IMDb > Jumper (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Jumper More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 484 reviews in total 

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I actually liked it quite a bit

Author: dagget_says_hi from Australia
14 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Everyone in the world wishes they could teleport. Don't say "No, I don't" because everyone has thought about it at least once, so don't make yourself a liar.

Jumper is the story of David Rice (Christensen) who learns he has the ability to "Jump" (teleport) anywhere in the world. But when a murderous religious group called the "Paladins" start hunting them down one by one, David, along with Millie (Bilson) and fellow jumper Griffin (Bell) must fight against head Paladin Roland (Jackson).

Here's the breakdown, the short breakdown actually; great story, good acting, nice action, superb effects. Done and done.

The only bad thing about the movie was the running time, which is why this only gets 9/10.

Don't miss the point when you watch this film! It's good, light-hearted entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A good film abundant with flaws.

Author: Sean_Probert from United Kingdom
28 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wasn't really expecting much from the hideous reviews and the fact that Hayden Christensen really can't act. However, was quite good I thought, but thats mainly due to the fact that it was pretty short meaning it was a pacey action movie with terrible dialogue.

Hayden Christensen wasn't as bad here as he was in Star Wars movies as had a fun, cheekiness to his character that was immediately likable despite his flaw filled character. However, he still hasn't turned into "good actor" yet as some delivery of lines were painful and I never really believed he loved Rachel Bilson's character.

Speaking of The OC famed star. She was much better than Christensen, giving her character a feisty spirit with some great one-liners. There was time when she was given poor dialogue but she managed (which only she & Bell managed) to make it work. Despite some slippery occasions. Bilson was fairly solid throughout.

Jamie Bell is the only actor in this who gives an almost faultless performance. The movie picks up when he is introduced and his one liners are far better than what any other cast member had to deliver. He was effectively unbelievable as who in their right mind would want to fight back against the Paladins. Despite of this, Bell pulled a great performance.

The final performance I will mention is that of Mr Jackson. Basically, he sucked. He didn't even try to make the script work unlike the other characters. He basically looked bored throughout and his performance had no effort whatsoever in it, I would say it's nearing his worst performance yet.

The effects in this movie were brilliant. Showing the glories of Rome to the wetness of London, the movie really broadened it's locations here and I will never forget the bus through the desert scene which is worth a ticket alone. The jumping was impressive without verging on showing off, even though the final act seemed a little bit too effect filled, as if it was trying to show off.

The script, as mentioned, was dreadful. So much potential in the idea yet they couldn't bring the right dialogue to execute it. The cast despite my fairly good reviews had such trouble in using this that their were times where I felt sorry for them as they must've known what they were saying was cack.

I don't understand why they did make it so short, despite it meaning it went very quickly, it meant that the scene where there could've been some character development were cut short meaning it was 4/5 lines of dialogue then a cut to an explosion or some sort of fight. There were so many Bilson/Christensen scenes that could've been vastly improved had they lengthened the running time by 20 minutes or so. However, seeing the script that might not have benefited the film at all.

So, to sum up. The film has great effects and great action with a terrible script and some ropey acting, a typical blockbuster. However something in the shooting style and idea of the film separates it from the usual cack that comes around this time of year (Ghost Rider, anyone?). A good film abundant with flaws.


Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Very entertaining film... rating doesn't reflect it's quality!

Author: from London, UK
21 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a very enjoyable film if you can think outside of the box! I like analyzing films but with some you just enjoy the ride so much that you forget about the unanswered questions... which I'm sure will be answered in the sequel! Okay the film has its critics but only those that cannot picture an ordinary realistic person with superpowers... unless they're saving the day by night like superman or spiderman.

Jumper is a film that many people will enjoy. The only exceptions that may not like it are those that can't get over their obsession of 'old classics', the ones that get paid to make contrasting reviews and the ones that tend to 'herd' with the first rating or opinion that they encounter... oh and not the forget the category that look for every question in the film to be answered as they lack capacity to make reasonable assumptions.


Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

for my wasted money T-T

Author: lyra from Japan
2 March 2008

its difficult to not fall asleep in cinema,and when i walked out of the cinema, i'm sure my hard earned money and my time were wasted.

maybe many persons were interested by the trials, actually i just wanted to see Hayden Christensen on a big screen. but now, i wish i would not see him in a movie which is so boring and stupid like "jumper".

i don't know what this movie tried to tell us? jumpers are cool? or they are miserable 'cause they are hunted, and even their family and friends? actually,if every jumper lives a life like David, i would not think the jumper-hunters were wrong. i would think the jumper-hunters were heroes in this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

the truth about jumper

Author: shartblaster from Australia
19 May 2008

Okay, here it is.....The truth about "jumper"

Jumper is not really a film at all, though you could be forgiven for thinking differently after watching the intense trailers.

You see it starts like a real movie with real actors and a real story. In fact the start gave me a deep feeling of "hell yeah, I'm gonna enjoy this" But then comes Christensen, sporting a monotonous voice that could put David Duchovny to shame and looking nothing at all like his younger and better acted character from the first scene. Now the so called "movie" shows it's true colors. A flat series of boring uninteresting events, dragged out over an hour and a half and offering no reason for its crazy-ass antics. no wonder Samuel L. is so angry in this movie.

Want an explanation? Well i did't get one so neither do you.The "making of" documentary holds a lot more plot than the movie itself but still didn't give any answers as to why an angry, white haired Sam Jackson is chasing a super serious and ultra talentless Christensen over all the world vaguely yelling something about god. It offers no explanation for Christensen's powers or why he is still employed in the film industry and not doing voice-overs for the robots.and above all it does not in any way explain why people spent money on this utter whiff of fart called Jumper.

CONCLUSION: Jumper is not a movie but a boring dry piece of dog turd, cleverly disguised with expensive special effects.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Unexpectedly fun.

Author: dragonmysterious from Singapore
28 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Initially, I thought Jumper would be just another wannabe-superhero film. However, it was far from that. A person who suddenly found out he had the power to teleport or 'jump' in this context when he was trapped in the water under ice. It is a very interesting story to me. Not surprising though, as David Goyer (writer of Man of Steel, and the Dark Knight Trilogy, and more) was one-third of its screenplay writers.

Samuel L Jackson was pretty cool in the film. I kept guessing what would happen in the film. The flow was pretty good. I like how David brought the problems to himself. Putting a man he was fighting against into a bank which he previously robbed. (Did he not think he would get implicated?) However, the ending was too open. Leaving his friend on the electrical stand, Samuel L Jackson stranded in the desert, and talking to his Mum (who is a Paladin). It would be a pity if a second film is not done (Though it probably will be done).

However, I would much rather see a Nightcrawler Origins film. (Okay, maybe not relevant) I'm definitely looking forward to see its sequel though. It better be unexpected.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

And once again people expect too much...

Author: xyz72 from Germany
28 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Jumper" is a popcorn action flick. And for that purpose it is quite good. Now I went to IMDb to look at some opinions AFTER watching it and was surprised to see how negative most reviews are. It seems to me many people expected some huge blockbuster with a great, thought out story, compelling characters and stunning cinematography. You will not get that from "Jumper".

However, there is no reason to believe you will. The film is quite clearly meant to be simple entertainment, something to watch while killing time when you just want to be entertained and it did that job for me. I like the premise and it was build into an OK story with mostly quite decent acting. There were low-points and far too many clichés(the whole first 10 minutes were one, as was the whole love relationship but the film entertained me for 90 minutes and I don't regret watching it, it was fun. I don't think I will ever watch it again, but it was surely not bad cinema compared to other, similar films.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good Actors and Props, Crappy Movie

Author: Beauchamps from United States
8 March 2008

It was an entirely boring movie. My friends and I saw it for Hayden alone. In fact, my BFF had no idea what a Paladin was... I think she was gawking at "David" too much. Anyways, if you are a Hayden Christensen fan, by all means go. He wears a variety of ill-fitting clothes that perverted teenage girls will fully enjoy watching. (Creepy teenage boys will also like Rachel Bilson, because she's in it too.) Hmmm... Other good things... Oh, yeah! There was a pretty snow globe in it... some greats scenes for those who frequently say, "ooh shiny!" And... Hayden looks cool in that scene with the clock tower. It's sort of a cross between V for Vendetta and Mary Poppins.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Not Highlander...

Author: p-stepien from United Kingdom
24 January 2010

A special breed of people exist in this world - thanks to a genetic defect they can transport themselves at will within a blink of an eye to any place on Earth which they have already seen. David Rice (Hayden Christiansen) first discovers his gift at the age of 15, when he by chance initiates it when trying to escape certain icy death beneath a frozen river. This occurrence springs a sequence of events, where he leaves home, robs a bank without opening any locks and then starts living the good life with the stolen money. Unknown to him he is not the only 'jumper' out there and humankind is not wholly unaware of their existence...

Actually there is a war going on between the Jumpers and the Paladins, a sect of human beings who deem this ability a travesty and hence aim to eliminate all Jumpers.

A mildly hip and entertaining movie, which is suitable for a night out or in with some popcorn. Basically burning time, but there is nothing in this Highlander wannabee movie thats really intrigues, hence my surprise at finding out that a sequel is planned. A semi-successful super-hero story with no real heart and an extremely predictable dramatic structure. The magic and bleakness necessary for the movie to really work was substituted for rad cars, special effects, interesting locations and some nice camera-work. All in all a very rushed script and any promise that the movie had was killed off by the scripwriters focusing too much attention on making the movie feel like something taken out of a Michael Bay diary.

Special effects are really cool (i.e. the very impressive London bus scene), but it is unable to cover the skin-deep script, which really could have been much more inventive, but seemed to only scratch any surface of the possibility set out by the basic plot.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Superb idea for a storyline... unfortunately underdeveloped...

Author: pokoporipettaloo from United States
21 May 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The idea of Jumpers and Paladins who hunt them is such an incredible idea! This movie could've been another 'Lord of the Rings', so to speak! Unfortunately, it fell short.

Before I pick out the bad, lets say what was good in the movie. Well Samuel L. Jackson delivered quite a performance, as expected. Hayden could've done better (although he wasn't bad at all) and I wish Rachel DID do better. Jamie, in my opinion, did quite well (better than Hayden). The effects were AWESOME and the idea itself deserves an Oscar. Now... the bad.

For one thing, the movie was too short for its own good. 1h and 28min? Come ON. For such a grand idea, the movie could've easily surpassed 2hrs. The directors could've spent more time fleshing out the characters. We barely got to know David and lets not even start on Millie. There could've been much more with the incredibly ironic relationship between David and his mother. Instead, she appeared randomly in the middle of the movie and very briefly at the end. There could've been more about Griffin, another seemingly random character with no explanation.

All in all, this movie had enormous potential to be something great. Close, but no cigar. But by all means, go see it, if not for the special effects, then for Hayden's hotness ^^

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 49: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history