never again.
What would happen if you could teleport ANYWHERE in the world in the
blink of an eye? Thats the question explored in Jumper, a film thats as
fast and action packed as it is hollow and underdeveloped.
The films theme of individuals who can vanish and reappear anywhere they choose is a great idea but its execution is a little weak in Jumper. Why? The blame rest squarely on the films instance on being the start of a series. Instead of taking time to develop anything in the movie, Jumper just whizzes by at an incredible speed, setting up characters, ideas and plot points without expanding or resolving or developing them. The whole thing is made to kick start a franchise of films where the story would be explained in more detail, but come on man, when you pay to see a film, you expect to see a clearly defined beginning, a middle and a satisfying end- something that Jumper isn't too concerned with.
Another problem that ties in with the films lack of depth, are the actors. While Hayden Christensen is as bland as usual, the cast (including the usually electrifying Sam Jackson) just sleep walk their way through the superficial script. Only Jamie Bell gives it some effort- his cynical Irish jumper would have made a much better lead character than Anakin.
However, while the film is pretty shallow there are some glimmers of goodness. The action sequences are fun, fast and frequent, the visual effects are cool and there's never a dull moment due to the films super fast pace.
It might sound like Im being too harsh on the film but its hard not to be when the movies concept is so great and the end product is as underdeveloped as this. If the film had a more detailed, more fleshed out, more self contained story, Jumper would have been a classic.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Jumper was entertaining, but it was difficult to make myself care about any of the characters. There's no development, so you really don't understand the motives of either the bad guys or the good guys. And what really bothered me was that the "good guy" is completely hedonistic. He doesn't use his powers to help people (the best scene in the movie was when he disinterestedly walks away from a television news report about people in drowning in a flood); he just travels the world and robs banks. At times, he even endangers the public by using his powers irresponsibly. Although this could have been an interesting take on the superhero story, the film doesn't do enough to turn it into that; the writers hardly seem to realize just how self-involved the hero is. It was almost enough to make me pull for Samuel L. Jackson's character if only he hadn't been so one-dimensional. Although I was entertained for the duration of the film, it left me feeling cold.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Let me start by saying that I like action movies. Sci-fi ones? Even
better. The Fifth Element. Aliens. 300. All excellent.
But this? I am still reeling 6 days after being stuck in the cinema for 80 minutes (I left once the credits rolled). It is astonishingly bad. Thank goodness it was a free preview pass.
The premise was promising enough. A boy (Hayden Christensen, who should just give up acting) discovers in a near-death situation that he can teleport to anywhere he wants. So he grows up to become a rich globe trotter (where is the IRS when you need them), courtesy of bank vaults he can enter undetected, "jumping" from one end of the Earth to another, living the high life. Maybe because he was bored (I knew I was bored out of my mind by then), he goes back to his hometown to look for his teenage crush (Rachel Bilson, who is painful to watch). Interestingly, no one bats an eyelid to see him come back from the dead, the girl doesn't question where he has been, and agrees to fly across the globe with him to Rome. There he bumps into a fellow "jumper" (Jamie Bell, the sole glimmer in this abysmal mess), who warns him that there are "Paladins", lead by Samuel L. Jackson (sleepwalking through the role) who are out to get them. Right. Who ARE the "Paladins"? Why the vehemence? No one knows. And by now, I am sure no one cares. Lots of destruction ensues as our hero tries to save the girl and beat the "bad guys". Oh and there is the mom (Diane Lane in a thankless bit part), a Paladin, who is conflicted about having a son who can "jump", and abandoned him to save him. Whatever.
But the thing that clued me in as to how bad a movie I was about to sit through was the voice-over at the beginning. Note to the writers: Narration should ADD to what is on the screen, not TELL US EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING. It reminded me of annoying people in the cinema who comment on every action played out on the screen. You just want to find the remote and hit "Mute".
The ho-hum ending points to future sequels and prequels. It is the only logical reason I can think of to explain why a good director and THREE excellent writers left out so much to make this crap.
Can I vote "0"? No? OK then. "1". For the trailer. Nice job, Doug.
|Page 1 of 50:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|