Jumper

If you're going out with just a t-shirt on, woe betide you!

With a director who can actually direct, and actors who can actually act and a halfway decent script — Jumper could have been a terrific film. It's a great concept, and I'm sure that the novel it's based on is a good read, but as it stands the film is a bit of a mess.

OK, a lot of a mess. It's not a completely and utterly awful film, not by a long shot. It is reasonably entertaining, in a switch your brain off and don't think about it too hard kinda way.

If it was a TV show, it's the sort of thing you'd have on in the background while you're doing the ironing, or working on the computer, or to while away a boring, rainy Saturday afternoon if it comes on the telly and there's nothing better on.

The sort of thing you really don't have to pay that much attention to — it's a bubblegum movie for people who have bubblegum for brains.

The main problem is that Jumper is chock full of plot holes, most of which which really don't occur to you until it's finished and you start to mull it all over in your head.

The main character is David Rice (Max Thieriot), who we first meet as a troubled 15-year-old — his mother ran off when he was just 5, he lives with an alcoholic father and he's bullied at school.

But one day he discovers he has the ability to teleport himself anywhere in the world merely by thinking about it. So that's it then, all his problems are solved and he runs away to New York to live happily ever after.

We jump forward 8 years, and David is now played by Mr Wooden himself, Hayden Christensen. He's still living in New York (most of the time) and seeming pretty happy. Until bad-ass Samuel L (with an insane white hairdo — do he and ITV newsreader Trevor McDonald have the same barber?) turns up, playing a dude named Roland.

Now Roland is is part of a secret gang called Paladins, who hunt down and kill Jumpers. Cos they don't think anybody should be allowed to have that sort of power except god (which makes you wonder why they don't question their god giving the Jumpers that power in the first place?)

A bunch of jumps and fights and a few more jumps later, David is back in his home town of Ann Arbor where he hooks up again with childhood crush Millie (now played by Rachel Bilson). Who doesn't find it weird that he's suddenly turned up again after disappearing 8 years before.

Who agrees to fly off to Rome with him, after not seeing him for those previously mentioned 8 years. Who jumps into bed with him about 8 minutes after they arrive in Rome. Later on another plot thread develops when David bumps into another Jumper, Griffin (Jamie Bell) at the Colosseum.

Griffin's main role in the whole mess is a) exposition and a bit of background on the history of Jumpers for the audience, and b) to team up with David to battle Roland and the other bad guys. Lots of jumps and fights and lovely CGI later and everything is left open for a sequel.

Oh, and David meets up with his long-lost mother (Diane Lane, who gets billed above Jackson for about one-10th of his screen time) who turns out to be one of those Paladins and tells him that he did his first jump at the age of 5 and she had to make a choice between killing him or leaving him.

Riiight. Um lady, didn't you consider the THIRD choice? Staying with him and HIDING him from the other Paladins? Or was that too obvious for you? He's your freaking SON.

And while on the subject of gaping plot holes ... if David's first jump was at age 5, how come he can't remember it? How come he suddenly realises he has this power when he's 15? What happened in the intervening 10 years? Did he ever jump in his sleep?

Or have "wet" jumps during puberty? And if David's been teleporting for 8 years or so, how come the Paladins didn't come after him earlier? And why does it take David 8 years to meet up with another Jumper? If Jumpers keep popping in and out of places in full view of the public, how come their existence hasn't been widely publicised?

I could go on and on — that's just the tip of the iceberg. But the script is pretty dismal — it really feels like they took some major plot points and just threw them away while shooting — and it's not helped by ham-fisted acting from Christensen.

Which makes it surprising to see talented blokes like Bell and Jackson in this — I have to assume that both had pretty big tax bills last year.

1.5/5

Movie reviews are teleported in from the lovely Screenjabber.

share this story: