Really interesting idea + mediocre acting and script + great special effects = mediocre sci-fi movie
Jumper tells the story of a kid who figures out that he can move from place to place at will (think teleport) and runs away from home at the age of 15. This is the first 15 or so minutes of the movie. From there we are "jumped" 8 years later where the kid has grown into a smug and spoiled young man who, for me at least, isn't very likable. Enter the opposition. Samual Jackson (which white painted hair that isn't very scary) is the leader of a special group called Paladins. This group's origins and methods are never really explained; all you need to know is that Paladins hunt Jumpers and have been doing so for a couple thousand years. Into this not very well defined mix add a love interest that isn't that believable, since the last time he saw her was when they were about 15 and she just goes along with whatever he says while attempting to show some spin by whining about what is going on and where they are going and who ARE those people!?
Basically they took a really good idea (I am interested in reading the book, since I have a feeling it will be much better) and produced a luke-warm movie with plot holes you could break a leg in. My advice, watch a matinée if you must see it in theaters, but ultimately you won't miss much if you wait for cable.
1 comment:
...And the real winner is: Jamie Bell!
I will have to agree Lunanshee's assessment; the movie isn't very good. It's a shame, really, since the premise is pretty exciting, the main "actor" is pretty (I use the title loosely, in Christesen's case), and the effects are cool. All of these things aren't enough to make the movie *work* though, but that is what I get for expecting depth from a Doug Liman film. (If you ask me, his Bourne movies were not as good as Paul Greengrass's).
The real scene stealer is Jamie Bell. The guy continues to turn out really sharply drawn characters, even when they are secondary (King King or Nicholas Nickelby, anyone?) or poorly drawn (this movie=case-in-point).
It is even pretty interesting to note how polished Christensen seems when his character and Bell's stand next to each other, debating about their "limited run". I will take Bell and his scruffy, unconnected attempt at a beard anyday over the smooth but ultimately wooden performance of the "star".
In fact, I think I will take to calling Christensen "the post" (as in "acts like a____" and "seems as dumb as a__." And by this I do not insult his intelligence, but his emotional affect, or lack thereof.)
But does Christensen stop with the butchering of sci-fi? Nope, the more vaunted the material, the more he ruins it. I just noticed that he is slated to ruin "Neuromancer", another piece of classic SF lit. Even Keanu Reeves did a better job with "Johnny Mnemonic"! Admittedly it wasn't great, but it was fun--why do we need to run over this material again? As with songs, the only reason to re-make anything is to change the material significantly and for the better; this seems to meet neither condition.
Summary: I am not entirely disgusted, but a little let-down. I would see Jumper again, but I would want to rent it so that I wouldn't have to keep it around the apartment. Or, I could wait for cable...
Post a Comment