Jumper

To tell the truth, the Jumper universe idea intrigued me from the moment I heard about it. A great topic, but the same doesn’t apply to the screenplay (and who knows, maybe not to the novel either). Plus, Liman’s central storyline falls apart in his hands, but I have no idea why. It’s as if got carried away with the historical monuments and the beautiful shots of exotic locations and I don’t wish to get into that dumbly constructed romantic storyline, but rather concentrate on the main reasons why this movie was made (I mean of course the “jumping" and the Paladins). The acting performances aren’t up to much either. It was like Christensen was playing a fifteen-year-old (either on purpose or he was just that bad, no matter), Rachel Bilson is just for decoration and Samuel L. Jackson should have shaved his head (he could at least command a little respect). I think that just Jamie Bell endured it all without serious damage to his (and my) soul. But enough criticism. The movie contains quite a lot of good scenes worth seeing and as a spring snack, Jumper is still pleasantly digestible. But if they’re planning a sequel, I strongly recommend trying a new screenwriter. (20/03/2008)

Current special effects technology is at such a level in the film industry that it allows practically anything to be filmed for a relatively decent amount of money. Jumper is an example of a film that relies on special effects scenes and quick editing. It reminds me either of a long music video of a rock band or a long advertisement for an adrenaline sport or an energy drink. It is exactly the kind of movie that teenagers between 13 and 15 years old will appreciate, but with each additional year, especially with a slightly more critical approach and higher demands, the experience fades away. It is a superficial spectacle where the characters lack any depth, and the storyline is so simple that even a ten-year-old child could have been hired instead of a screenwriter. Overall impression: 25% for the beautiful scenery. By the way, Hayden Christensen's performance is terrible... (10/01/2009)

"Jumper" is a movie whose title caught my attention when I first heard it. In 2003, I wrote a short story called "Skokan" ("Jumper" in English). When I was thinking about what it would be called in English, it would be exactly "Jumper." When I finally watched the movie, I found out that it was based on a slightly different source, which was written by Steven Gould in 1992. Hayden Christensen played a young man who can jump in space and move from place to place through teleportation. The idea is nice, but the execution is a bit worse. The film tries to be cool, so it is action-packed, Samuel L. Jackson has a great look, but that's where it ends. Once a stupid connection with faith is introduced, the film lacks any real meaning and it becomes just a fight between the powerful against the oppressed. The allegory, in this case, doesn't bring much. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/jumper-babel-kung-fu-divocina-miami.html (17/02/2013)

It’s stupid and unbelievably simple, but a spontaneous trip to Rome, the lovely Rachel Bilson, an executive suite at the Boscolo Exedra hotel with a stunning view of the city, and first-class on the way there and back are attributes that really won me over. It's all about how you approach it. Jumper is a one-time watch, the theme is interesting, but the plot lacks depth. Technically brilliant and fast-paced. Quality editing is a given with Liman. I wouldn't criticize it that much. I enjoyed myself. (13/07/2008)

The script was probably written according to the manual "How to write an 80-minute plot without breaking a sweat," and Hayden's a one-dimensional wooden actor. A very weak result for Doug Liman, short and rather dull silly stuff for MTV kids out of school. Thanks at least for Jamie Bell, who brought some adrenaline and dynamism to the story and compared to the bland Christensen looks like a rhododendron next to a dead cactus. (12/06/2008)