JUMPER: Jamie Bell doesn't need to be the lead to ...
JUMPER: Jamie Bell doesn't need to be the lead to shine!
Posted by
Cricou 196 days ago
People seem to hate Hayden Christensen, we don't. We simply don't like him as an actor. In Jumper, the latest from Doug Liman, the actor continued his acting tradition of mediocrity and blandness. He simply is one of the most boring young actors we have today.
Jamie Bell is a different story. If I recall correctly, right after his success in Billy Elliot, the young actor decided to take a different route and played a supporting role to Charlie Hunnam in Nicholas Nickleby. It's a good career choice- proving for a fact that he can act and can take on any roles. In Jumper, he is the only redeeming value in this disappointing film. Every scene with Bell has this boundless, nervous energy that is somewhat addictive. He's really a fantastic young actor!
A genetic anomaly allows a young man to teleport himself anywhere. He discovers this gift has existed for centuries and finds himself in a war that has been raging for thousands of years between "Jumpers" and those who have sworn to kill them.
Sounds like a fine plot for a movie right? Yes, it is. The visual effects and the script are a given. The best in Hollywood can do anything to make any film look authentic, but when it comes to the cast, that's a different stroy altogether. That's why critics love to dissect the most mundane parts of the most mediocre films. While Jumper has its moments, it's a big big disappointment.
For someone like me who read and loved the book, I expected some surprises even though I have lowered my expectations when they decided to cast Hayden instead of Tom Sturridge. It could have been a different story, or it could have been worst, but from previous performances, I know Mr. Sturridge could deliver a much better Davey. The same case when they selected Hayden instead of Michael Angarano for the much-coveted role of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars pre-quels.
Others in the cast did not impressed me either. Rachel Bilson, as usual, is charming, yet there seems to be no real connection between her and Hayden, they looked more like 'siblings' than a young romantic couple. As for Samuel L. Jackson, they should have taken out that awful wig! What were they thinking?
Seeing it in IMAX may have raised the visual impact to a certain degree, though...yet I kept on thinking this is supposed to be an action flick, and the teleporting might kept me interested throughout, it did not.
Jamie Bell is a different story. If I recall correctly, right after his success in Billy Elliot, the young actor decided to take a different route and played a supporting role to Charlie Hunnam in Nicholas Nickleby. It's a good career choice- proving for a fact that he can act and can take on any roles. In Jumper, he is the only redeeming value in this disappointing film. Every scene with Bell has this boundless, nervous energy that is somewhat addictive. He's really a fantastic young actor!
A genetic anomaly allows a young man to teleport himself anywhere. He discovers this gift has existed for centuries and finds himself in a war that has been raging for thousands of years between "Jumpers" and those who have sworn to kill them.
Sounds like a fine plot for a movie right? Yes, it is. The visual effects and the script are a given. The best in Hollywood can do anything to make any film look authentic, but when it comes to the cast, that's a different stroy altogether. That's why critics love to dissect the most mundane parts of the most mediocre films. While Jumper has its moments, it's a big big disappointment.
For someone like me who read and loved the book, I expected some surprises even though I have lowered my expectations when they decided to cast Hayden instead of Tom Sturridge. It could have been a different story, or it could have been worst, but from previous performances, I know Mr. Sturridge could deliver a much better Davey. The same case when they selected Hayden instead of Michael Angarano for the much-coveted role of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars pre-quels.
Others in the cast did not impressed me either. Rachel Bilson, as usual, is charming, yet there seems to be no real connection between her and Hayden, they looked more like 'siblings' than a young romantic couple. As for Samuel L. Jackson, they should have taken out that awful wig! What were they thinking?
Seeing it in IMAX may have raised the visual impact to a certain degree, though...yet I kept on thinking this is supposed to be an action flick, and the teleporting might kept me interested throughout, it did not.
8
Interesting Story?
- Add Comment
- Save this Story
