Customer Reviews

Jumper (Two-Disc Special Edition)

5 star:		(38)
4 star:		(51)
3 star:		(54)
2 star:		(33)
1 star:		(31)

 

 

I went to see Jumper with some of my family when it was released, and I have to say I enjoyed it very much. I've liked Hayden Christensen since I saw "Life as a House," and Samuel L. just rips up a villain role like nobody's business. The special effects were very well done and I was delighted to find that the main storyline they implied in the commercials is NOT what happened! Sure, the main character can teleport, but the rest.... The movie is billed as scifi/thriller type, but that's a bit misleading. This is more like the Highlander films, a fantasy element in the real world.

The movie was pretty fast paced with only a couple slower moments, and the character's self-exploration once he discovers the ability was almost as good as Peter Parker's in the first Spider-Man movie. Actually, in one way it was better. Peter uses his power to win a wrestling match and then jumps right into the hero role. Our similarly-aged jumper, however, jumps right into a bank vault, and a store, and...! *grin* He really is an ordinary person with an extraordinary ability. He used his ability for theft, but also for taking his surfboard to Fiji for the best waves. I liked the movie enough that I quickly ordered the book. They are COMPLETELY different, but both good for different reasons. The movie added a opposing force for jumpers (i.e. a "villain") whereas in the book, David mostly battles his own inner demons (with a lot of introspection). Plus, the very cool character of Griffin was completely made-up for the film. His character adds great action while giving viewers another jumper to identify with besides David. Though the movie had closure, they left it wide open for a sequel that I really hope gets made.

I think some viewers were overly critical of this film. It's not going to win any oscars, but I was entertained and that's the most important criteria.

As to the DVD itself, I have to say, do NOT buy the 2-disc edition. The second disk contains only a digital copy. All the extras are on disc one, which the regular edition has! I really wish the product description had been more clear on this. I wouldn't have paid the additional $6 for a digital copy which you have to use a keycode to transfer. The code is located on a card in the case, but it clearly states to be careful not to lose it. Also, the outer sleeve has a holographic image of the cover art that is glued to the front of the sleeve. I don't see it lasting long. Finally, once again the studio includes ads in the case, but no insert with chapter index and extra features.

The extra features were pretty standard. There's commentary, making of, interviews with the authors/producer etc, book to film featurette, and some deleted scenes (all of which I felt were rightly cut from the film). The interviews were interesting sinc ethey touched on how the producer obviously changed the book, and how the author felt. Nothing spectacular here, but for a single disc edition these were perfectly fine - and far more than they offered with "the Bourne Ultimatium".

People seem to want Hayden to fail bc/they're not happy with the recent Star Wars movies, but that's not very fair to this movie. The movie, while not Oscar material, is an entertaining flick. The acting is not bad, despite the complaints of other reviewers.

I went to see this one with my girlfriend, and we both enjoyed it. I'm not even a sci-fi nut; I think Blade Runner is boring and pointless. So, I'm not predisposed to like every sci-fi flick that comes out.

The movie revolves around a misfit kid with an abusive father and absent mother who learns he can teleport. It seems that his life will become a dream as a result of his abilities, but he soon finds himself hunted by merciless killers who are set out to destroy all jumpers. The conflict with a buddy makes for interesting plot twists, and the love interest is played by a uniquely intriguing actress.

I did think that the very ending could have been slightly better, but I would certainly go see the sequel.

MUCH BETTER THAN PEOPLE ARE REVIEWING IT!!!

If you like science fiction and adventure, this is a must get movie. I love movies in that genre so i basically had to go see it...and i wasnt disappointed. I really liked the movie and had few ways to think of how they could have made it better. This movie will definetly have you amazed and thinking..."damn, i wonder if they will ever have the ability to really do this??" A must have blu-ray to add to your collection!

What if an average guy from Ann Arbor, Michigan discovers at age 15 that he has the ability to travel instantaneously to other locations? How would he handle that ability? Those questions are answered in "Jumper," directed by Doug Liman.
"Jumper" is based on an intriguing premise: a person has the ability to teleport himself at will to anywhere in the world, whether it be just a few feet away in his apartment or thousands of miles across the globe. Sounds like a quality belonging to a spandex-clad superhero more than an average Joe. After all, Superman essentially has that ability because of his super-speed, and Superman dates back to 1938.
David Rice (Hayden Christensen) realizes he has this "jumping" ability when he almost drowns. In a split second, he finds himself in the midst of bookshelves in the Ann Arbor Public Library along with enough water to destroy a third of the library's book collection.
With a cartoonishly mean father (Michael Rooker) and more than his share of teen angst, David decides to make for the big city, his teleportation talent the road to a whole new life. But this invisible zipping from space to place doesn't come easily, as David practices teleportation in Central Park, slamming into trees while learning to fine tune his ability.
The beginning of "Jumper" is very intriguing, and the film promises an enjoyable ride. But so much goes wrong along the way, the movie crumbles before our eyes. Let's take the character of David. Though he's not a traditional superhero, we've become conditioned to expect that a lad lucky enough to have unusual strengths will use them for good. What does David do? He breaks into bank vaults, steals huge sums of money, sets himself up in luxury apartments all over the world, picnics atop the Sphinx, surfboards in Fiji, hangs out, literally, from Big Ben in London, and picks up girls all over the world. He's not exactly bettering mankind or combating evil.
The element of conflict that drives the film comes in the character of Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), a Paladin. The Paladins are Jumper hunters. Why? Roland makes a brief comment that only God should have the right to be omnipresent. Huh? Is that it? Yep. For half the movie, David jumps from place to place to stay ahead of the Paladins, who want to capture him because of pseudo-religious self-righteousness.
Christensen is a likable actor and he succeeds in making us care about his David, even though the character is a shallow, pretty-boy hedonist. I suppose the good will he engendered as young Anakin Skywalker has spilled over to this less interesting character.
Jackson mails in this performance. His appearance with
snow-white hair is a lot of fun, though his character is humorless. We've seen the same from this actor before: intense close-ups, slow, threatening delivery of dialogue, and attitude a mile wide. His Paladin is a warrior, which allows for action and violence. But wouldn't it be interesting if Jackson played the role more low-key, using psychological terror rather than physical force?
The film shines when we're introduced to Griffin (Jamie Bell, "Billy Elliot"), a fellow Jumper David meets in Rome's Coliseum. Griffin serves as the expositional mouthpiece of the film, informing David (and the audience) that David isn't the only Jumper in the world and providing back story about the Paladins' ongoing persecution of Jumpers. Bell has enormous energy and a streetwise toughness that contrasts sharply with Cristensen's laid-back style. Whenever Bell is on screen, he commands it.
The dutiful love interest of sorts is provided by the lovely Anna-Sophia Robb as Millie, an adolescent crush from David's hometown, whom he looks up years later and invites to accompany him to Rome. What happened to "Want to have a cup of coffee?" As written, the role of Millie is meant to be serviceable eye candy, and Millie is swept up in the usual machinations of "things beyond her control," becoming more involved in the plot than she should be.
A trilogy of writers are responsible for the final screenplay of "Jumpers," which looks as if huge chunks are missing. Things move too swiftly, even for a movie about a guy who can scoot from city to city in a millisecond. Viewers are entitled to enough time to get to know the characters so that they care about what happens to them. A quick dissolve, for instance, shows David going from 15 to 20-something, still living in the same dumpy hotel he came to years before. Why is he still there when the cash he's stolen can surely allow him to afford better digs? And why are the teleportation scenes so inconsistent? Sometimes David whisks to another location with just a rush of air and a swooshing sound. Other times, there is serious damage to concrete and floor tiles.
The locations are interesting, but seem to be there more as scenic backdrops to the story than as integral parts of it. With the exception of the Rome sequence, those taking place in Cairo, Tokyo, Prague, and Mexico are intended to be impressive to audiences that have seen all these places many times over on screen. They no longer carry the same impact.
Rated PG-13, "Jumper" uses an interesting premise, but takes all the wrong turns as it unfolds its tale, offering a movie experience long on special effects, short on meaty story and gripping characters.

Like so many others I went into this not expecting to like it. I actually never intended to see it but for reasons I won't go into I found it at RedBox and gave it a chance. And I liked it. it wasn't perfect - not remotely - but it has a certain charm probably because of it's unrealized potential. It could have been great but fell just short. I see a few reasons for this but the main being 1) it was only about 90 minutes long. They should have given it that extra 30 minutes, turned it into a 2 hour movie and tied up a few loose ends and take us into reason number 2) character development. You want the relationship between David and Millie but you don't buy it as much as you should because it wasn't developed properly. Also, they attempted to make David not a bad guy - and I guess over all he wasn't - but they could have done better. The notes he left at the bank (which I missed upon first viewing due to the disk skipping) hinted that he was a guy with a conscience, and he never actually killed anyone like Griffin so that earns him brownie points as well, but they could have done better and showing just how "different" he was in regards to Roland's expectations of him. Now an extra 30 minutes to develop the story wouldn't have have perfected it. There were other scenes throughout that could have helped develop it as well but the extra time would have helped in some way. I know they mentioned possible sequels if it did well enough. The thing about leaving room for sequels is that while you may want to leave some questions unanswered to be answered in the sequel you can't leave EVERYTHING unanswered and I think this first attempt left a lot of things hanging, more than they should have. Still, despite these failings, I did enjoy and buy it. It's a fun movie and being a sci-fi/action/romance person, this fit my bill despite the weak presentation of plot. However I was grateful to the warning about the 2 disk edition since I've already got an iTunes copy. I'd hate to spend even more money just to double or triple what I've already got but not really come out ahead.

Although I can understand Hayden not being a top-rate actor, I think he does provide a decent performance for his genre. I feel as though he is given a bad rap when, well, in star wars he was kind of supposed to be a whiny teenager and in jumper he was supposed to be a dumb kid.

I felt the movie was quite entertaining. Period. Alot of people felt they wasted their time with the movie talking about how some things didn't make sense and how these people didn't explain themselves enough blah blah blah. Bottom line, it's a movie meant to entertain. I'm baffled by these people on here trash talking the movie when clearly we all know that Samuel L. Jackson doesn't do a whole lot of top shelf movies. Walk in to the theatre looking to be entertained, walk out entertained. Walk in pretending like you want to be entertained, walk out trash talking.

If you liked the bourne movies and don't mind filling in a few gaps, you'll enjoy the movie. The movie reminds me alot of Transformers, though I don't hear many bad reviews for THAT.

Flame on, but I probably wont look back.

Being a huge Star Wars fan, I decided to see Anakin and Mace aka Hayden and Samuel in a new sci fi movie. The terrible reviews this film received prior to it's release didn't dissuade me in the least because everyone has different opinions. I found Jumper to be well made, with excellent visual effects and great worldly locations. The actors looked good and did well with what they were given. It's insane action sequences are followed by some slower 'talky' moments, that move the film along through to it's short end, with what looks like a sequel set-up. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel that touches on some backstory of the 'jumpers' and 'paladins'. If you want to see a boring critics darling, good for you, but, if like me, you like thrilling action, neat stunts and fast paced sci-fi thrillers, this is your ticket.

I'll warn you now, if you have read the book & enjoyed it avoid this movie at all costs, it will only make you angry.
The only thing Doug Liman (the director), used from the book was the two lead characters names & the ability to teleport. 95 % of everything else is brand new and not for the better, they might as well have ran a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating "this movie is geared for 12 year olds". It will be hard to read the book again & enjoy it as much as I used to.

I truly believe that some movies actually make you stupid. Jumper is such a movie. Watch it and feel your I.Q. plummet. [spoiler alert]
Here's the plot:
1) Guy (abandoned by mother at age 5) can teleport anywhere.
2) He robs banks and lives well.
3) He discovers another jumper and is pursued by a murderous group of "jumper-killers" called paladins.
4) He eludes the paladins, runs off with his high school sweetheart and discovers that his mother was one of the paladins.
Cue music. Wait for sequel. Egad.
There is so much stupidity here it's hard to know where to start. Here's a thought for good and bad guys alike -- buy a gun. The paladins use some kind of electrified harpoon gun and the jumpers....well...they just run. And jump. And run some more. Oh, and if you get the chance to kill someone who is actively hunting you and is willing to kill your familiy to find you -- kill them. Don't "jump" them somewhere and leave them alive. If only because they'll show up in the sequel.
There is much more, but I have to stop because I feel myself getting dummer jus thinkin about it. Uh..crayons...colorin book....Oooo... look at the bunny....

Yet another movie that ended with everyone in the room being bored. There were four of us watching this last weekend, and only 3 remained conscious until the end... of those 3 all of us kind of shrugged and one said "well that was certainly another ho-hum movie."

None of us had read the book or graphic novel that this was based off of. Perhaps if we had then we would have enjoyed it more. When the movie started up with the voice over I knew we were in trouble. Very few "good" movies have VO's (Christmas Story is a good one, Trainspotting another.) VO's generally tell you that "we can't write a good script so we're going to have some guy tell you what you're supposed to know." I tried to ignore the VO and give the movie a chance... then we were treated to excellent actors forgetting to act. They were all very stiff, wooden, and clichéd. Samuel L Jackson looked absolutely ridiculous with his white hair and tazer-club. When the plot was supposed to shift into high gear... nothing was explained. Okay so the bad guys were called "Paladins" and had been killing "Jumpers" since forever because they were too powerful. Um... okay. Too bad the "Jumpers" in this movie never really acted like good guys. I didn't particularly care who lived or died... in fact I would have been much happier had they all died.

So let's forget about the lack of a good script, plot holes, and bad acting. What about the SFX? Some of them were quite good, and some of them were Sci-Fi channel special quality. Some of it was ingenious and some of it was garbage, but there was little consistency to what we saw and when. Sometimes when he jumped, the buildings shook and the walls cracked... other times he was able to hop all over the place without making a sound.

All I know is that by the time the final battle came around we were all ready for this to be over. Jumper has been one in a long string of Yawn-worthy movies we have rented as of late. I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Sorry but it was just lacking in so many areas, and it wasn't even bad enough to be funny.