Jumper

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.

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.....

Jumper is a decent movie, I might be a little bias because I've always liked this movie. The premise alone sounds amazing, the way its set up, how the characters are introduced, the action sequences, and the special effects are simply good. The film has elements of a superhero movie but is - more so than actual superhero movies these days - grounded in reality. There are very few futuristic looking gadgets, the locations and the weapons are all realistic, making the Jumpers feel like a secret part of society that could actually exist.

The characters in Jumpers seem like regular people. Millie (Rachel Bilson) acts and reacts like a normal girl whose not a comic book fan or someone who doesn't entertain the idea that teleportation is possibility. Griffin (Jamie Bell) is a bit a dick and David Rice (Hayden Christensen) doesn't even seem to realize what's happening to him, he lives in his bubble and doing his own thing - like most people would in his case.

The film does have its faults and for me there two main problems: The first, I've never read the book but from what I understand in the movie, a Jumper can withstand a large amount of electricity - higher than normal people do. But some of the hits David got in the action sequences should have killed him if he's physically like any human, which seem to be the case and would have been a great weakness to have for the character, a regular guy who can teleport. The second problems is the ending of the film, it's not the best, I could have come up with something better.

Anyway, I liked Jumper when it came out, even though I always knew that there wouldn't be a sequel. It's an entertaining movie and over the years, whenever I watched it back I found those little pop culture references that I hadn't notice before. For example this time around I noticed a Marvel Team up reference that is kind of overused but is still cool.

@wornoutspines

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.

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.