Jumper

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

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'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.

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.

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!