Jumper

TheMarvell · February 15, 2008, 11:34:15 PM

So I saw the movie 'Jumper' tonight. I didn't have high expectations, but I thought it looked worth seeing. For the most part, it was mildly entertaining, as long as you don't think about it. But just when the movie was really starting to get interesting, I noticed several things missing from the movie as a whole: a plot.

[spoiler]First of all, the movie has a very good premise: guy discovers he has the ability to teleport. He does selfish things like rob banks with said power. Then about 10 years later he discovers he is not the only existing teleporter (or jumper) and that there's also an entire underground anti-jumper clan called the paladins.

The premise alone could have built up to something pretty damn cool, and for about half the movie I was really entertained. Again, until I realized there really is no plot here. There's little to no exposition, an awful ending that offers absolutely NO closure or real conclusion, and worst of all, no story or character development at all.

Sam Jackson plays the lead "Paladin" but even with such a good actor in the part, he's completely 1 dimensional. The entire paladin cult is a 1 dimensional plot device. They kill jumpers because they're zealots and they don't think jumpers should live ("only God should have the power to be everywhere"). That's it. So they kill them for no other reason. They also kill innocent people connected to any jumpers, ie-family and friends, for some unknown reasons. There's NO explanation at all how this society started, why, or why they kill jumpers and their loved ones. The movie also fails to explain why Jumpers have the ability that they do or why 10k volts only prevent them from jumping and not fry them.

the real flop is the ending though. Absolutely nothing gets resolved. Samuel L. Jackson's character is left alive, but stranded. The other jumper the main character runs into is still stuck in some sort of electrical conduit. The only thing is he now has a gf, who he's wanted since he was a teenager, etc, we've seen this typical love obsession ten times over in movies. But here's the doozy of the ending though: Hayden Christensen's mom is a paladin. See, apparently when he was 5, he jumped the first time. So she had to either kill him or leave him. She left him. At the end, he finds his mom, and she tells him this, then says she'll give him a head start and he leaves with his gf. THE END.

1.5/5.

It was light entertainment. But there's absolutely no meat to this movie. Just a bad action movie that doesn't make any sense, not due to convolution, but due to drastically large lack-thereof-plot holes.

and Diane Lane is gorgeous and a good actress. Too bad she's in the film for 5 minutes. What a waste of talent.[/spoiler]

Pyroclasm · February 16, 2008, 05:51:47 AM

It's too bad. The trailer looked like it would be fun despite one-note "Anakin" being the lead. I think I'm going to skip this one. The consensus at Rotten Tomatoes is 15% positive -- An erratic action pic with little coherence and lackluster special effects. Maybe the novel is better? According to Wikipedia there are huge differences between the novel and the film. Heh. Wiki even says it was conceived as a trilogy. Guess that won't be happening unless they go direct-to-DVD. Thanks for the heads up, TheMarvell.

TheMarvell · February 16, 2008, 09:42:49 AM

If the movie makes money, you can almost guarantee it will garner a sequel intended for theaters.

It's such a shame though. If the movie had taken ANY time at all to explain things and develop what little story there was, maybe by implementing motives with its characters, it could have been a movie worth recommending. Instead, the movie mostly concentrates on the really lackluster, underdeveloped romance going on between Hayden and the lead girl.

It has some cool and entertaining parts, but that's all the positive I can really say about it. It's hard to believe this movie is from the same guy who directed The Bourne Identity, which was awesome. How disappointing.

Previsionary · February 16, 2008, 10:26:48 AM

It's not always the director...I mean, he can only do so much with a bad script. Most of the complaints I saw seemed to be script issues. So, it looks like this'll be a movie I'll watch when it hits tv sometime next year...if I even watch it then.

Sidenote: I...can't take Samuel seriously in this movie. Maybe it's the hair.

bredon7777 · February 16, 2008, 07:07:44 PM

But..but..but..but...Rachel Bilson! *drool*

(Seriously, I've wanted her ever since I saw her in that Wonder Woman costume. So unless her screen time is really, really minor, I'ma gonna go see this :D)

BWPS · February 16, 2008, 07:15:08 PM

Thank you for posting this, Marv. I agree with everything you said and you basically summed up the movie for me. They never should have bothered aging the characters at all. That kid was a better actor.

Sevenforce · February 18, 2008, 06:22:50 PM

Same complaints as pretty much everyone else - lack of substance. Style /> Substance. And even the slick effects, at times, were horribly bad.

Plus - lack of plot, and key plot points, what there were of them, were missing. I'm not a girl, and I don't know about you, but if some guy who turns up who A) was presumed dead and B) has been missing for years and years suddenly turns up out of the blue WHERE YOU WORK and offers to take you far far away to cities you've always wanted to visit...either 'psycho' or 'stalker' vibes would be hitting me here. Plus, that actor is SUCH a horrible liar :P

The book is way better. Actually goes into some DETAIL, of all things. Oh well, when you have a mentality of "This actor is hot, this actress is hot...lets put them together with an special-effects bonanza, we're sure to make money" its obvious the story's gonna suffer. Did anyone else even begin to feel sorry for this jackass who is incredibly stupid, and also living for free and not even remotely remorseful for stealing? Although I must admit I had a flash of nightcrawler...

[spoiler]I mean, come on - isn't the bit where he 'ports in a freaking BUS to slam the dude into dust SO reminiscent of something nightcrawler would do? Heh. Although that particular Paladin seemed to be indestructable[/spoiler]

BlueBard · February 19, 2008, 12:34:54 PM

I read the book. Which, admittedly, sounds like it's better than the movie. Which is understandable, considering that the book is nothing like what I've heard about the non-plot of the movie.

Didn't much care for the book, though. Guy goes from abused nerd to teleportin' bad@$$ in, well, the blink of an eye. So it's not even internally realistic. There are a few elements that make me very uncomfortable, and a meandering plot that jumps around almost as much as the protagonist does... I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone.

Still, I think the NSA made a better antagonist... and who doesn't like stories where terrorists get the snot beat out of them and dropped into a lake? It also raises a lot of ethical questions... abuse of power/authority and the politics of terrorism being among them. In fact, it would be safe to say that terrorism figures very largely in the book, from the abusive father to the paranoid government agency that answers to no one, to terrorists in the common sense.

And that's probably why the movie is nothing like the book. The book isn't "p.c." for either American or International audiences on many, many levels. Made-up 'paladins' won't offend anyone, especially if they come off as religious fanatics. Of course it's still about terrorism, just covered over.

Conduit · February 19, 2008, 02:11:44 PM

I also read the book a while back, and it's one of my favorites. And it's almost nothing like what I've heard about the movie. The book makes a pretty big deal out of Davy being the only teleporter in the world and the powers seem to work very differently.

[spoiler]
He seriously teleports a bus? In the book, he could only teleport what he could carry. If he wanted to teleport a person, he actually had to get their feet off the ground.
[/spoiler]

I agree that a big reason why so much was changed was due to all of the dealing with terrorism. Especially after 9/11, all of those airplane hijacking scenes just wouldn't fly (no pun intended).

Sevenforce · February 19, 2008, 08:09:45 PM

[spoiler]As explained by a teleporter that, quite frankly, made the movie (Jamie Bell. MAN the dude is awesome) - "Anything that I can move I can jump". This extends to cars, buses, and, in the most confusing scene of all, a whole apartment. Seriously :huh:[/spoiler]

Conduit · February 19, 2008, 08:30:17 PM

Quote from: Sevenforce on February 19, 2008, 08:09:45 PM
[spoiler]As explained by a teleporter that, quite frankly, made the movie (Jamie Bell. MAN the dude is awesome) - "Anything that I can move I can jump". This extends to cars, buses, and, in the most confusing scene of all, a whole apartment. Seriously :huh:[/spoiler]

[spoiler]
:huh: Do you mean he teleported all of the furniture, or did he bring the walls, floor, and ceiling with him too?
[/spoiler]

Sevenforce · February 21, 2008, 04:56:16 AM

[spoiler]Everything. The whole thing goes 'poit' and ends up in a river. Which, uh, makes sense :lol:[/spoiler]

Conduit · February 21, 2008, 11:01:01 AM

[spoiler]
Man, that must have really sucked for the people occupying the apartments above and below it. And how, exactly, is an apartment moveable?
[/spoiler]

UnfluffyBunny · February 21, 2008, 12:39:57 PM

[spoiler]
wasnt it more like "anything that moves, I can jump" ?
and it wasnt him that jumped the apartment, he was stuck in the electric tower thingy at that point
[/spoiler]

anyway, havent read the book, saw the film, enjoyed it

nuff said

Jakew · February 21, 2008, 03:16:03 PM

Jamie Bell was the best thing about this film ... despite the very decent action, I found the rest of the characters unlikable.

TheMarvell · February 21, 2008, 06:33:05 PM

[spoiler]Jaimie Bell says "as long as it's moving, I can teleport it." I guess this sort of makes sense as he wouldn't necessarily have to lift cars to move them. However, it's Hayden Christensen who teleports the apartment later on in the film. The film doesn't explain how he can do this (no surprises there though. What DID the movie explain? Seriously...), but I'm guessing that because the "love of his life" was in danger, he had heightened adrenaline that gave him that extra "oomph" of power. Jaimie Bell says earlier in the film though that a friend of his tried to teleport an entire building and it killed him. So, uh, yeah, try to piece that one together. I guess we're supposed to believe Hayden is a more powerful teleporter...or something.[/spoiler]

Sevenforce · February 22, 2008, 10:49:36 AM

Quote[spoiler]Man, that must have really sucked for the people occupying the apartments above and below it. And how, exactly, is an apartment moveable?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Yes, I meant Hayden, not Jamie. Speaking of Jamie...did david/hayden leave the dude to fry? Didnt get any closure there. In regards to that, conduit, the apartment was sorta stand alone, and was at the top of the building. Although I doubt, with the personality we saw, that it would matter to him much :D[/spoiler]

Don't get me wrong, it was an awesome no-thought action movie fluff...I was just expecting more. From what I hear though, apparently this is just to set the universe, and he plans to do more movies set in here. I hope thats right, but it suits a standalone that much better, even with all the problems :)