Jumper

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.....

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 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

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.

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.