Jumper (D or 1/4 stars)
A tagline for 'Jumper', directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity), would be 'anywhere is possible'. The ability to think of a place and 'jump' there immediately sounds great ... to the jumper. But to the audience (who gets to experience about 2-3 seconds of each place), it's no fun, at all. This is a fundamental problem with this movie. The plot: A genetic defect allows David Rice (Hayden Christensen) to teleport himself anywhere at any time, immediately. After using this 'gift' to hide, confuse, lie, cheat, & steal, he finds out from another Jumper, Griffin (Billy Elliot's Jamie Bell), that 'Jumpers' have existed for hundreds of yrs. and are at war with the 'Paladins' (a faction that has sworn to kill them). Well, there you have it. There is no more plot, no more explanation; only cool visuals & bland characters.
Just like in my recent review of The Eye, the film's best scenes are early on. We're all intrigued by the high-concept premise here. Who wouldn't want to jump anywhere at the blink of an eye? I was very intrigued by the first 10-15 minutes, in particular. We get a little back story/exposition: socially awkward David (Max Theiriot, as a teenager) falls through some ice after trying to retrieve a gift he got for his childhood sweetheart, Millie (AnnaSophia Robb ... played by a wooden Rachel Bilson later on). Everyone assumed he dies beneath the ice, but it's here that David first realizes his incredible ability to jump from harm's way to anywhere he pleases. Things go downhill when Robb & Theiriot leave the screen and are replaced by the the emotionless Christensen/Bilson 1-2 combo.
As an adult, David has cut out a nice little slice of life for himself. Not only does he have all the $$ he could hope for and more (thanks to stealing from banks, how admirable), but he can lounge at the top of the Sphynx one moment, and then transport himself to Paris for dinner, if he so desired. Ahh, but all this has gotten too boring for him; poor guy. Lonely, stagnant, he returns home after 8 yrs. to seek Millie. Initial disbelief that he's even alive gives way to them jetting off to Rome for a vacation (how realistic). After visiting the Colosseum (one of the film's strongest sequences), Millie begins to suspect that something is 'off' about David. Meanwhile, Roland (a role only Samuel L. Jackson could fill), a Paladin/agent, is hot on David's trail to destroy him. Mayhem ensues. Blah, blah, blah.
Now, let me vent my frustrations: 1) it is never good when the trailer is better constructed than the actual movie. 2) Who, really, are the Paladins? What's their mythology? What's their gripe with the Jumpers (other than a 'God only has the right to jump' standpoint)? Guess what, you never find out. The concept of war btwn. these 2 factions is barely explained. 3) The film's rules for Jumpers are never defined/left unclear. 4) Christensen's David is so full of himself, so wooden, so nonchalant about what's going on (good or bad). Why would I then root for him? If there's a sequel to this nightmare, I doubt my opinion would sway. 5) Hayden Christensen, when will you be a good actor again? When? 6) The novelty (& special effects) of jumping from place to place wears off after the initial travels. Just because many things are happening onscreen doesn't mean anything interesting is going on. As the film proceeds, the fun gets drained out.
7) Why on Earth was 'Jumper' only 88 minutes long. Why not add a good 15-20, heck, 25 minutes to flesh various people/ideas out. 8) The movie ends on an odd, abrupt note. They're probably banking on a sequel. Well guess what, a movie should NEVER be made with the intent of there being a fleshier sequel to come afterwards. 'Iron Man' made a concerted effort to introduce characters fully, and explain what's going on/what may go on in the future; they did it correctly. THIS film wants to have its cake & eat it, too. I'm stopping here, unless you want another 2 paragraphs of complaints. I find it hard to believe that people just go to the movies to be diverted anymore. They want a good movie, a good story. They won't get one here. Though there's initial intrigue & eye-popping excitement, there's also little humor, little logic, sparse dialogue, no smarts, no drama, and no character investment. That's just the kiss of death.
Just like in my recent review of The Eye, the film's best scenes are early on. We're all intrigued by the high-concept premise here. Who wouldn't want to jump anywhere at the blink of an eye? I was very intrigued by the first 10-15 minutes, in particular. We get a little back story/exposition: socially awkward David (Max Theiriot, as a teenager) falls through some ice after trying to retrieve a gift he got for his childhood sweetheart, Millie (AnnaSophia Robb ... played by a wooden Rachel Bilson later on). Everyone assumed he dies beneath the ice, but it's here that David first realizes his incredible ability to jump from harm's way to anywhere he pleases. Things go downhill when Robb & Theiriot leave the screen and are replaced by the the emotionless Christensen/Bilson 1-2 combo.
As an adult, David has cut out a nice little slice of life for himself. Not only does he have all the $$ he could hope for and more (thanks to stealing from banks, how admirable), but he can lounge at the top of the Sphynx one moment, and then transport himself to Paris for dinner, if he so desired. Ahh, but all this has gotten too boring for him; poor guy. Lonely, stagnant, he returns home after 8 yrs. to seek Millie. Initial disbelief that he's even alive gives way to them jetting off to Rome for a vacation (how realistic). After visiting the Colosseum (one of the film's strongest sequences), Millie begins to suspect that something is 'off' about David. Meanwhile, Roland (a role only Samuel L. Jackson could fill), a Paladin/agent, is hot on David's trail to destroy him. Mayhem ensues. Blah, blah, blah.
Now, let me vent my frustrations: 1) it is never good when the trailer is better constructed than the actual movie. 2) Who, really, are the Paladins? What's their mythology? What's their gripe with the Jumpers (other than a 'God only has the right to jump' standpoint)? Guess what, you never find out. The concept of war btwn. these 2 factions is barely explained. 3) The film's rules for Jumpers are never defined/left unclear. 4) Christensen's David is so full of himself, so wooden, so nonchalant about what's going on (good or bad). Why would I then root for him? If there's a sequel to this nightmare, I doubt my opinion would sway. 5) Hayden Christensen, when will you be a good actor again? When? 6) The novelty (& special effects) of jumping from place to place wears off after the initial travels. Just because many things are happening onscreen doesn't mean anything interesting is going on. As the film proceeds, the fun gets drained out.
7) Why on Earth was 'Jumper' only 88 minutes long. Why not add a good 15-20, heck, 25 minutes to flesh various people/ideas out. 8) The movie ends on an odd, abrupt note. They're probably banking on a sequel. Well guess what, a movie should NEVER be made with the intent of there being a fleshier sequel to come afterwards. 'Iron Man' made a concerted effort to introduce characters fully, and explain what's going on/what may go on in the future; they did it correctly. THIS film wants to have its cake & eat it, too. I'm stopping here, unless you want another 2 paragraphs of complaints. I find it hard to believe that people just go to the movies to be diverted anymore. They want a good movie, a good story. They won't get one here. Though there's initial intrigue & eye-popping excitement, there's also little humor, little logic, sparse dialogue, no smarts, no drama, and no character investment. That's just the kiss of death.