User Reviews

For all haters.

To me, there's an important message hidden in this film. I feel that the makers of this film wanted to deliver a message. In this genre of film, almost all the "gifted" individuals turned out to be some superhero or saviour of mankind. Like Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Daredevil, X-men, Fantastic 4.. just to name a few.

But the question is, if we really got these super-human powers, who will actually sacrifice it all for the good of man kind? This is the message the makers of Jumper is trying deliver to the audiences. The guy in this film, without giving too much away, is nothing but a selfish prick. All the things he does with his power is for himself, no one else.

To me, the most meaningful scene in this film, is the few seconds when he watched the News of TV, saw a bunch of people get caught in flood, and then emotionlessly turned it off.

He could have gone and saved those people, and become a stereo-type hero. But he didn't. He got superpower, he use it to enjoy life. It's that simple.

But isn't it what we would all do, if we got his power? This ain't an Oscar winning film, but it got a clear and simple message. Which I believe allows it to beat all superhero films, simply because it's more realistic.

"With greater power, comes greater responsibility"? Bullocks. Get real. We're all selfish animals.

After falling into a lake covered in ice, David Rice teleports himself into a public library. He leaves home and goes to New York to hone his skills, which he uses to rob banks. After 8 years David finds that he's not the only one, and that there's been a war going on for centuries. Now those people sworn to kill Jumpers are after him.

Hayden Christensen was wooden as a board as Anakin in the Star Wars prequels, but out of nowhere showed he actually has some acting chops when he played a lying journalist in Shattered Glass. Well, now he's back in the sci/fi genre and for some reason he decides to jump back on that wooden board. I don't know why, but it seems that sci/fi films bring out the bad in him.

Jumper is an intriguing idea, it has the opportunity to bring a new series to film. The idea of people who can teleport to anywhere at anytime has been done before yes, but now we have people who have been sworn to kill them and that they've been doing it for hundreds of years. Sounds pretty epic, but Jumper doesn't really jump into any of that, they only mention it. Why? I have no clue, to me it sounded more interesting then what they were actually showing us.

The filmmakers had a great chance to go back in history and show us this war, as one character mentions, but not once do we get any idea of any of it. There is a lot more story to tell with these Jumpers, but we never get any of it, we only scratch the surface. Are they that confident that it will do so well that they will give a bit more in a sequel? Or did they really have no idea what they were doing and just hope the audience liked the jump scenes.

Those jump scenes by the way are nicely done. No, they never reach the coolness of Nightcrawler from X-Men 2, but they are very well done. One second your in New York and the next your sitting on top of Big Ben in London. With a film like this you know the special effects will either make or break the film, because so much of it relies on that. The believability that these people are actually teleporting themselves to another location. They pulled it off for the most part. My complaints are pretty much what other people will probably have. They teleport in open area, for everyone to see, but unless there's a fight going on no one seems to notice, or care. Also, wouldn't Christensen be really fat by now? 8 years of teleporting means he never moves anywhere. He won't even slide 2 feet over on a couch to get a converter. Does teleporting burn calories as well? You know those people sworn to kill them, one is Rolan, played by Samuel L Jackson. Jackson does what he always does, be a bad ass mofo. Here is sports white hair and spews off some dialogue that only God should be at all places at once. Are they the good guys? After all, our so called hero is robbing banks and breaking Italian Collisuem rules. Christensen isn't really likable, so many people will end up routing for Jackson to take him out. They fight scenes are too special, they consist of jumping and using a device that Scorpion from Mortal Kombat should sue for. Once you take away all the jazz from the jumping, you're left with nothing really.

The story is boring. Guy can jump, people find him and try to kill him, he gets away. In between he gets back together with a girl he use to like when he was a kid, they go to Rome because "hey, all girls will put their lives on hold to go to Rome with a guy they knew back in Highschool but haven't seen for 8 years...and maybe I'll have sex with him too." Bilson is cute, but she is given nothing to do besides ask questions. The real star here is Jamie Bell, who plays Griffin, another Jumper. He's the person we really want to follow in this story, he's funny, kicks ass and takes no crap from anyone.

By the time the film is over you're left sitting in your seat asking yourself, but what about this and what about that. There are so many loose ends in Jumper it's funny. We never know what happens to his father, we never know what happens to Griffin, we are never given anything but a sentence for a back story on these people. Also, the last 5 minutes seems like a last minute addition to try to tie one of those loose ends up. It seems way too forced, but you know it has to happen because there is no way this film can end without them going back to it. These loose ends will most likely be sorted out in the sequel. That's how films like this are probably going to end now, leave so many things unanswered that there just has to be another one.

Unless you want to see another special effects ridden sci/fi fest, skip Jumper cause there is no real substance. No real story or plot, no character development and no fun...well, there was a bit of fun, but there should have been so much more.

Jumper is a dumb superhero movie ruining its high-concept sci-fi/fantasy premise with a weak script.

David (Hayden Christensen) can teleport around the world at will, so he robs banks, visits exotic locales and seduces hot hicks, including his High School Love (Rachel Bilson); so-called "Paladins" led by Roland (a slumming Samuel L. Jackson) hunt for him.

Christensen and Bilson complement each other perfectly, meaning they are both good-looking and boring, staring at disappearing people and mysterious assassins with casual bafflement. Jackson needs more movies worthy of his talent before he joins the list of sell-out celebrities and we get to see him in "Meet the (Mother)Fockers 3".

Since we have no reason to sympathize with the leads, there is ultimately nothing at stake. What's funny is, Paladins seem quite correct: David is a thief and the other "Jumper" we meet, Griffin (Jamie Bell), no model citizen either. Sadly, the movie just delivers these unlikable protagonists and expects us to root for them because... hey, it's in the script. A better film would have focused on Griffin and Roland, giving them more depth and continuously challenging our allegiances.

Even sillier is how Jumpers are ludicrously overpowered compared to their hunters. They are like Nightcrawler with cheat codes, able to get everywhere on Earth in a split-second. Since the movie informs us Paladins have been persecuting Jumpers since the Middle Ages, one has to wonder HOW, since the only effective weapons against them involve high-tech gadgets.

Let's be kind and call this one a mess.

4/10.

Initially, I thought Jumper would be just another wannabe-superhero film. However, it was far from that. A person who suddenly found out he had the power to teleport or 'jump' in this context when he was trapped in the water under ice. It is a very interesting story to me. Not surprising though, as David Goyer (writer of Man of Steel, and the Dark Knight Trilogy, and more) was one-third of its screenplay writers.

Samuel L Jackson was pretty cool in the film. I kept guessing what would happen in the film. The flow was pretty good. I like how David brought the problems to himself. Putting a man he was fighting against into a bank which he previously robbed. (Did he not think he would get implicated?) However, the ending was too open. Leaving his friend on the electrical stand, Samuel L Jackson stranded in the desert, and talking to his Mum (who is a Paladin). It would be a pity if a second film is not done (Though it probably will be done).

However, I would much rather see a Nightcrawler Origins film. (Okay, maybe not relevant) I'm definitely looking forward to see its sequel though. It better be unexpected.

Jumper was entertaining, but it was difficult to make myself care about any of the characters. There's no development, so you really don't understand the motives of either the bad guys or the good guys. And what really bothered me was that the "good guy" is completely hedonistic. He doesn't use his powers to help people (the best scene in the movie was when he disinterestedly walks away from a television news report about people in drowning in a flood); he just travels the world and robs banks. At times, he even endangers the public by using his powers irresponsibly. Although this could have been an interesting take on the superhero story, the film doesn't do enough to turn it into that; the writers hardly seem to realize just how self-involved the hero is. It was almost enough to make me pull for Samuel L. Jackson's character… if only he hadn't been so one-dimensional. Although I was entertained for the duration of the film, it left me feeling cold.

I read the original Steven Gould Jumper books. The idea and stories were excellent. And though they were a bit slow at times, they were also a realistic view of what someone who had the power to 'jump' would go through dealing with this extraordinary gift. The movie, though, was a confusing mix of secret societies, unexplained histories and characters with no motivation.

The jumping was still there, and the fx was excellent. The problem was the Palladins, a centuries old secret society out to kill all the jumpers. No real reason, they just seemed jealous. It's never explained where they get their funding, why they feel the jumpers are evil or even how jumpers were ever hunted before electricity and 'wormhole generators.' In other words, they ruined the story.

Even the ending left no real closure or even clues. Evil was not stopped, David was still hunted and his mother was prepared to kill him (by the way, was she a Palladin who happened to have a Jumper son or did she become a Palladin because of him? She could have been edited out and nothing would have been missed).

They could have done so much better by trying to adopt one of the books, not just take the title and the original idea and write a script that for some reason tried to include "The DiVinci Code...."

In Ann Arbor, the teenager David Rice was left by his mother when he was five year-old; he does not have a good relationship with his father; and he has a crush on his schoolmate Millie Harris. When David gives a snow globe with the Eiffel Tower to Millie, the bully Mark Kobold throws it onto a frozen river. David tries to retrieve the object, but the ice shatters and David fall under the ice. Suddenly he teleports himself to a library and discovers that he has the ability to jump anywhere he wants. He decides to run away home, moving to New York, and uses his power to rob a bank vault. Eight years later, David (Hayden Christensen) is living in a fancy apartment in New York and having a life full of adventure, traveling to the most exotic places in the world. He decides to visit Millie (Rachel Bilson) in Ann Arbor and invites her to visit Rome. While in the Coliseum, David meets the jumper Griffin (Jamie Bell) that explains to him that the dangerous Roland Cox (Samuel L. Jackson) and his team of Paladins are chasing him and his family and friends are in danger.

"Jumper" is a reasonable and forgettable entertainment, with a story full of action and special effects but lacking better clarification since neither the power of the Jumpers nor the reason of the existence of the Paladins nor why they kill the Jumpers is satisfactorily explained. Further, the story is typically written and developed to become a franchise with many sequels or a pilot of a TV show. The encounter of David with his mother in the end and the explanations she gives to him to leave her family are absolutely stupid and unnecessary. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Jumper"

OK, so I might get slated for calling a film about teleportation implausible, but here goes. Jumper is a film about David Rice who, while trying to impress his high-school crush Millie, falls through ice into a river and, in panic, manages to transport himself in the blink of an eye to the local library. Thinking that he can use this talent to live large, he deserts his father, his friends and everyone else in search of the high life. Basically meaning robbing banks and having lunch on top of the Sphynx.

8 years later and he decides to go after his crush Millie, who after a tiny amount of persuasion agrees to travel with him to Rome, just because. Wait a second... my plausibility-sense is tingling. Without any question of his history, she agrees to travel the world with someone everyone thought was dead.

Just at the right moment, Samuel L Jackson appears wearing a white wig and bearing the spine-tingling name Roland. Right. To be fair, Jackson is the only actor in the movie who shines - Hayden Christensen plays his character more wooden than... a plank of wood, and Rachel Bilson playing Millie is distinctly unabashed when she not only finds her dead friend on her doorstep but when she finds out he can teleport across the globe.

So, more fights, the Sphynx, brief historical backplot about 'Jumpers' and 'Paladins' supplied by a very energetic Jamie Bell who carries the movie into more of a frenzy, which is a good thing, because there is never any real sense of danger at all. Jamie Bell speaking very fast in a Northern accent definitely adds to the excitement, but again we only get more questions and less answers.

Jumper finishes very open-ended and many will feel cheated by the time the credits come up. It all seems like you've been spending 86 minutes gearing up for a final showdown... then the names roll.

However, on an entertainment level it doesn't disappoint. The teleportation idea works very well for some fight scenes - look out for the Colosseum one in particular - but they don't last long and they are few and far between.

But hey, it's only a movie.

I don't normally ever write reviews for movies, (usually I am content with allowing others to draw their own personal opinions) but after witnessing this train wreck of a movie I felt strongly compelled to warn someone…anyone out there about this...this *insert loathsome adjective here* disaster of a movie.

So to start, is jumper a bad movie?

Well let's just say that about 1/3 the way through I found myself wholeheartedly rooting for the paper thin religious Zealot character played by Samuel Jackson …oh and by the way I'm an Atheist-that's how bad this movie is! Really when a movie has you empathize with the stereotypical and underdeveloped 'bad guys' then you know it's complete and utter trash. The problem lies not in the movies overall concept, (which I will admit is somewhat interesting), but in its bland characters- out of the 3 'heroes' not one of them is likable in the least (and in fact the conceited main character David is almost unwatchable).

Christensen's character David is just so narcissistic and self-absorbed I was dumbfounded by it all. From his first lines, "This morning I saw the sun rise over the pyramids, had breakfast in Paris, and then caught some waves in Australia, all before lunch. But I wasn't always like this..." to his very last, he remains nothing but an arrogant selfish prick. Also, he is a brat who lacks even an ounce of human compassion. I mean there is just so much wrong with his character and yet the movie barely seems to notice. Throughout the movie he never grows as a character, he never learns anything. Instead, he does everything for himself. Not only does David posses NO redeeming qualities, even worse,he robs banks and doesn't save innocent people from dieing (first in the Tsunami and then in Chechnya-he literally just lets some poor guy get run over by a tank- that's our hero for ya!). You really could not make his character more unlikable if you tried (well maybe if you had him murder puppies but still he is pretty close to the absolute worst).

While the movie tries to get you to hate him, I couldn't bring myself to blame Jackson's character for wanting to kill Christensen, and in fact by the end of the film (I am using the term film here very loosely) I am sure most will find themselves rooting for Jackson against Christensen and his brain dead girlfriend! Throughout the movie, I saw Jackson's character as the only pathway to redemption…namely my redemption; if he killed Christensen I would finally be allowed to leave the theater- Christensen would be dead and I would be free, everybody wins!

The worst part of all of this is that the movie isn't even so bad its good…its just bad. Few movies have made me sick to my stomach but this one did- for 2 hours all it stands for is egotism and awful kindergarten acting. That said, can I say anything positive about this movie? Hmmm well the special effects were a bit above average (though they did little to make up for the fact that I had to spend time with the vapid Christensen).

Please, please don't be fooled by the preview. While it looks a little like "X-men" it has much more in common with "The Ugly American" (As a side note the director either hates Americans or, more likely, is a self-absorbed SOB).

There is just so much MORE wrong with this movie (Rachel Bilson, did they lobotomize you before shooting?)- Just don't see it. Take my word for it, your time and money are better spent elsewhere…to say the least. I knew little about this movie before going into the theater to see it…never again.

Maybe it's because I went in to it with low expectations but I enjoyed the hell out of this movie! Is it a perfect movie? No, far from it. However I had just come off an early morning shift at work, I was tired as hell and just wanted to see a nice movie that didn't require too much thought so I could wind down. As it was a Thursday and a 3:45pm show I was the only one in the cinema! Absolute heaven, I can pretend I'm famous or something and have booked the whole place out so I can have some privacy! So I sit down with my Ben and Jerry's and the movie starts. There's a sequence that lasts maybe 15 minutes that gives some back story to the main character, David, from when he was 15 and started 'jumping'. Lovely special effects follow and David does things we'd all do if we could teleport or 'jump', rob a bank, go to exotic locations, etc. And then we're into the present day. David has a nice apartment, nice stuff, fancies a trip to London. All is going well until Sam Jackson shows up and ruins it for him. There's a bit of lovey dovey stuff and then there's plenty of frantic 'jump' escapes, some 'jump' fights and the movie ends on a relatively satisfying note.

All in all it was better than I expected and exactly what I was looking for.

But this movie could be so much better. It has a short running time, 88 minutes. Almost surely because of the size of the budget. It must have been astronomical as almost every scene has a 'jump' effect. Add to that the multiple locations and I'd say they could only afford 88 minutes. Because of these everything feels rushed. There is a lot more that could have been touched on. How do the Jumpers 'jump'? Do they need to have visited the place first or would just a picture do? What is physically different about them? Why do they have sworn enemies that have stayed enemies for hundreds of years? Where did the bad guys get their cool weapons? How are Jumpers made? Is it passed down through generations? But with the time constraint these questions can't be addressed. What the movie does do is go out of its way to set up a sequel. Painfully so in fact as the ending feels like the end of an act rather than the end of a movie. But this could have franchise potential. 'Jumping' is a cool power. He could be a modern superhero with the ready made sworn enemies. The effects are great. I even felt Hayden Skywalker was quite good in the part contrary to what others seem to think.

If it does go to a sequel I'd like to see much more background into the whole 'jumping' thing and a good storyline. Make the running time longer and cut down on some of the action shots to stay within budget.

So in conclusion Jumper is a fun, action packed, special effects heavy movie that will entertain you if you don't have too high hopes for it. It's not going to win any Oscars but that doesn't matter and it has potential for some good sequels.

Recommended for days when you just want to be entertained.

Let me start by saying that I like action movies. Sci-fi ones? Even better. The Fifth Element. Aliens. 300. All excellent.

But this? I am still reeling 6 days after being stuck in the cinema for 80 minutes (I left once the credits rolled). It is astonishingly bad. Thank goodness it was a free preview pass.

The premise was promising enough. A boy (Hayden Christensen, who should just give up acting) discovers in a near-death situation that he can teleport to anywhere he wants. So he grows up to become a rich globe trotter (where is the IRS when you need them), courtesy of bank vaults he can enter undetected, "jumping" from one end of the Earth to another, living the high life. Maybe because he was bored (I knew I was bored out of my mind by then), he goes back to his hometown to look for his teenage crush (Rachel Bilson, who is painful to watch). Interestingly, no one bats an eyelid to see him come back from the dead, the girl doesn't question where he has been, and agrees to fly across the globe with him to Rome. There he bumps into a fellow "jumper" (Jamie Bell, the sole glimmer in this abysmal mess), who warns him that there are "Paladins", lead by Samuel L. Jackson (sleepwalking through the role) who are out to get them. Right. Who ARE the "Paladins"? Why the vehemence? No one knows. And by now, I am sure no one cares. Lots of destruction ensues as our hero tries to save the girl and beat the "bad guys". Oh and there is the mom (Diane Lane in a thankless bit part), a Paladin, who is conflicted about having a son who can "jump", and abandoned him to save him. Whatever.

But the thing that clued me in as to how bad a movie I was about to sit through was the voice-over at the beginning. Note to the writers: Narration should ADD to what is on the screen, not TELL US EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING. It reminded me of annoying people in the cinema who comment on every action played out on the screen. You just want to find the remote and hit "Mute".

The ho-hum ending points to future sequels and prequels. It is the only logical reason I can think of to explain why a good director and THREE excellent writers left out so much to make this crap.

Can I vote "0"? No? OK then. "1". For the trailer. Nice job, Doug.

I liked this movie for its cool special effects and action scenes. I was always a fan of teleportation and so far this is the only movie to make it its running theme. I'll admit that Hayden Christensen is very nice to look at but not the best of actors around to hold this type of movie. I wanted to like the character David Rice but found myself not caring for him at all. His selfish actions were horrible (robbing banks, not using his ability to save drowning victims). He is no hero and I'm not sure if the point was to make him un-likable. I enjoyed the scenes with Griffin and agree with many here who say he stole the screen every time he appeared. My favorite was the fight with Roland and that highly mentioned car racing scene in Hong Kong. This is the first time seeing Sam L. Jackson in a flat out villainous role. He does it well. I won't be watching it again for the faulty plot but so far it's the most interesting movie in the theater.

The film is so awful - I don't know where to start... First of all, Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson are such terrible actors: looking good in nice clothes doesn't make you an actor but Hollywood begs to differ I guess! It is just painful to watch these two moving around: Christensen with an emotionless "I-am-so-cool" face and Bilson acting like a 5-year old girlie at a Nativity play!! What makes them look even worse is the presence of talented actors like Samuel L. Jackson and the less famous Jamie Bell. Diane Lane is totally underused here and seems to be kind of embarrassed by her mini-role... But even if they had cast better actors for the lead roles, it wouldn't have saved the film simply because the script is astonishingly bad. It is not following any internal logic and plausibility: guy suddenly discovers his supernatural powers when he is 15 although his mother knew about them since he was 5 (?!?), then decides to rob banks which don't seem to have any surveillance cameras and just leaves his father behind not caring about him anymore. What he cares about is living a shallow and materialistic life in his penthouse, "jumping" around postcard locations, screwing horny chicks in Britain after watching people drown on the TV news etc. The script does not even try to imply that this is wrong - Christensen's character is portrayed as the main protagonist i.e. the "good guy" and all these actions and behaviour as being just a normal part of his life! The twisted message to all the adolescent viewers is that it's quite cool to steal money from banks as long as you don't get caught and then live it up - it is as simple as that! Our hero shows of course no remorse for his actions whatsoever: even the slightest concept of guilt, responsibility and conscience would have been beyond the scope of this tripe. The final redeeming quality of his character is supposed to be the fact that he did not kill the "villain" but left him stuck in the middle of nowhere instead?!? Wow, how noble and imaginative...

So if you are looking for stupefying entertainment - this film is for you. Be warned - you might lose some brain cells by watching it.