Review 388: Jumper
Jumper has an admittedly cool premise and looks sleek, but doesn't really amount to much.
Hayden Christensen is bombastically subpar in this film. Evendently he cast because of his looks rather than his acting talent. Overall he's a kind of bland in the lead role, no genuine emotion, but it's not his fault, it's a thinly written character, he's a dumbass as you'll see in a few minutes of this film.
David spends the movie crossing lines and being a heidonist. He’s immature and he clearly like it that way. He has no sense of responsibility and he never thinks the consequences of his actions. Throughout the film we get scene after scene of him using his teleporting powers for self-glorification and they’re often very fun and clever but by the point he’s given a moment to take a good look at the decisions he’s made and the way he’s lived his life, I cant help but think it could have come earlier or there should have been far greater consequences.
For pretty much the entirely of the first act, David essentially lives a carefree, throw caution to the wind life with no real repercussions or consequences ever. It isn't until Cox and the Paladins start hunting him and his loved ones that he's forced to consider his decisions to live a carefree life it’s kinda tough to tell if he’s really learned anything or grown as a character. If we think about it too much, all we take away from this movie is that David was just fine the way he was.
Also, his character was so uninteresting, even before he became a Jumper he was a boring character. Once he becomes a Jumper, he's even less interesting because he doesn't do anything with his powers. He robs a few banks, he lives lavishly on the money he steals from those banks, he lounges in a really nice apartment, he visits lots of exotic locations, he sleeps with loads of beautiful girls and does loads of extreme sports such as surfing. Throughout the film David continuously throws caution to the wind over again with no real repercussions or consequences ever. It isn't until Cox and the Paladins start hunting him and his loved ones that he's given an opportunity for change and to have a good long look at all the decisions he's made and what he's done, but I never really got the sense that he'd actually learned anything or grown as a person. Once he's defeated the Paladins what's to stop him from continuing to live a carefree life?
Based on the book Jumper by Steven Gould, 15 year-old David Rice (Max Thieriot) is a high school student in Ann Arbor, Michigan who lives with his abusive, alcoholic father William (Michael Rooker), who after attempting to retrieve a snow globe for his high school crush Millie (AnnaSophia Robb), almost drowns and discovers he has the ability to teleport. In awe of his newfound power, he runs away from home.
Eight years later, a 23 year-old David (Hayden Christensen) lives a lavish, renegade, carefree life mainly due to the millions of dollars in money he stole from Banks when he is suddenly attacked by a group religious extremists called The Paladins, led by the unscrupulous Roland Cox (Samuel L. Jackson) who have been tracking and killing "Jumpers" for years.
David subsequently goes on the run from them. Along the way he reconciles with Millie (Rachel Bilson) find his mother and ultimately figure out why The Paladins are after him.
Firstly I just want to say that I haven't actually read the original Steven Gould novel so I won't be making any comparisons but from what information I've been able to look up, Jumper is based loosely on its novel counterpart and when I say loosely, boy do I mean loosely. Apart from the first act of this film, it bearly resembles its novel counterpart.
Plotwise this film is pretty slack and not very compelling.
Although the premise sounds cool, at no point is it developed or explored to it's full potential and at no point is it executed well, the entire thing comes off as generic and uninspired a far cry from the great sci fi films such as Back to the Future, RoboCop, James Cameron's two Terminator movies and Children of Men.
For instance, it's never explained why David and so many other people have this ability to Jump, is it genetic? Is it magic? Is it a mutation? The result of experimentation? Who knows.
Although the premise sounds cool, at no point is it developed or explored to it's full potential and at no point is it executed well, the entire thing comes off as generic and uninspired a far cry from the great sci fi films such as Back to the Future, RoboCop, James Cameron's two Terminator movies and Children of Men.
For instance, it's never explained why David and so many other people have this ability to Jump, is it genetic? Is it magic? Is it a mutation? The result of experimentation? Who knows.
It also doesn't really have much of a natural flow, it just jumps from set piece to set piece with no sense of pacing or emotional payoff.
The plot as a whole serves as a thinly veiled excuse to string together the jumping scenes. For loads of critics and audiences that was a problem but for me it wasn't and I'll tell you why. Even though this movie was plagued by re-writes, I believe that director Doug Liman was trying to show us what and how we as normal people would react it we suddenly and spontaneously discovered we had this teleportation power e.g. David robs a bunch of banks which is admittedly wrong and not a very good way for us to root for the films lead character but it's sort of saying "if you had this power, what would you do?" and I will admit they are quite tempting and appealing.
Overall this film isn't quite as bad as it's reputation might suggest, all the loose plotting, thin characters and mindless spectacle add up to fun, exciting, slickly crafted albeit ephemeral, shallow and hollow popcorn film. Sure this film leaves a threads dangling and a lot of questions unanswered and the hero isn't likeable and the world building is rushed, but this film isn't about great storytelling, thought-provoking ideas and real stakes. This film is about action, spectacle, attractive people, appealing locations and badass effects and I suppose overall it delivers on that i.e. it delivers the goods. What you see is what you get. If you're in films target audience or if you're in the right mood for this type o film, you'll probably enjoy it.
Is it an absolutely terrible film? I can understand why you'd say that.
Is it an absolutely terrible film? I can understand why you'd say that.
Director Doug Liman's direction is scattershot, the special effects are at least decent, the score by John Powell is ok, the action scenes are silly, generic, mindless action picture fluff. But apart from that the film is actually quite well made. The production design is sleek, the costumes are fantastic, the locations are beautiful, the scenery is breathtaking, the cinematography is cool and the make up and hairstyling is terrific.
The acting for the most part is pretty bellow average.
Hayden Christensen is bombastically subpar in this film. Evendently he cast because of his looks rather than his acting talent. Overall he's a kind of bland in the lead role, no genuine emotion, but it's not his fault, it's a thinly written character, he's a dumbass as you'll see in a few minutes of this film.
David spends the movie crossing lines and being a heidonist. He’s immature and he clearly like it that way. He has no sense of responsibility and he never thinks the consequences of his actions. Throughout the film we get scene after scene of him using his teleporting powers for self-glorification and they’re often very fun and clever but by the point he’s given a moment to take a good look at the decisions he’s made and the way he’s lived his life, I cant help but think it could have come earlier or there should have been far greater consequences.
For pretty much the entirely of the first act, David essentially lives a carefree, throw caution to the wind life with no real repercussions or consequences ever. It isn't until Cox and the Paladins start hunting him and his loved ones that he's forced to consider his decisions to live a carefree life it’s kinda tough to tell if he’s really learned anything or grown as a character. If we think about it too much, all we take away from this movie is that David was just fine the way he was.
Also, his character was so uninteresting, even before he became a Jumper he was a boring character. Once he becomes a Jumper, he's even less interesting because he doesn't do anything with his powers. He robs a few banks, he lives lavishly on the money he steals from those banks, he lounges in a really nice apartment, he visits lots of exotic locations, he sleeps with loads of beautiful girls and does loads of extreme sports such as surfing. Throughout the film David continuously throws caution to the wind over again with no real repercussions or consequences ever. It isn't until Cox and the Paladins start hunting him and his loved ones that he's given an opportunity for change and to have a good long look at all the decisions he's made and what he's done, but I never really got the sense that he'd actually learned anything or grown as a person. Once he's defeated the Paladins what's to stop him from continuing to live a carefree life?
Rachel Bilson... well the problem is that she doesn't really have a lot to work with, she basically plays the interchangeable, obligatory girlfriend character. She doesn't make more of an impression than that.
Samuel L. Jackson is sadley wasted in a generic/mandatory villain role, which leads to the following: The villains, The Paladins, they're just religious nuts who want to kill Jumpers because they see them as blasphimous to God. They've got no clear motivations or reasons for why they're doing what they're doing. They're beleifs that Jumpers powers are blasphemous comes right out of the blue with no clear explanation since it's never explained what teleporting/Jumping has to do with religion.
Jamie Bell is also wasted in a mostly superfluous role as another Jumper who main purpose in the film gives him little to do other than to brood, look and act badass and spout exposition.
As for Diane Lane and Michael Rooker, they're both pretty undressed in their respective roles... Thats really it.
To sum up then as a legitimately good film, Jumper pretty much faulters, but as a standard shoot em-up popcorn film with a cool premise and attractive leads you honestly could do worse.
I'd say it's harmless enough.
It's bad admittedly, on a logical level, but not offensively so and it's mercifully short with a running time of 88 mins. Overall I thought it was ok, 2.5/5.
The Anonymous Critic.
As for Diane Lane and Michael Rooker, they're both pretty undressed in their respective roles... Thats really it.
To sum up then as a legitimately good film, Jumper pretty much faulters, but as a standard shoot em-up popcorn film with a cool premise and attractive leads you honestly could do worse.
I'd say it's harmless enough.
It's bad admittedly, on a logical level, but not offensively so and it's mercifully short with a running time of 88 mins. Overall I thought it was ok, 2.5/5.
The Anonymous Critic.
Comments
Post a Comment