Join Listal here 
Existing members 
Login here 
Join Listal to create lists, share images, get recommendations and much more

Jumper review

Posted : 1 year, 6 months ago on 17 February 2013 12:40

Ok so i know this is not the best movie and that a lot of people didn't like it but i found it rather decent for what it is. The movie did have a lot going for it without explaining really anything at all and i didn't find that a problem like most people did.

Maybe Samuel L. Jackson just makes this film bearable also Rachel Bilson is super hot so that was also good.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Jumper review

Posted : 2 years, 6 months ago on 11 February 2012 11:36

The movie has such a great idea, a solid sci-fi base, also Samuel L. Jackson and Jamie Bell!, although spoiled mercylessly by stupidity of children and their teenage problems, all in age of twenty-something 'cause they, aww, didn't have any parents to raise them and any difficulties to grow through, so they never got a chance to really mature. Anyways, if it wasn't about how awful it is that bad guys kill jumpers who rob banks and do whatever they ever want, it would be something really really spectaculary great.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A missed opportunity

Posted : 3 years, 10 months ago on 14 October 2010 09:58

I really liked the concept but the story and especially the dialogs were rather lame.
I think Hayden Christensen was not bad at all in this movie. The guy just has a bad reputation, that's all. On the other hand, Rachel Bilson was not convincing at all but it is not entirely her fault. The issue was more with the love story angle which was not interesting at all. They could have found something more thrilling than that.
Finally, I liked also the fact that the main character was rather selfish and egocentric. Not at all a heroic behavior. Quite refresing but it was not developped at all in the movie either... Instead, you have the lame love story and the as-uninteresting and under-developped battle with the Paladins. Too bad.

To conclude, it is not as bad as everyone is saying, there are actually some great ideas but the end result is just so average. Still worth a look though.

PS : Jamie Bell was really good in this movie. Well done !

0 comments, Reply to this entry


Posted : 6 years ago on 27 August 2008 01:10

This movie, with all the hype aside, was a total blunder. The movie totally relies on the action aspects and not on a strong story line or plot. There was alot of faults throughtout this film and alot of concepts not carefully thought through. Like, if you could transport anywhere, why not simply go somewhere and hide? Why go against logic and common sense? And how did these people come about this special power? It is precedence of HANCOCK... All action, no story...

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Glossy crap!

Posted : 6 years ago on 18 August 2008 07:27

"Let me tell you about my day so far. Coffee in Paris, surfed the Maldives, took a little nap on Kilimanjaro. Oh, yeah, I got digits from this Polish chick in Rio. And then I jumped back for the final quarter of the N.B.A. finals--courtside of course. And all that was before lunch. I could go on, but all I'm saying is, I'm standing on top of the world."

During the 85 minutes (approximately) that occupy the running time of Jumper, director Doug Liman degrades his once promising career. Liman earned his chops when he helmed the successful first instalment of the Bourne series, The Bourne Identity. You may also remember Liman behind the camera of other films such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Liman's Jumper is pure science fiction action tosh that borders on the superhero genre. In early 2008, the film crept out and died due to the appallingly negative feedback from both critics and audiences alike. Not to mention the meagre box office earnage. This film is a lesson on how to create a disaster from a fairly promising premise. It fails to reach its lofty objectives due to the shoddy screenplay, gross miscasting and the lack of brains. Consequently the film is a mound of senseless garbage with fancy polishing.

David Rice (Christensen) discovers as a child that he possesses an incredibly unique ability: he can teleport. David learns of the special gift as a teenager when he nearly drowned. Following this occurrence he disappeared and let even his closest buddies believe that he was dead, including his father. David moves to the city where he makes his fortune by utilising his ability to rob banks. He begins living in desolation, using his teleporting abilities and stolen funds to create a luxurious existence for himself and live life to the fullest. David is soon entangled in a war that has raged for centuries between the jumpers and the Paladins that have sworn to kill them.

Jumper is an irretrievably flawed, stupid sci-fi action movie. Why is the film so flawed, I hear you think? Well, it's difficult to decide where to start, really. First of all, the plot is extremely thin. It's difficult to outline the plot because it's hard to establish the difference between a plot and a concept when it comes to this film. There's no sense of's a disjointed succession of worthless dialogue with action attached. It also never explains anything. Obviously the filmmakers were relying on a sequel being a definite thing, because here there's little explication to be found.

The character of David Rice is an awful protagonist. He's self-indulgent, arrogant, narcissistic and selfish. He cares only for himself and wants to dispatch the Paladins in order to continue living life to the fullest. He even breaks laws to impress his female friend! David always remains an arrogant, selfish prick. By the end he doesn't learn anything and never develops an ounce of human compassion. David's hedonistic personality makes him therefore a hero we don't want to root for. This is further exemplified when David is watching the news near the beginning of the movie. He sees people trapped in a flood who will surely die. Does he do anything to prevent people suffering horrible deaths in a watery grave? No, instead he continues being egotistical. The "hero" approach is probably too clichéd anyway, but it again begs the question of why should we empathise with David and hope he survives? Besides, the filmmakers take a different, far more clichéd approach...the cringe-worthy love story.

Driving the film is a dreadfully constructed screenplay. One would expect more from this trio of writers (one of which worked on Fight Club!). The central problem is the mounds of plot holes (of the "Why don't they just?" category) and inconsistencies. For plot holes, there are things like Jamie Bell's Griffin continually doing brainless things. If he didn't want David to pursue him, why search for David in the first place? To warn him of the Paladins? Due to David's stifled knowledge of the Paladins, it's quite commonsensical that David would want to seek his help which Griffin is not prepared to offer. Griffin also never tells David of several things (like the machines that the Paladins use to open the wormholes the jumpers leave), yet David's lack of knowledge infuriates Griffin when David's wormhole leads the Paladins straight to their secret lair. There are countless opportunities for the Paladins to use this machine of theirs as well, but they only decide to use it as the film nears its conclusion as one more surprise is necessary.

Furthermore, there are too many loose ends. Like we see David bring his wounded father into the hospital...after a five second display of emotionality, the scene ends and David leaves. We never hear anything further regarding David's father. Other loose ends include David's old school friend whom he leaves rotting in prison. Inconsistencies continually plague the frame as well. For example the craters the jumpers ostensibly leave that only rarely occur. When they do, the damage appears to repair itself quite quickly as well. Alrighty...

Then there's also the lack of brains in the script as well. The several different locations around the world are there for the sake of being there. David pursues Griffin to various global locations in one sequence. Firstly, if David can easily trace him then what's the point in fleeing anyway? Secondly, why not transport to a certain location on the planet and actually hide?! Instead of obeying logic, the filmmakers continually travel around the world. Worse yet, there is precious little variety. We see them in Egypt and Japan quite frequently and almost no-where else...even when David had a wall full of jump sites.

The acting is terribly below par as well. Hayden Christensen is most familiar as Anakin Skywalker in two of the Star Wars prequels. Once again he demonstrates his inability to portray a leading character. His monotonous accent and contrived facial expressions are truly atrocious. Everything about his performance is dull and dreary.
Samuel L. Jackson turns in his worst performance to date. Back in the days of Die Hard - With a Vengeance his foul-mouthed attitude and snappy lines made him a household name. Now he's tame, has no reason for what he's doing, and that white hair is just creepy.
Rachel Bilson is there solely for her looks. She brings no intensity to her character at all. Worse yet, there is zero chemistry between her and Christensen. Their love story is boring, trite and clichéd.
Jamie Bell appears to be the only actor who's trying. He offers an energetic portrayal of a character who's granted some clever dialogue to work with. He provides the film with its only moments of solid acting and quality script lines. Bell is among the film's redeeming features. If only his character of Griffin was the film's central hero. It's a shame that he's so underused. Another underused actress who shows potential is Kristen Stewart. Blink and you'll miss her!

The special effects are at least top notch. There's no denying that the teleporting and the various global locations looks spectacular despite not much reasoning behind them. Jumper also mildly succeeds in showing the jumpers teleporting from place to place. On that note, the subtle bank robberies are clever despite the further illogical facets behind them (why would there be a bathroom right next to the bank's central vault for customers to see?). The action is in tragically short supply unfortunately. The first half of the roughly 85-minute duration is dedicated to establishing David's selfish persona. Things then become terribly rushed. Instituting David's character is also fairly disappointing. The film opens with an embarrassingly bad narration courtesy of Christensen. This narration points out the bleeding obvious and Christensen's voice is like nails against a chalkboard.

Apparently director Doug Liman wanted Jumper to be the first entry in a new franchise that was to be the Bourne series of the superhero genre. With the film being only marginally successful, a sequel is probably never going to happen. And if it does, people will be far less inclined to watch it (however it must be noted that at the time of this review being written, a sequel has been announced but nothing much has happened in the film's development thus far). Jumper had a wonderfully hopeful concept and showed great potential behind the camera. Even with that in mind they still managed to screw it up. Apart from the impressive special effects there isn't a single remarkable thing to be noted about this movie. It's a mindless glossy science fiction action/adventure film. It's also so incredibly dumb, stupid, ridiculous and vapid that it numbs your brain.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

honestly? this is crap

Posted : 6 years, 2 months ago on 14 June 2008 03:00

The idea of teleportation is great. However this movie is aimed too much at teens who don't care about the script and its many many many flaws. This film is filled with those unfortunately, thus rendering the movie quite unbearable to watch.
Right from the beginning, Jumper sucks; there are too many questions that are never answered or even brought up, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. A better development of the story might have changed the entire movie and made it a whole lot better... then again maybe not.
I can't say the actors' performances were any good either. Jackson looks awful with white hair, and Christensen isn't that great an actor, no matter what he plays in.
Voting 3/10 simply because of the special effects, and because it's entertaining at best.
Avoid if you can.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Jumping plot holes

Posted : 6 years, 4 months ago on 11 April 2008 09:09

After I watched Jumper, I was surprised with how many times I've asked myself "why" and couldn't find answer for them during the 88 minutes of film. This indicates a disproportionally high number of plot holes for so little story time, something very disappointing taking into account the film had three experienced writers working on it: David S. Goyer who wrote Dark City, Jim Uhls who wrote Fight Club and Simon Kinberg who wrote Mr. & Mrs. Smith and xXx 2... well... two good writers anyway.

Based on a book by Steven Gould, the film is about David Rice (Hayden Christensen), a young man who has the amazing power to teleport to anywhere he wishes. Abandoned by his mother at the age of five and living with his father (Michael Rooker), he decides to travel around the world, using his super powers to break into banks to keep the high standards of his life. But he ends up by attracting the attention of the "Paladines", a group that has as only objective to elliminate the "Jumpers" such as David, led by the mean Roland (Samuel L. Jackson). Trying to protect the love of his childhood, Millie (Rachel Bilson), the boy meets another jumper, Griffin (Jamie Bell), who can help him defeat Roland and find out what's the real reason for his mother to leave him.

With a very interesting first act, which follows the experiences of the main character while he's discovering his newly discovered powers, Jumper shows us efficientely the several attractives of a gift like David's, who has the freedom which "normal" people can only dream of. On the other hand, the film doesn't makes the slightest effort to make him a sympathetic person. Quite the contrary actually, his selfishness is proven in a scene where he overhears on the TV something about people trapped in a flood and doesn't even consider the idea that he might help them. Not that the script needed such a dramatic plot, what could've ended being very cliché, but the film would surely benefit from some drama at all, since it has none. Instead, it simply makes the easier choise, the "lady in distress" scheme.

Meanwhile, the great Samuel L. Jackson (who, by the way, is still establishing** himself as the new Michael Caine: an enormous talent wasted for easy money, in several films that are not worthy of their presence) is Roland, a caricature who does the most evil deeds without any clear motivations, except being the bad guy, with a hair so white that makes his characterization even more absurd. And to top it all, he's also undermined by the script, that doesn't concern in establishing** the motivations of the Paladines (actually there's a silly attempt to connect them with the Catholic Church and with the Spanish Inquisition, but they fail miserabily). Why, for example, the jumpers are seen with such prejudice? How does the Paladines discover the existance of the jumpers? What's real about the statement that the jumpers become "evil" as time goes by? And evil in which sense? Yes, Roland talks about God with some frequency, but without the smallest conviction, like his "faith" was just an excuse to go on that bloody hunt for the jumpers.

At least the fact is that Jackson tries to give some energy to his character, while Hayden Christensen shows once again a huge lack of charisma well known to the Star Wars fans. His blank acting echoes in the same uninteresting performance of Rachel Bilson, who simply lets her beauty do the talking for her character. And if Diane Lane does nothing more than an appearence and a cameo by Tom Hulce as the "mentor" for David, clearly indicates that an entire subplot was abandoned. Jamie Bell, though, gives so much intensity to Griffin, that this character becomes the most interesting one of the film. It's a pitty that the "jumper" of the title is not him, since his character makes us, much more interested in knowing his past and follow his advertures than** the main character.

Giving a direction that ever matches the talent he used in Go!, The Bourne Identity or even the weak Mr. & Mrs. Smith, filmmaker Doug Liman allows the script and the art direction make the mistake of placing the bathroom of a bank by the side of a maximum security safe, not to mention the action scenes (action?) that are his specialities, minimally inventive or even exciting, something basic for the genre. But aren't only of mistakes that this film is made, the production compensates the average photography with an infinity of plans shot in magnificent locations in Egypt, England, France (yay!!) and Japan, what at least makes Jumper into some kind of brief touristic journey. Still, the lack of structure of the script makes the narrative undeniebly empty, since the action doesn't convince, the romance is silly and the characters shallow.

Still not convinced the film has even more plot holes? So why Roland doesn't kill the man who was teleported to the bank safe, since he witnessed David's powers? Then again, why does he should kill anybody else closer to the hero? And when David follows Griffin, why does he teleport to so many different places if this won't make much difference, since the other one is perfectly capable to follow him? Obvious answer: allowing the production to travel the world and put some interest in the sequence, even if it doesn't give any logic to the plot. And why the jumpers doesn't simply teleport again when they're being followed by the Paladines, since they leave behind their "machines" (which are never fully explained either) after the first jump?

Mentioning briefly some "war" between jumpers and paladines, without giving it the proper attention, the film leaves all those holes, simply to focus its narrative in an unsatisfactory way, leaving all kinds of "hooks" behind, what's a shame, because in due to excess of worries about further sequels, prequels and the tons of money they can make, the film itself ends up forgotten by the makers.

**Thanks Thilian for the "heads up" :)

0 comments, Reply to this entry

It Could Have Been So Much Better.

Posted : 6 years, 5 months ago on 17 March 2008 02:11

"Jumper", was really not good. The story, was rushed, and had so many flaws. If the film, had been a half hour longer, it would have had more time, to develop. The acting, was good from Hayden Christenson, and Samuel L. Jackson, but Rachel Bilson was horrible, and made the film that much worse. There were a few very cheesy scenes in this one aswell. I thought the concept, of "Jumper", was good, and interesting, but it just wasn't pulled off well.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Leave the romance out

Posted : 6 years, 6 months ago on 21 February 2008 12:29

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) discovers that he has the ability to teleport anywhere in the world but later finds out that he isn't alone and that there are a group of people who have sworn to kill him and all other "Jumpers".

The concept of Jumper is interesting - what would you do if you could be anywhere you wanted? And what are the consequences of your actions.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't delve enough into why there are jumpers and why they're being sought after. It spends too much time on developing the romantic interest but Rachel Bilson is terrible and I found myself tuning out to this part of the movie.

Far more interesting are the interactions between Christensen and Jamie Bell - the action sequences involving the two are fantastic! As are the special effects of jumping.

I also liked the relationship between Christensen and Micheal Rooker who plays his father.

If Doug Liman had focused more on these two aspects than on the romance Jumper would have been much better movie.

0 comments, Reply to this entry