Avaliações de usuários

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.....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Originally saw in the theater just wasn't reviewing back then. I love the music, cinematography is perfect, concept is solid enough, and fun entertainment for 88 minutes. Maybe could've been different but for the way it is Doug Liman created a great film in it's own way has the right amount of info, character development fair amount, stylish action, and great lines! Jamie Bell is easily the best thing about Jumper I enjoy him in any role always spot on goofy personality or serious side is great too like Chumscrubber. There's defiantly not enough movies about teleportation at least that I know of Jumper is great to me.

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.

This is one of those films that starts off good, with a great premise, begins to become "so-so" halfway through, and then gets increasingly annoying to the point where you hate all the characters and the film is a chore to finish. I will say this: some of the action scenes at the end are the best of the movie and worth hanging around for, especially since the film is less than an hour-and-a-half. However, as most other reviewers seem to agree, when you have a lead character who is not likable, it really detracts from the story.

Hayden Christensen plays that lead, "David Rice," a young guy given the powers of teleporting, where he can instantly change where he is - from Ann Arbor to Cairo, if he so desires. After some practice, he can learn to bring other people and objects with him. The only times I've seen Christensen are when he's played "Anakin Sykwalker" in two installments of the mega-hit "Star Wars" films. (Jake Lloyd played the very young Skywalker in "Anakin's" first appearance.)

However, he's no "Skywalker" in this film, good-guy-wise. He isn't exactly "Peter Parker," either. As "Spiderman," Parker's creed is "With great power, comes great responsibility." With Rice, it's more like "get everything you can, and screw 'em!" I make the Spiderman analogy because Rice has super powers with the teleportation thing.

This is not a "superhero" movie, though, because the lead character is not a "hero," in any sense of the word. To emphasize that point, there's a scene early on in which Rice is watching a TV program about flood victims and he just nonchalantly walks away from the set, totally disinterested. That's one of the points: the kid has these powers to do some good and could care less. The problem with that, beside the obvious moral shortcomings, is that it doesn't give the viewer - you and me - anyone to really root for in the picture. He meets another teleporter and that guy is the same: a slimeball only interested in saving his own skin. That guy is "Griffin," an Irishman who, as a kid, played the lead in "Billy Elliott." The villain in the movie is "Roland," played by Samuel L. Jackson's who sports a ridiculous-looking ultra-white "do." He plays a "religious zealot" (there is no other kind in the film world) out to kill all the teleporters. He's a "paladin," as is someone else in the film, which is a surprise.

Since none of the characters were anyone you could root for, I tried to just sat back and enjoy the special-effects and the scenery, which were the positive points of the movie. We get quick tours of the world, from the Grand Canyon to Rome, and the special-effects of the teleporters "jumping" from one location to another was cool.

There was a love interest but little chemistry between David and "Millie" (Rachel Belson), a pretty but another annoying character.

So there you have it: the good and the bad. At least you've been warned.