Jumper (2008) User Reviews

A great idea, shame about the execution.

[Merklin · 6/10 · 24 February 2008]

What would happen if you could teleport ANYWHERE in the world in the blink of an eye? Thats the question explored in Jumper, a film thats as fast and action packed as it is hollow and underdeveloped.

The films theme of individuals who can vanish and reappear anywhere they choose is a great idea but its execution is a little weak in Jumper. Why? The blame rest squarely on the films instance on being the start of a series. Instead of taking time to develop anything in the movie, Jumper just whizzes by at an incredible speed, setting up characters, ideas and plot points without expanding or resolving or developing them. The whole thing is made to kick start a franchise of films where the story would be explained in more detail, but come on man, when you pay to see a film, you expect to see a clearly defined beginning, a middle and a satisfying end- something that Jumper isn't too concerned with.

Another problem that ties in with the films lack of depth, are the actors. While Hayden Christensen is as bland as usual, the cast (including the usually electrifying Sam Jackson) just sleep walk their way through the superficial script. Only Jamie Bell gives it some effort- his cynical Irish jumper would have made a much better lead character than Anakin.

However, while the film is pretty shallow there are some glimmers of goodness. The action sequences are fun, fast and frequent, the visual effects are cool and there's never a dull moment due to the films super fast pace.

It might sound like Im being too harsh on the film but its hard not to be when the movies concept is so great and the end product is as underdeveloped as this. If the film had a more detailed, more fleshed out, more self contained story, Jumper would have been a classic.

Attention Span? What happened to Them?

[Bihast9 · 7/10 · 24 February 2008]

For some reason, somewhere/when/one in Hollywood decided that 90 minutes was the optimal length a movie should be. Even in superlative films like LOTR and The GodFathers, there are always people bitching about it being too long. This is an issue that drives me nuts because JUMPER really needed another half hour or so to provide exposition, and answer questions that remain unanswered due to this inane 90 minute time limit. All in all, an interesting plot, decent acting, cool locations, very thin in development. Realistically, this is a film for those of us who can shut off expectations and simply enjoy some widely improbable events. An art-house film it is not, nor does it try to be, to its credit. I would really like to see a sequel to this film, as the storyline has been established, and I seriously doubt my semi-Rant about movie lengths will change anything.

An enjoyable premise, I just wish it had more time to develop.....

Not as bad as i expected considering the negative comments

[thethumbthing · 7/10 · 21 February 2008]

I saw this film last night, and i must say i was pleasantly surprised, I have been reading lots of comments on IMDb to get an idea of what to expect, lots of people were negative about the acting performance of Hayden Christensen, well i don't agree, I think he handled the character in an interesting fashion, considering his character left home at the age of 16 or so, raised himself and used his abilities to support himself in a wild and fun manner. So he is not your average run of the mill kid, nobody knows what he can do and he can basically do and go where he wants, creating an aloof type of character, so under these circumstance i think his performance was okay, maybe not worthy of an academy award but totally interesting to watch, I enjoyed his intensity. Overall i thought it was a great film for what it was, special effects are great, and the story holds together in most aspects. The concept of Jumping is something we have all thought about at one time or another, just like time travel. I think that a lot of people who comment on IMDb have no idea of what goes into making a movie, but just like to be critical as possible. When i go to the movies i want to be entertained, this movie certainly did that!! Check it out and don't forget the popcorn!!!

7-10

Good idea, but poorly executed

[wuzzadaly · 6/10 · 14 February 2008]

I'm a big science fiction fan, and was very intrigued by the idea for "Jumper". Samuel L. Jackson always lends credibility and I was interested to see Hayden Christensen for the first time since Star Wars ( I haven't seen "Awake" yet). I persuaded a friend to come with me based on the special effects in the trailer.

The plot goes much like this; Boy discovers he has the power to teleport himself. Boy learns to control his powers. Boy lives idyllic life of leisure and travel until he discovers that people are chasing him, and that he is caught up in a war between people who can teleport, and those who hunt them.

Unfortunately, "Jumper" isn't much more than a geography tour. The story is well laid out, and the main character behaves in a believable way. if you've ever imagined having the power of teleportation, you will buy into this premise big time.

Sadly, the movie fails to build on that premise, and action sequences aside is quite boring. My friend fell asleep! There is no chemistry whatsoever between David and Milly, and their romantic relationship is unrealistic.

Jackson plays the same character he always does, Rooker is under-utilized although Jamie Bell adds some much-needed momentum when he arrives.

All-in all if you want to leave your brain at home for a night, Jumper might be for you, but I would recommend waiting for the DVD.

Not All Movies Are Intended To Be Groundbreaking

[Megatronika · 21 February 2008]

Some people have unrealistic expectations. This movie is aimed mostly at teens and sci-fi fans or anyone wanting a good popcorn movie to kill two hours of their life. If that's not your thing then don't complain if you didn't like it.

If you can't stand Hayden Christensen, then don't see a Hayden Christensen movie. It's as simple as that, folks. He's not Johnny Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio, don't expect an Oscar worthy performance. However he's not bad on the eyes and as shy as he is, he's not unbearable on screen.

Personally I thought it was entertaining from beginning to end, not memorable. Acting was bearable, Sam Jackson played a badass as usual. There was a bit of humour, I liked Jamie Bell's character. It's a fun concept and with and imagination like mine the possibilities of such a power are unlimited.

I did feel that you never really connected with the characters on an emotional level and the plot was very straight forward and basic. No twists and the ending was fairly dull.

It did bring up some interesting points, like real world superpowers. Yet as an Alan Moore fan this isn't anything particularly new.

Getting ahead of themselves - assuming audiences will be hungry for more

[shiftyeyeddog · 6/10 · 1 March 2008]

To sum it up quickly: Too much setup. This entire film should have been the first half-hour of a bigger story. They try to make this just a first chapter, like an "origin" story in a superhero film, but if you're gonna spend the whole film setting up a story, and leave an ending wide open for sequels, you better be damn sure the public will actually care enough to see more. I don't think that will be the case here. Perhaps if it had been filmed and marketed as a teen flick as the book was, the series could have a longer life; but as an adult franchise I'd be surprised if there are further installments.

It wasn't a bad flick. It was a fun distraction for an hour or two, with some good action and visuals, but it was certainly nothing special. I think much of that is due to the cast. Diane Lane is always good, but she was barely in it, and Samuel L. Jackson was just distracting - partly because of the pointless white hair, and partly because pairing him with Hayden Christiansen constantly reminded you of Star Wars and took you out of the movie. The main stars, Christensen himself and Rachel Bilson, were just so...blah. I actually would have preferred if Jamie Bell had been the star instead of just a supporting role.

A tightly made film that could have been so much better.

[evasmum · 7/10 · 12 February 2008]

Stunning effects, swooping camera angles, and an interesting concept more than make up for the film's defects - namely Hayden Christensen - reprising the gloomy, wounded, misunderstood, petulant anti-hero role he played so ineffectively in the Star Wars prequels.

The other performances were sound (Samuel L Jackson's hair included) with Jamie Bell particularly outstanding as the nervy Griffin. His performance adds to the frantic energy of the film and every scene without him is the poorer for it.

While the pacing and energy of the film keeps you glued to your seat, it is only on reflection that I realised how unsatisfying the story ultimately was - leaving me with an "is that all?" kind of feeling. The answer, of course, will probably be 'No' as this film seems to have been made with the idea of sequels firmly in sight.

All in all - a tightly made film, with the scenes inside the Colosseum worth the price of admission alone - if only they'd cast someone else in the lead role!

Must see this on the big screen

[dhaag23-1 · 7/10 · 20 February 2008]

The idea of "jumping" is really neat and the movie creatively and thoroughly explored the possibilities given the premise. Besides the incredible effects, you have to see this in the theaters because of the amazing landscapes and city scenes. From the Colosseum in Rome, to the pyramids in Egypt, if you love to travel, this movie will take you all over the world.

OK, this wasn't the most thought provoking of films. As to the quality of acting, with all the action, there aren't the scenes available to showcase good acting. You go to a movie like this to be entertained for a bit, not for the intellectual stimulation, and both are valid forms of entertainment (unlike what other reviewers may imply).

Besides, Samuel Jackson is great and I always like his roles and having Rachel Bilson for eye candy doesn't hurt either.

Jumper not the one to Amaze..........But the one to Entertain!

[k-dhesi · 8/10 · 9 May 2009]

Firstly, let me explain why the score for the movie is so low. The hype before it came out made all the critics Jump up and down and had all of them excited and looking forward to a amazing stunning sci-fi action. But obviously that's wrong, the movie was not Amazing, but it was very entertaining very unique and different, a tightly made film. I also agree it could have been a lot better but you can't change that now, but saying all that it's still a very good movie. Here's why.

It's a very different storyline, an a very interesting one at that, think about it Jumpers. Do you believe in them? The action fighting scenes were stunning and very cool, and what made it so cool was the special effects and visual effects of the movie. The movie again does not amaze but keeps you entertain for a good hour a two. It's simple. Jumper was Interesting,fun & cool. I guess you wouldn't find out until you watch. So take my advice and go and see it.

A slightly underrated entertaining movie

[Garcwrites · 7/10 · 19 February 2015]

Jumper is a decent movie, I might be a little bias because I've always liked this movie. The premise alone sounds amazing, the way its set up, how the characters are introduced, the action sequences, and the special effects are simply good. The film has elements of a superhero movie but is - more so than actual superhero movies these days - grounded in reality. There are very few futuristic looking gadgets, the locations and the weapons are all realistic, making the Jumpers feel like a secret part of society that could actually exist.

The characters in Jumpers seem like regular people. Millie (Rachel Bilson) acts and reacts like a normal girl whose not a comic book fan or someone who doesn't entertain the idea that teleportation is possibility. Griffin (Jamie Bell) is a bit a dick and David Rice (Hayden Christensen) doesn't even seem to realize what's happening to him, he lives in his bubble and doing his own thing - like most people would in his case.

The film does have its faults and for me there two main problems: The first, I've never read the book but from what I understand in the movie, a Jumper can withstand a large amount of electricity - higher than normal people do. But some of the hits David got in the action sequences should have killed him if he's physically like any human, which seem to be the case and would have been a great weakness to have for the character, a regular guy who can teleport. The second problems is the ending of the film, it's not the best, I could have come up with something better.

Anyway, I liked Jumper when it came out, even though I always knew that there wouldn't be a sequel. It's an entertaining movie and over the years, whenever I watched it back I found those little pop culture references that I hadn't notice before. For example this time around I noticed a Marvel Team up reference that is kind of overused but is still cool.

@wornoutspines

Waste of Time

[donovyngrighd · 6/10 · 18 February 2008]

I'm not really sure what to think about this movie. It wasn't good, wasn't bad. The CG was mediocre, the acting was mediocre, the storyline was mediocre. Nothing about this movie was outstanding and nothing about it was truly terrible. One of main problems has to do with a lack of direction, it meandered without purpose for most of the first half, a coming-of-age story that never came of age with a protagonist who is unsure of his place. What could have been a meaty discussion of the merits of power or the responsibilites we all engender instead lapsed into a movie without any point. The romantic story was never fully developed and all of the personal stories about the protagonist felt like they were thrown in without thought. Overall, though, don't waste your time.

A movie doesn't have to be filled with answers to be good

[IceAngelWolf · 10/10 · 7 November 2010]

I liked this movie. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from a teen who's mother abandoned him at age 5 and who's father seemed an alcoholic abuser. He doesn't know much about good emotion, he just goes out and takes what he needs. He didn't have a solid upbringing so it stands to reason he'd not care what he did as long as he got what he wanted.

This power gave him freedom from that world that left him clueless about what is right and what is wrong. The end seemed more like a beginning to me that he was able finally to come to grips with his purpose.

I think they picked the right people for the parts, it was certainly believable to me and seemed more like a preview of what is yet to come, perhaps if there is a sequel to come, more of the why's will shine through and will give a clearer definition, but this movie as is, certainly was not what many would expect but it did make a point of what happens when you just go out there and live without a care.

Snakes in a Wormhole

[tedg · 5 March 2008]

I recently saw a film by Erich von Stroheim. It was unremarkable. But associated with it in IMDb was a quote about how in Paris if you ever made a good film, you are celebrated forever. In Hollywood, the only thing that matters is your last film.

Doug Liman made what I consider a very good film, one that stood out in many ways. Novel, engaging, original. That film, "Go," brought me to many others by him, always with the French expectation that I would find the same artist, the soul with the light that never does.

But its been one ragged shadow after another. But at least some of them had enough to not make audiences run away.

The mistakes here are obvious. They paid attention to the many locations shots, done well enough to register. And they paid some reasonable attention to the special effects: the teleportation and fights. And then they thought that would be enough.

They obviously missed on the ordinary values of acting, character and story. But you know, I would have easily forgiven that if they had been more integrated in their cinematic approach. This is just like the "Spiderman" movies. The character swoops. Its pretty much all he does that's interesting. The camera should swoop too. It didn't there.

About the only other energetic things a camera can do is shake, which we saw done well in "Transformers," and jump, which I expected to see here. Its as if it never occurred to them, even in the frenzied climax where it would have been almost accidental to do jumps.

Nope. Plus we have to endure Samuel Jackson, one of the biggest, dumbest muggers around.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Bit of a dud!!!

[oooMILESooo · 6/10 · 15 February 2008]

Keep your expectations low!

First off, Im not a huge Hayden fan, nor the director! I took this film at Face value, Seeing it under the impression that it was like exploring the life of the character Nightcrawler-From X-men (The actor Alan Cumming who to me will always be BORIS from Goldeneye "INVVVINCIIIBULLLLL")

This Film starts off pretty corny, with the whole schoolyard crush/bullying. Then got a bit more interesting! Im not saying I loved it: Actually I had watched both No Country For Old Men/There Will Be Blood the day before, and going into this I needed to take my expectations down!!!

But overall its a good Escapist film. It makes you want to have the power and use it for good and evil! Great Special Effects, and extraordinary locations! It Beeped me off in many sections, especially the climax with POOR decision making!!! >>>. I think everyone should get on BILSON's back! She was a dud! The little Millie was WAYYY Better! and then turned into garbage! BUT JAMIE BELL is a RISING star! He will be Big, VERY BIG! Great effort, Better than previous!

This Guy Is No 'Superhero'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 4/10 · 27 June 2008]

This is one of those films that starts off good, with a great premise, begins to become "so-so" halfway through, and then gets increasingly annoying to the point where you hate all the characters and the film is a chore to finish. I will say this: some of the action scenes at the end are the best of the movie and worth hanging around for, especially since the film is less than an hour-and-a-half. However, as most other reviewers seem to agree, when you have a lead character who is not likable, it really detracts from the story.

Hayden Christensen plays that lead, "David Rice," a young guy given the powers of teleporting, where he can instantly change where he is - from Ann Arbor to Cairo, if he so desires. After some practice, he can learn to bring other people and objects with him. The only times I've seen Christensen are when he's played "Anakin Sykwalker" in two installments of the mega-hit "Star Wars" films. (Jake Lloyd played the very young Skywalker in "Anakin's" first appearance.)

However, he's no "Skywalker" in this film, good-guy-wise. He isn't exactly "Peter Parker," either. As "Spiderman," Parker's creed is "With great power, comes great responsibility." With Rice, it's more like "get everything you can, and screw 'em!" I make the Spiderman analogy because Rice has super powers with the teleportation thing.

This is not a "superhero" movie, though, because the lead character is not a "hero," in any sense of the word. To emphasize that point, there's a scene early on in which Rice is watching a TV program about flood victims and he just nonchalantly walks away from the set, totally disinterested. That's one of the points: the kid has these powers to do some good and could care less. The problem with that, beside the obvious moral shortcomings, is that it doesn't give the viewer - you and me - anyone to really root for in the picture. He meets another teleporter and that guy is the same: a slimeball only interested in saving his own skin. That guy is "Griffin," an Irishman who, as a kid, played the lead in "Billy Elliott." The villain in the movie is "Roland," played by Samuel L. Jackson's who sports a ridiculous-looking ultra-white "do." He plays a "religious zealot" (there is no other kind in the film world) out to kill all the teleporters. He's a "paladin," as is someone else in the film, which is a surprise.

Since none of the characters were anyone you could root for, I tried to just sat back and enjoy the special-effects and the scenery, which were the positive points of the movie. We get quick tours of the world, from the Grand Canyon to Rome, and the special-effects of the teleporters "jumping" from one location to another was cool.

There was a love interest but little chemistry between David and "Millie" (Rachel Belson), a pretty but another annoying character.

So there you have it: the good and the bad. At least you've been warned.

I'm one of very few that loves Jumper!

[UniqueParticle · 9/10 · 7 October 2022]

Originally saw in the theater just wasn't reviewing back then. I love the music, cinematography is perfect, concept is solid enough, and fun entertainment for 88 minutes. Maybe could've been different but for the way it is Doug Liman created a great film in it's own way has the right amount of info, character development fair amount, stylish action, and great lines! Jamie Bell is easily the best thing about Jumper I enjoy him in any role always spot on goofy personality or serious side is great too like Chumscrubber. There's defiantly not enough movies about teleportation at least that I know of Jumper is great to me.

A good pilot...

[Vanyel · 6/10 · 18 February 2008]

Except for the stellar chase sequence, this movie is just a teaser for what could be a really good series. None of the real issues this capability bring up are given more than the briefest of attention. If Journeyman's really been canceled, give *them* charge of this, and something real might come of it. As for the movie, go at economy hour or wait to rent it. Oh good grief, apparently IMDb's been taken over by modern media which thinks you have to be verbose to get your point across. OK, Jamie Bell got short shrift here, he's very good, but only gets limited time to show it in this movie. People seem to like to ding Hayden Christensen, but he and his character are a decent match, though as lazy as they make him out to be in the movie, he'd be a blimp in no time.

Zippy visuals, inert storytelling

[Jay_Exiomo · 6/10 · 12 February 2008]

For a film that's zippy in nature, "Jumper" feels strangely inert.

Post-Anakin Hayden Christensen plays David Rice, a young man who accidentally finds he can teleport anywhere following an accident that nearly killed him. Eventually getting the hang of his newfound "superpower", David whooshes himself into a bank and out of it with the safe's contents, providing him a high-class New York life.

Based from Steven Gould's novel, "Jumper" then follows David as he zips from his posh apartment to Irish bars, Tokyo streets, Fijian waves, Egyptian pyramids, or wherever his whims take him. But such privilege doesn't come without a cost. And the price comes in the form of a white-haired Samuel L. Jackson, who plays a member of a secret organization known as Paladin. Their job is to kill all "jumpers" because "only God can be in all places at the same time." Or something like that.

Doug Liman, director of adrenaline-pumping movies such as "The Bourne Identity" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", brings his zing forth to "Jumper", a peripatetic film that while visually impresses, suffers from shallow characters and bland storytelling. It seems there's mythology here somewhere, but they are abandoned for whooshing from one place to another. It's all fine at first but it becomes repetitive; one senses that all the filmmakers were after was to extend an obligatory prologue of a potential franchise into an hour-and-a-half full length feature.

Christensen doesn't have much acting to do for his role and he's fine, although he doesn't have enough pull to his character for you to full sympathize with him either. It's hard to blame him entirely as screenwriters David Goyer, Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg don't as much provide dynamic characters as templates for the plot to tread upon through its running time. Same goes to Rachel Bilson, whose character exists solely to be the damsel in distress. Jackson, he's seen worse roles. Here, he's just having fun hamming it up as Diane Lane and Kristen Stewart also appear in cameos.

At its best, "Jumper" is a fine time-waster that could have been a notch higher with better characters and storytelling. To its credit, it makes you want to grab your passport and hop onto the next flight to Rome. But it further affirms its similarity to a travel brochure: it visually whets your travel appetite but when you're done with it, you forget about it.

Young teenage boys will love this movie!!

[luke-346 · 6/10 · 11 March 2008]

Jumper is a film that panders unashamedly and meretriciously to the adolescent male, it is a technique in film-making that can often be found in poor Hollywood action pictures. It is also an approach that has been employed in some of the director's (Doug Liman's) previous work (The Bourne Identity, Mr & Mrs Smith). Jumper follows a young man called David (Hayden Christenson) and the discovery of his power to jump to any given space on the planet instantly. Throughout the film, or rather after eight years of "Jumping", he discovers that he is not the only Jumper and that there are an elite group of people hunting him.

In reaching out to it's largely pre-pubescent audience the film throws in the usual clichés, from a hot chick to stylish CGI and excessively edited action sequences. Audience members that pined for a change of identity after seeing Bourne (hoping that maybe they we're a really a 30 billion dollar investment) will probably find Jumper fraternally appealing, they will also relish the more outlandish aspects of the film.

Annoyingly the opening scene makes the arrogant assumption that everyone watching is a "chump" (unless you're a Jumper) and then proceeds to show David zipping about his pad and jumping a matter of feet to open the fridge, reach the remote or even venture outdoors. This use of dialogue and the manner in which his apartment has been constructed (it contains a motorbike) will probably have every 13 year old boy drooling. The film even attempts to signal its appeal to this age group through the narrative as in a flashback scene David robs a bank and then explains away his wrong doing by stating "I was 15, what would you have done?" To further this notion, the link the film tries to make with history being littered with examples of Jumpers being pilloried and murdered by notorious sects and groups over the centuries, is frivolous and childish.

Gearing itself at such an audience is not a problem, if executed well. However, in Jumper too many drawn out scenes punctuate the pace of the film to such an extent that the attention span of the desired viewer is likely to be tested to its limit. Some people will enjoy the film, providing you are able to switch off, become one dimensional, ignore the plot holes and buy into the characters. If this is not possible then you will find the film annoying, immature and an exercise in decadence.

At its very height the film exhibits levels of action that might invite the viewer to lean closer to the screen or pause on their pop corn chewing. The main example being the Double-Decker bus that ploughs into the desert, but if you've seen the trailer – you've already witnessed the best bit. Jamie Bells presence was the highlight of the performances on show, and he is actor that should go on to do better things. Samuel L Jackson reverts to type and offers nothing new and Hayden Christenson must have a pretty face, because his acting here is wooden to say the least. The direction is mediocre given its premise although Bourne fans will notice the frantic camera-work, rapid editing and the slow arching tracking shots (from a distance). To finish, Jumper is a film that should not have been made as it would have been far better suited to a television show.

Perfect example of 'How to ruin a hopeful script?'

[sauravjoshi85 · 4/10 · 27 June 2020]

Jumper is a Sci-Fi movie directed by Doug Liman and stars Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Samuel L. Jackson and Rachel Bilson.

To be honest i am very disappointed with the execution of the movie considering the superb plot they have and they could've made a superb movie but all we got is this special powered hero who jumps into banks to rob them, into colosseum to impress girlfriend, in oceans to enjoy the tides and where-ever our he wanted to jump. Our hero is being chased by sad face white haired (trying to enact like agent Smith minus the white hair) Paladin (Jackson) who are assigned to kill jumpers as they think that only God must have such power but for unknown reasons, maybe just because they don't have this special abilities to jump any where to impress their girlfriend or rob banks, or they have been appointed by God because as per the Paladins only God should have the power of telekinetic.

The screenplay is week and the character development is poor, the director had failed to communicate the viewers the reason how the jumpers got their power and why Paladin wanted to kill them. Acting is just average and Samuel L. Jackson is wasted, Rachel Bilson irritates, Jamie Bell was decent but his whereabouts at the end of the movie is still a mystery. The climax suggests that the director was in a hurry to wrap up the shooting hence hurriedly and abruptly ends the movie with certain unanswered doubts.

Overall the movie is a disappointment on many fronts and i will said again that they have ruined a beautiful script which could've been turned into a memorable movie. Could be watched once

Jump For Your Life

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 25 February 2008]

Jumper is the story of young Max Thierot who grows up to be Hayden Christiansen and discovers he's got powers of teleportation. Sad to say he also discovers there are some nasty people out there who are led by Samuel L. Jackson and want to kill him.

There was the British science fiction series that did run for a time on American television called The Tomorrow People. What they did was something they called Jaunting when they teleported themselves all over the world. Apparently though the producers of that series never saw the possibilities of what could be done.

Take young Mr. Thierot who's a picked on kid back in Ann Arbor, Michigan and when he discovers his powers he leaves a drunken and abusive father and moves to New York. His first thing is to rob a bank and create limitless wealth and a life of pleasure.

Eventually though Samuel L. Jackson who works for the National Security Agency finds him and spends the rest of the film trying to kill the young man who is Hayden Christiansen now. His group are called Paladins and they have a more sinister relationship to the Jumpers than say the Watchers have to the Immortals on the Highlander. Jackson has also developed some sophisticated technology to deal with Christiansen and fellow Jumpers.

Diane Lane is in this film also as Christiansen's mother. Her part is small, but important and to tell any more would reveal too much.

This film was definitely one round the world tour with shooting everywhere from the Valley of Kings in Egypt to Ann Arbor, Michigan. The cast is young and appealing, the special effects good and there's also a nice performance by Jamie Bell as a fellow Jumper.

Nice idea, shame about the execution

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 6 October 2011]

JUMPER marks a great central idea crying out for a decent movie – and unfortunately this is nothing like a decent movie. It deals with the subject of teleportation, a sci-fi staple that's proved quite difficult to film over the years (THE FLY being one of the few successful instances). Unfortunately, director Doug Liman (THE BOURNE IDENTITY) finds himself saddled with all the stereotypes that come with a teen flick rather than an intelligent work of science fiction, and the movie suffers accordingly.

Things begin a bit like SPIDER-MAN, with teenage angst, a love interest and bullying. Pretty soon our hero discovers his superpower, an ability to teleport anywhere he chooses in the world in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the bungling scriptwriter immediately loses audience sympathy with this supposed 'hero' by making him rob a bank. It doesn't help that the chosen star is Mr. Charisma-Free himself, Hayden Christensen.

The supporting cast isn't much better. Samuel L. Jackson is on autopilot as a stock bad guy, who doesn't really seem all that bad to begin with (especially given the lead's criminal status – I have to say I was rooting for Jackson in this one). Rachel Bilson is pretty, but a walking vacuum of acting talent, and the less said about the appalling cameo by Kristen Stewart the better. It's left to Jamie Bell and Michael Rooker to carry the interest, but neither gets a worthwhile amount of screen time (with Rooker in particular criminally underused).

After the umpteenth staid action sequence (including the worst use of the Colosseum in a movie) I realised what this film reminded me of – the climax of Wes Craven's SHOCKER, an '80s-era sci-fi/horror combo which had two brawlers battling their way through different media, swapping from one scenario to the next in an instant. Needless to say, the Craven film was much better.

Uhm not Impressive!

[srkmish · 6/10 · 17 March 2008]

This is again one of those movies where i think a little tweaking of the plot,a little more thought put into character development,a little more responsive acting by the actors could have made this movie better.My imagination went wild hearing the concept of the story.I began to fantasize a lonely hero with the ability to transport himself anywhere puts to use his gift to rescue the world.I know it sounds cliché but when you throw in the fact that the guy could "jump anywhere" opens a Pandora's box of exciting possibilities Sadly the writers couldn't do much justice to a potential story.I didn't understand whether the film tried too hard or was a half hearted effort.The most obvious flaw was the mediocre acting.( There's laughing in my head).It made Hayden look like a complete confused fool.Poor Millie had nothing else to do but being pushed around by revengeful Palladins and love hungry jumpers.Also the storyline seemed like being taken out from a daytime action from cartoon network.No character development,no stress on the story and the concept,and no concern whatsoever of audience's expectations makes this one a mediocre movie.It could have been but was simply not impressive

Almost 15 years later

[zachswaze · 8/10 · 23 December 2022]

I remember watching this movie as a teenager when it first came out. I thought the concept was interesting, the action scenes were great, and was looking forward to a sequel.

Well I just rewatched the movie 15 years later I and came looking for reasons the series never continued. WOW was I shocked at some of the reveiws. I know it plays as more of a teen movie with the love story, this was the start of the Twilight era and half way into the Harry Potter franchise. The MCU had just started and the movie was by no means meant to compete with The Dark Knight. But I have to wonder if the same people leaving 1 star reviews feel the same about the MCU all these years later. Most Marvel movie endings are basically just advertisements for the next movie. We've become accustomed to origin stories and cliff hanger endings. Not to say they are always done right, but it does show that they can lead to successful franchises and this movie definitely had potential.

I think Sam Jackson & Jamie Bell's performances still hold up pretty well. I would agree the movie could have benefitted from an additional 30-60 minutes of story though. I would just like to know what movies the people who left negative reviews actually like?, because Jumper is still entertaining and much better than some of Marvel's recent productions in my opinion. Maybe we weren't so accepting of cliff hangers and unanswered questions in 2008 as we are today with streaming services, bingeable content, and multi-movie cinematic universes.

Somewhat fun, somewhat irritating

[LazySod · 6/10 · 7 March 2008]

A somewhat timid guy protects a girlfriend of his at school and finds himself on thin ice somewhat later. As he falls through it and is in danger of dying under the ice his story seems to be a rather short one. But, that would make the film a rather short one too. So, in some obscure way, the guy teleports from under the ice to a place where he has been spending time in the past - a library. Unable to understand what happened he goes "under the radar" and tries to find out what did happen and how it did.

As a precondition to a film this isn't a bad one. You need to start somewhere, might as well start here. The next condition of the film is that there is someone that isn't happy with these special abilities. Not entirely unbelievable - who wouldn't want to be able to jump around the entire globe in a blink of an eye? Quite naturally some of the people that are unable to do it are a bit jealous. Jealous enough to kill even.

So far the film meets these two conditions and works. But why oh why does it let itself derail so enormously badly by pulling in a religious angle? That angle doesn't belong in there, feels out of touch and isn't backed by anything except the few times it is mentioned. There's quite a few angles that would have worked a lot better. This is for me a big negative strike to this film that would otherwise have been a rather good one.

6 out of 10 irritations