Jumper

"...and so I jumped for the first time...." But what came out of it? For adventure-seeking teenagers, it was definitely a delightful experience and a fulfilled dream, but for others, it was a slightly hesitant breather with forever young Hayden, adorable Rachel Bilson, and reliable Jackson. And unfortunately, also with unfinished, or rather just lightly touched upon mythology (see the story of the Paladin hunter, which ends almost before it begins). I admit that I enjoyed it because the weak half an hour and a half flies by very quickly, and with a bunch of money, Liman managed to make it really very visible, but judging from the hesitant box office results, I wasn't the only one who wasn't very bothered that there won't be a continuation. (11/04/2008)

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. (14/07/2008)

At fifteen, I would have jumped for joy at a film like this all over the world, but five years later, I mourn the screenwriting dementia that turned a divine book into a shallow fairy tale for little kids. It lacks fatefulness, urgency, proper characters, dynamism, action, and, above all, style. Liman searches for it in vain for eighty minutes and fails to do so even in the final CGI ridiculousness. It's too bad he made this crap - any dunce working in advertising could have created the same thing. (06/04/2008)

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. (21/03/2008)

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. (13/06/2008)