Jumper (2008) Poster

(2008)

User Reviews

Review this title
495 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
A great idea, shame about the execution.
Merklin24 February 2008
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.
100 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Good idea, but poorly executed
wuzzadaly14 February 2008
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.
367 out of 519 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not as bad as i expected considering the negative comments
thethumbthing21 February 2008
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!!!

7-10
258 out of 367 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Too Many Loose Ends For Jumper.
Matt_Layden19 February 2008
Warning: 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.
171 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not All Movies Are Intended To Be Groundbreaking
Megatronika21 February 2008
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.
237 out of 355 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Attention Span? What happened to Them?
Bihast924 February 2008
For some reason, somewhere/when/one in Hollywood decided that 90 minutes was the optimal length a movie should be. Even in superlative films like LOTR and The GodFathers, there are always people bitching about it being too long. This is an issue that drives me nuts because JUMPER really needed another half hour or so to provide exposition, and answer questions that remain unanswered due to this inane 90 minute time limit. All in all, an interesting plot, decent acting, cool locations, very thin in development. Realistically, this is a film for those of us who can shut off expectations and simply enjoy some widely improbable events. An art-house film it is not, nor does it try to be, to its credit. I would really like to see a sequel to this film, as the storyline has been established, and I seriously doubt my semi-Rant about movie lengths will change anything.

An enjoyable premise, I just wish it had more time to develop.....
32 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Don't miss the point
sattaravy14 February 2008
Warning: 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.
582 out of 901 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
hedonistic superhero
dedalus62615 February 2008
Warning: 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.
125 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Getting ahead of themselves - assuming audiences will be hungry for more
shiftyeyeddog1 March 2008
To sum it up quickly: Too much setup. This entire film should have been the first half-hour of a bigger story. They try to make this just a first chapter, like an "origin" story in a superhero film, but if you're gonna spend the whole film setting up a story, and leave an ending wide open for sequels, you better be damn sure the public will actually care enough to see more. I don't think that will be the case here. Perhaps if it had been filmed and marketed as a teen flick as the book was, the series could have a longer life; but as an adult franchise I'd be surprised if there are further installments.

It wasn't a bad flick. It was a fun distraction for an hour or two, with some good action and visuals, but it was certainly nothing special. I think much of that is due to the cast. Diane Lane is always good, but she was barely in it, and Samuel L. Jackson was just distracting - partly because of the pointless white hair, and partly because pairing him with Hayden Christiansen constantly reminded you of Star Wars and took you out of the movie. The main stars, Christensen himself and Rachel Bilson, were just so...blah. I actually would have preferred if Jamie Bell had been the star instead of just a supporting role.
99 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
It's only February, but I think we have the worst film of 2008. Right here.
singleguy121218 February 2008
Warning: 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.
137 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A tightly made film that could have been so much better.
evasmum12 February 2008
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!
271 out of 441 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Must see this on the big screen
dhaag23-120 February 2008
The idea of "jumping" is really neat and the movie creatively and thoroughly explored the possibilities given the premise. Besides the incredible effects, you have to see this in the theaters because of the amazing landscapes and city scenes. From the Colosseum in Rome, to the pyramids in Egypt, if you love to travel, this movie will take you all over the world.

OK, this wasn't the most thought provoking of films. As to the quality of acting, with all the action, there aren't the scenes available to showcase good acting. You go to a movie like this to be entertained for a bit, not for the intellectual stimulation, and both are valid forms of entertainment (unlike what other reviewers may imply).

Besides, Samuel Jackson is great and I always like his roles and having Rachel Bilson for eye candy doesn't hurt either.
112 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Unexpectedly fun.
dragonmysterious28 April 2013
Warning: 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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I actually liked it quite a bit
dagget_says_hi14 August 2008
Warning: 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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This Movie = The Height of Narcissism
forever18-now24 February 2008
Warning: 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 warn someone…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.
197 out of 320 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Hollywood hits a new low mark
foxx_129 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The film is so awful - I don't know where to start... First of all, Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson are such terrible actors: looking good in nice clothes doesn't make you an actor but Hollywood begs to differ I guess! It is just painful to watch these two moving around: Christensen with an emotionless "I-am-so-cool" face and Bilson acting like a 5-year old girlie at a Nativity play!! What makes them look even worse is the presence of talented actors like Samuel L. Jackson and the less famous Jamie Bell. Diane Lane is totally underused here and seems to be kind of embarrassed by her mini-role... But even if they had cast better actors for the lead roles, it wouldn't have saved the film simply because the script is astonishingly bad. It is not following any internal logic and plausibility: guy suddenly discovers his supernatural powers when he is 15 although his mother knew about them since he was 5 (?!?), then decides to rob banks which don't seem to have any surveillance cameras and just leaves his father behind not caring about him anymore. What he cares about is living a shallow and materialistic life in his penthouse, "jumping" around postcard locations, screwing horny chicks in Britain after watching people drown on the TV news etc. The script does not even try to imply that this is wrong - Christensen's character is portrayed as the main protagonist i.e. the "good guy" and all these actions and behaviour as being just a normal part of his life! The twisted message to all the adolescent viewers is that it's quite cool to steal money from banks as long as you don't get caught and then live it up - it is as simple as that! Our hero shows of course no remorse for his actions whatsoever: even the slightest concept of guilt, responsibility and conscience would have been beyond the scope of this tripe. The final redeeming quality of his character is supposed to be the fact that he did not kill the "villain" but left him stuck in the middle of nowhere instead?!? Wow, how noble and imaginative...

So if you are looking for stupefying entertainment - this film is for you. Be warned - you might lose some brain cells by watching it.
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A movie doesn't have to be filled with answers to be good
IceAngelWolf7 November 2010
I liked this movie. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from a teen who's mother abandoned him at age 5 and who's father seemed an alcoholic abuser. He doesn't know much about good emotion, he just goes out and takes what he needs. He didn't have a solid upbringing so it stands to reason he'd not care what he did as long as he got what he wanted.

This power gave him freedom from that world that left him clueless about what is right and what is wrong. The end seemed more like a beginning to me that he was able finally to come to grips with his purpose.

I think they picked the right people for the parts, it was certainly believable to me and seemed more like a preview of what is yet to come, perhaps if there is a sequel to come, more of the why's will shine through and will give a clearer definition, but this movie as is, certainly was not what many would expect but it did make a point of what happens when you just go out there and live without a care.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Jumper not the one to Amaze..........But the one to Entertain!
k-dhesi9 May 2009
Firstly, let me explain why the score for the movie is so low. The hype before it came out made all the critics Jump up and down and had all of them excited and looking forward to a amazing stunning sci-fi action. But obviously that's wrong, the movie was not Amazing, but it was very entertaining very unique and different, a tightly made film. I also agree it could have been a lot better but you can't change that now, but saying all that it's still a very good movie. Here's why.

It's a very different storyline, an a very interesting one at that, think about it Jumpers. Do you believe in them? The action fighting scenes were stunning and very cool, and what made it so cool was the special effects and visual effects of the movie. The movie again does not amaze but keeps you entertain for a good hour a two. It's simple. Jumper was Interesting,fun & cool. I guess you wouldn't find out until you watch. So take my advice and go and see it.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Film About As Creative As A Fast Food Restaurant!
liberalgems17 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's too bad that a law is not passed in the United States allowing you to get a full ticket refund if you walk out of the theater after watching 50% or less of a movie. A bell could ring or light could flash for a second to remind the patrons of a last call for a refund! If a system like this was in place in the United States, I guarantee you - rotten, boring trash like Jumper would never, ever be made! Half the theater would have emptied out in a heartbeat! This film is so incredibly vapid and mind-numbingly dull it genuinely insults the intelligence of the movie going audience!!

I realize movies actors need to make a living! But big stars like Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson should be ashamed of themselves - they can pick and choose their projects. Memo to Their Hollywood Agents: You are ruining their careers! If dreary, campy films is all you can find for them to work on then maybe you shouldn't be in the movie star agent business!

There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this godforsaken, awful story! The good guys teleport (A mutant power rip-off from the X-men). The bad guys are religious nuts that kill the teleporters in cold blood because "only God should have this power." Simple as that! Each group tries to kill the other. The good guys are all really sexy looking guys and gals in there 20's! All the bad guys are about 20 years older and could be the good guys parents! And in one case, the bad guy is a parent! One of the most memorable lines: "When you were five years old I had to either kill you or leave you. You shouldn't have come here (parent's home), but I will give you a head start." What a pal! When I heard this line I thought to myself, "how inspiring!" Parents are all defective or crazy religious zealots or non-existent. Religious people are all fanatical killers going back to the "Inquisition." Only narcissistic 20-Somethings are the heroes in the world of Jumper. But even they are so narcissistic, that when the Christmas Eve Tsunami hits the Indian Ocean nations of the world, does our hero, Hayden Christensen, go and use his incredible teleporting powers to save those drowning before his eyes on the T.V. news? Nope! He grabs a surf board and teleports to some Pacific Island country to surf those extra powerful waves! How disgusting and shocking! What are the writers of this story trying to tell us? That 20-30 year olds are so gross they only care about themselves? So, in a real sense, there are absolutely no good guys in this pathetic film!

Now that the writer's strike is over I hope those responsible for crafting this depressing trash get kicked out of the Writers Union! I'm sure there are plenty of talented writers in the world who can churn out a decent story, and would give their eye-teeth to break into show business! One can only hope!
55 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Thriller perfectly exemplifying the vices and virtues of "young adult" cinema
James4 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
To begin with the confessions, I should state that thus far I have not felt motivated to complete my watching of "Jumper", which leaves this review a little unfair. Furthermore - and pretty much in the same vein - I am not a typical member of this film's target audience!

To such an outsider, Doug Liman's 2008 piece is intriguing as an example of the genre. It starts off hugely attractively - it's slick, fast, worthwhile, nicely filmed, with clear motivation. A story smoothly and elegantly told and all is well.

We take a first knock when it becomes clear that the older David Rice is living his playboy lifestyle by stealing, but - what the heck - many a crime-thriller/comedy has played with this level of immorality before, whether it be the "The Lavender Hill Mob", the "Italian Job" or "Now Your See Me".

At around the same point in the film we get a little teaser which tells us quite a lot within the film plot, but also maybe about the piece itself. Our hero sees a TV news report to the effect that nobody would be able to reach people threatened with death by flooding in time. It then becomes clear he is looking for an umbrella and a mac but ... he goes nowhere near the flood and instead heads for London for a clubbing and one-night stand experience. Hayden Christensen's handsome young smoothie is not fundamentally evil, even if he robs banks and ignores the plight of people he could save, and he did have a difficult childhood, which he at times uses as a mask... and at this stage the immorality is still only at the level of poor-taste joke cashing in on the British capital's infamous weather. And perhaps this naughty joke is even a worthwhile one, since it makes it definitively clear that our "jumper" is NOT any kind of selfless superhero. If the makers are satirising the character or wanting us to hate him, well OK; but that is by no means clear from the context of the film, which does seem to be lionising David, even at second glance.

Hence, it's still in dubious taste, somehow. Presumably those flood victims are indeed victims, by the time he's hopping into bed with his conquest of the evening, but it's not weighing heavily - or at all - on David Rice's conscience, and do the makers REALLY condemn this attitude?

After that, we are very rapidly "jumped" to a tropical forest scene in which, pretty much without warning and seemingly out of context, a white-haired Samuel L. Jackson as "Roland" - let's say a representative of the fully "adult" world, as opposed to David's still-juvenile pleasure world - is murderously plunging a knife into the belly of a trussed-up young man, making gloating and nasty remarks.

At this point, we have left comedy and charm (and genuinely young as opposed to young-adult viewers) behind in a way that prevents them from ever really returning, no matter how hard the film tries. For try it apparently does, seeking to bat on with more rom-com stuff, no matter how disturbingly hopeless that cause may now seem - at least to an adult audience-member.

Thus a similar circumstance ensues as the longed-for romantic encounter between David and his attractively grown-up childhood sweetheart Millie (played by Rachel Bilson) finally takes place, ultimately in that loveliest and most cultured of cities, Rome. Unfortunately, the would-be love scenes at the Colosseum are ruined - again irrevocably - by a fight breaking out between our "jumper" and what later emerge are the long-time enemies of his kind. This fight involves both death and destruction - to an extent that again renders any attempt to rescue comedy or romance from the ruins impossible - at least from the point of view of a watcher of my age.

This is intriguing, as the above description would apply equally well to any James Bond film, and yet... Bond manages to fuse the different emotions, while "Jumper" just seems cruel, sneering, cynical and amoral. The deaths and violence here are just too throwaway, and somehow a line of decency and taste is irrevocably crossed.

As someone who works with young adults on a daily basis, I do note an increasing difficulty with such people not knowing "where to draw the line". The only remaining question would be: do films like "Jumper" encourage such moral ambiguity, or do they just reflect what is already happening out there in the people they aim at?
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
A good film abundant with flaws.
Sean_Probert28 February 2008
Warning: 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.

6/10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Nice idea, shame about everything else
dante_feditech19 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
You know, if I was being hunted by an bunch of insane psychotics who wanted to kill me, I'd be gosh darned tempted to SHOOT THEM WITH A GUN.

Sadly the hero, who otherwise can do anything and buy anything he wants, is too stupid to do this. And pick any substitute word for 'stupidity' you like. Chances are you'll be shouting it at the screen; probably along with some colourful metaphors.

It's not as if it's a 'hero' story. The guy's a complete jerk without a redeemable bone in his body from opening to credits. He changes in no way, learns nothing, and retains at all times an IQ smaller than his shoe size.

Which is pretty much the level of intelligence you'd need to reduce yourself to in order to enjoy this film.

Don't give them your money. Don't waste your time. Don't reward this kind of film making.
135 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great original idea, ruined by scriptwriters trying to "punch up" the story
chicagorob131 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I read the original Steven Gould Jumper books. The idea and stories were excellent. And though they were a bit slow at times, they were also a realistic view of what someone who had the power to 'jump' would go through dealing with this extraordinary gift. The movie, though, was a confusing mix of secret societies, unexplained histories and characters with no motivation.

The jumping was still there, and the fx was excellent. The problem was the Palladins, a centuries old secret society out to kill all the jumpers. No real reason, they just seemed jealous. It's never explained where they get their funding, why they feel the jumpers are evil or even how jumpers were ever hunted before electricity and 'wormhole generators.' In other words, they ruined the story.

Even the ending left no real closure or even clues. Evil was not stopped, David was still hunted and his mother was prepared to kill him (by the way, was she a Palladin who happened to have a Jumper son or did she become a Palladin because of him? She could have been edited out and nothing would have been missed).

They could have done so much better by trying to adopt one of the books, not just take the title and the original idea and write a script that for some reason tried to include "The DiVinci Code...."
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Liked it but did not love it
three_am25 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I liked this movie for its cool special effects and action scenes. I was always a fan of teleportation and so far this is the only movie to make it its running theme. I'll admit that Hayden Christensen is very nice to look at but not the best of actors around to hold this type of movie. I wanted to like the character David Rice but found myself not caring for him at all. His selfish actions were horrible (robbing banks, not using his ability to save drowning victims). He is no hero and I'm not sure if the point was to make him un-likable. I enjoyed the scenes with Griffin and agree with many here who say he stole the screen every time he appeared. My favorite was the fight with Roland and that highly mentioned car racing scene in Hong Kong. This is the first time seeing Sam L. Jackson in a flat out villainous role. He does it well. I won't be watching it again for the faulty plot but so far it's the most interesting movie in the theater.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Reasonable and Forgettable Entertainment
Claudio Carvalho6 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In Ann Arbor, the teenager David Rice was left by his mother when he was five year-old; he does not have a good relationship with his father; and he has a crush on his schoolmate Millie Harris. When David gives a snow globe with the Eiffel Tower to Millie, the bully Mark Kobold throws it onto a frozen river. David tries to retrieve the object, but the ice shatters and David fall under the ice. Suddenly he teleports himself to a library and discovers that he has the ability to jump anywhere he wants. He decides to run away home, moving to New York, and uses his power to rob a bank vault. Eight years later, David (Hayden Christensen) is living in a fancy apartment in New York and having a life full of adventure, traveling to the most exotic places in the world. He decides to visit Millie (Rachel Bilson) in Ann Arbor and invites her to visit Rome. While in the Coliseum, David meets the jumper Griffin (Jamie Bell) that explains to him that the dangerous Roland Cox (Samuel L. Jackson) and his team of Paladins are chasing him and his family and friends are in danger.

"Jumper" is a reasonable and forgettable entertainment, with a story full of action and special effects but lacking better clarification since neither the power of the Jumpers nor the reason of the existence of the Paladins nor why they kill the Jumpers is satisfactorily explained. Further, the story is typically written and developed to become a franchise with many sequels or a pilot of a TV show. The encounter of David with his mother in the end and the explanations she gives to him to leave her family are absolutely stupid and unnecessary. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Jumper"
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews