Jumper: Franchir le temps

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.

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.

I'm not really sure what to think about this movie. It wasn't good, wasn't bad. The CG was mediocre, the acting was mediocre, the storyline was mediocre. Nothing about this movie was outstanding and nothing about it was truly terrible. One of main problems has to do with a lack of direction, it meandered without purpose for most of the first half, a coming-of-age story that never came of age with a protagonist who is unsure of his place. What could have been a meaty discussion of the merits of power or the responsibilites we all engender instead lapsed into a movie without any point. The romantic story was never fully developed and all of the personal stories about the protagonist felt like they were thrown in without thought. Overall, though, don't waste your time.

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!

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.