Jumper (2008)

Featured Audience Ratings

• John M

  
  Clever ideas and decent action make this worthwhile. Lots of areas were not fully developed but otherwise enjoyable.

• Phil H

  
  Not a bad adventure film, quite original, at first I was thinking the effects would be cheesy and obviously bluescreen but they all work really well and look awesome. In general this film does look brilliant, really crisp and the plot starts out really well but it does get a bit silly… More
  Not a bad adventure film, quite original, at first I was thinking the effects would be cheesy and obviously bluescreen but they all work really well and look awesome. In general this film does look brilliant, really crisp and the plot starts out really well but it does get a bit silly near the end. The sequence where Hayden jumps with a section of house is too much and the battle between Hayden and Bell is very predictable and not really needed, it just is over the top and too much like 'The Matrix' in my opinion. The cast is really good though, apart from Jackson, he's alittle hammy haha and his hair is daft, how would you be stealthy and a good agent when you stand out so much haha. The film is really good fun but there are just too many un-anwsered questions, there isn't a great deal of explanation to why the palladins want to kill jumpers, are they just jealous of their power? what happens to Jamie Bell and Jackson at the end? how do they get their jumper powers? Also, when the action gets going it can make you slightly dizzy, all the jumping going on is really confusing and you can't keep track, the ending is kinda open too, probably a sequel on the way involving his palladin mother. Its a good film but too many little problems spoil it when it could have been a classic. People who suffer from epileptic fits may wanna stay away as this film does flicker around, seriously.

• Christopher H

  
  A good concept that was executed poorly. The effects are bad and the writing is horrible. However, what seals this movies fate is the acting, which is detached to the point that is becomes impossible to care for what is going on. I almost feel bad for Hayden Christensen. First the… More
  A good concept that was executed poorly. The effects are bad and the writing is horrible. However, what seals this movies fate is the acting, which is detached to the point that is becomes impossible to care for what is going on. I almost feel bad for Hayden Christensen. First the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and now this.

• Brad W

  
  Jumper had a good concept, good effects, but was not a good movie. The plot was so boring and pointless, with all the love stories and parent relationships. The music was okay, nothing special. Effects were okay also, mostly little flashes when they jumped. I HATE HAYDEN… More
  Jumper had a good concept, good effects, but was not a good movie. The plot was so boring and pointless, with all the love stories and parent relationships. The music was okay, nothing special. Effects were okay also, mostly little flashes when they jumped. I HATE HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN, he and the rest of the cast are horrible actors. So many stupid parts that meant nothing, like making Samuel L Jacksons hair white? Or not explaining their powers well enough? This just had too many problems for me.

• Scott G

  
  It seemed alright until Hayden Christensen spoke, Jamie Bell was alright and the action wasn't terrible, just Hayden's acting did it.

• Drake T

  
  Did we need further proof that Hayden can't act? Did we need another soulless human-with-super-power film perpetuated by teen angst and two dimensional "villain" organizations? No, no we did not.

• Alexander D

  
  Terrible acting--but what would you expect from Hayden Christensen (STAR WARS: EPISODES II & III) and Samuel L. Jackson (STAR WARS: EPISODES I, II & III; SNAKES ON A PLANE)?

• Bethany M

  
  It was a good film!

• Jeff "

  
  Jumper has received tremendous flack by the professional critics.The film is an entertaining ride that of course is flawed, but is nonetheless a fun viewing experience. The story has a pretty cool concept and the special effects are awesome. Jumper is the type of film that relies… More
  Jumper has received tremendous flack by the professional critics.The film is an entertaining ride that of course is flawed, but is nonetheless a fun viewing experience. The story has a pretty cool concept and the special effects are awesome. Jumper is the type of film that relies more on the effects than on actual story development. The characters aren't that well developed, and some are fairly flat. The best performance of the film is of course Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson gives a splendid performance as the villain. Don't expect much from Jumper. Expect that you'll be entertained, but don't expect anything truly phenomenal or electrifying. Jumper is a fairly average action film. Theres lots to like about the film, but at times the story feels like its falling flat. Jumper is a popcorn action film meant to provide and hour and twenty minutes of fun, and it most certainly does that. The acting and casting choices are questionable, but the end result is a film that doesn't take itself seriously and is more a fun time waster than anything else. Jumper is the type of film that you need to shut off your brain to enjoy. Theres more to like about this film than to hate. But before viewing the film go in with average expectations, and you may not be disappointed, I did and I quite enjoyed it. Not a perfect film, but pretty enjoyable and fun.

• Conner R

  
  I would say that this is a huge guilty pleasure of mind, but I have no problem saying that I love it. I think the real reason this was passed off by most people is the bizarre hatred of Hayden Christensen. Why people dislike him so much I will never know, but I think he's great.… More
  I would say that this is a huge guilty pleasure of mind, but I have no problem saying that I love it. I think the real reason this was passed off by most people is the bizarre hatred of Hayden Christensen. Why people dislike him so much I will never know, but I think he's great. You have to admit that this is a really cool concept and original approach to the superhero genre, mainly in that it's not really a superhero movie at all. I like that they made David's character a little bit apathetic and flawed rather than a hero who has to save the day. I loved the crazy effects they used for the jumping, especially towards the ending. Doug Liman's directing and David S. Goyer's writing are favorites of mine, so it's no real surprise that I ended up really falling in love with this from the get go.

• Wildaly M

  
  Interesting. I liked it.

• Christopher A

  
  A promising and intriguing idea that is left totally unexplored and erodes into another pointless 'look at me' special effects flick. The lead character has zero likability which leaves you wondering which side you as the viewer are actually rooting for, the self centered,… More
  A promising and intriguing idea that is left totally unexplored and erodes into another pointless 'look at me' special effects flick. The lead character has zero likability which leaves you wondering which side you as the viewer are actually rooting for, the self centered, bank robbing, rather go surfing than save some dying people lead or the people trying to kill him because 'only god should have the power to be in all places at once'. Worth a watch if its on TV.

• Sophie B

  
  Ok. A bit predictable in places. I like how the young Millie and David do look quite a lot like the main two. It's a believable change. Jamie Bell did great.

• xGary X

  
  A teenager discovers he can teleport anywhere at will and sets himself up in a self-indulgent hedonistic lifestlye, little knowing that he and his kind are being hunted by a clan of zealots intent on their extermination. Jumper is a classic example of a Hollywood… More
  A teenager discovers he can teleport anywhere at will and sets himself up in a self-indulgent hedonistic lifestlye, little knowing that he and his kind are being hunted by a clan of zealots intent on their extermination. Jumper is a classic example of a Hollywood "blockbuster" that never got past the concept stage. No doubt cooked up in the wake of the success of the X Men movies and Heroes, the vacuous plot leaves virtually EVERYTHING unexplained and the hero and his love interest were clearly chosen for their ability to look good on the covers of movie mags rather than any semblance of ability. Jamie Bell keeps things from reaching the level of sheer tedium, but SLJ phoned in his "bad guy" persona and the whole thing felt like a TV show pilot that I'd walked in on half way through; think Hancock without the jokes. Considering the jokes were the only things that kept Hancock from being a towering pile of crap, this is not a glowing reference.

• Anthony L

  
  It's not awful but I do think they could have done much more with the interesting concept. I think too much was left for a sequel which feels a little presumptuous. It biggest flaws are Hayden Christensen & Rachel Bilson. They are both truly awful in their roles. Jamie Bell… More
  It's not awful but I do think they could have done much more with the interesting concept. I think too much was left for a sequel which feels a little presumptuous. It biggest flaws are Hayden Christensen & Rachel Bilson. They are both truly awful in their roles. Jamie Bell was quite good but what the hell is that accent all about? I lived in Middlesbough for 3 years and I can barely understand him!

• Albert K

  
  ...

• Richard C

  
  I actually liked this. B

• MisterYoda ?

  
  Maybe it's because I went in to it with low expectations but I enjoyed the hell out of this movie! Is it a perfect movie? No, far from it. However I had just come off an early morning, I was tired as hell and just wanted to see a nice movie that didn't require too much… More
  Maybe it's because I went in to it with low expectations but I enjoyed the hell out of this movie! Is it a perfect movie? No, far from it. However I had just come off an early morning, I was tired as hell and just wanted to see a nice movie that didn't require too much thought so I could wind down. As it was a Thursday and a 3:45pm show I was the only one in the cinema! Absolute heaven, I can pretend I'm famous or something and have booked the whole place out so I can have some privacy! So I sit down with my Ben and Jerry's and the movie starts. There's a sequence that lasts maybe 15 minutes that gives some back story to the main character, David, from when he was 15 and started 'jumping'. Lovely special effects follow and David does things we'd all do if we could teleport or 'jump', rob a bank, go to exotic locations, etc. And then we're into the present day. David has a nice apartment, nice stuff, fancies a trip to London. All is going well until Sam Jackson shows up and ruins it for him. There's a bit of lovey dovey stuff and then there's plenty of frantic 'jump' escapes, some 'jump' fights and the movie ends on a relatively satisfying note. All in all it was better than I expected and exactly what I was looking for. But this movie could be so much better. It has a short running time, 88 minutes. Almost surely because of the size of the budget. It must have been astronomical as almost every scene has a 'jump' effect. Add to that the multiple locations and I'd say they could only afford 88 minutes. Because of these everything feels rushed. There is a lot more that could have been touched on. How do the Jumpers 'jump'? Do they need to have visited the place first or would just a picture do? What is physically different about them? Why do they have sworn enemies that have stayed enemies for hundreds of years? Where did the bad guys get their cool weapons? How are Jumpers made? Is it passed down through generations? But with the time constraint these questions can't be addressed. What the movie does do is go out of its way to set up a sequel. Painfully so in fact as the ending feels like the end of an act rather than the end of a movie. But this could have franchise potential. 'Jumping' is a cool power. He could be a modern superhero with the ready made sworn enemies. The effects are great. I even felt Hayden Skywalker was quite good in the part contrary to what others seem to think. If it does go to a sequel I'd like to see much more background into the whole 'jumping' thing and a good storyline. Make the running time longer and cut down on some of the action shots to stay within budget. So in conclusion Jumper is a fun, action packed, special effects heavy movie that will entertain you if you don't have too high hopes for it. It's not going to win any Oscars but that doesn't matter and it has potential for some good sequels. Recommended for days when you just want to be entertained.

• Tony G

  
  Original premise destroyed by unoriginal plotting and incredibly bad acting from Christensen and unoriginal acting from Jackson

• Clintus M

  
  I found Jumper to be entertaining, not too "sci-fi" or "techy" for a novice to enjoy. However, it is like an unfullfilled promise; it's not terrible yet not satisfying either. The visual effects are dizzying at times, but I liked them nonetheless. They were… More
  I found Jumper to be entertaining, not too "sci-fi" or "techy" for a novice to enjoy. However, it is like an unfullfilled promise; it's not terrible yet not satisfying either. The visual effects are dizzying at times, but I liked them nonetheless. They were reminicient of the clone movie from a few years back, The Island. Acting wise, the cast was only fair, I thought Hayden Christensen was wooden. Also, does anyone else notice that Samuel L. Jackson plays similar characters in this and many recent films? Bottom line: good looking actors and big budget effects add up to about 60%. The "teleporting to the outer lobby" comment was too smarmy and smart alecky.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings