88 Minutes

Directed By: Doug Liman

Written By: David S. Goyer and Jim Uls

Let me tell you about my day so far. Coffee in Paris, Surfed the Maldives. Took a little nap on Mount Kilimanjaro. Oh yeah, and I got digits from this Polish chick in Rijo. And then I jumped back for the final quarter of the NBA finals. Court side, of course. And all that was before lunch. -David

Synopsis

In the peak of adolescent disparagement a young boy finds himself able to teleport.  At first he has difficultly controlling it, but when he has an understanding and control, he takes off and leaves his single father alone.  Eight years later he's living the high life, in a fancy penthouse visiting wherever, whenever he wants.  Soon, fate catches up with him and he finds himself in the middle of war against those who wishes all of his kind dead.  He then begins the fight for answers and survival.

Review

An action/science fiction film coming from the makers of The Jason Bourne Movies is something highly anticipated no matter what the subject in question is, nor your leading actors.  Jumper was not the awesome success that The Bourne movies were, but it was no slouch either.  Hayden Christensen is in his first leading role without a massive cast and already created mythology and fans to support him, and he pulled it off quite well.  If he can continue down this path as action hero there would be no complaints in my department.  The last many years I've suffered the dwindling capacity to believe someone can ever actually live up to the action hero status that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sly Stallone created for the 80's and early 90's.  In fact, I'm resolved to say there will never be another Arnie or Sly.  Though guys like Vin Diesal and Matt Damon (in his case reputably) have attempted to play the part of major action star.  Hayden Christensen probably won't fill those shoes either, but in Jumper he proved to be charismatic, masculine, and tangible all at the same time.  Being incredibly attractive certainly doesn't hurt.  If he didn't pull it off Jumper would not have been half the film it was.

The character's were developed without giving too much away but their motivations that were the catalyst for the rest of the story were clear, concise, and made the future events plausible because they were focused and created at a natural pacing.  By the time David does skip past his adolescence into adulthood we see how his childhood trauma's have influenced the way he has chosen to live with his gift.  His life is extravagant and glorified, but his is still alone and still yearns for the girl who stole his heart years ago.  The events that transpire after this are completely believable because of the early characterization.

Stylistically, the movie was not overwhelming, which was an absolute disappointment.  The way the Bourne movies, and even Mr. And Mrs. Smith were shot, were captivating to watch.  All had very definitive looks and textures, while Jumper clearly lacked there.  Some of the sites the film was shot at offered so much to capitalize on visually, but Doug Liman missed the marker entirely on that and resorted to focusing more on the visual effects that coincided with these amazing locations.

The visual effects did however rock.  The actual transporting, and the discovery of being able to transport other people, vehicles, etc. brought a continuing growing element that kept the entire concept fresh and interesting throughout the story, which was less than complicated itself.  But with solid acting, good character development, and some pretty intense effects, Jumper was a vastly entertaining movie to watch.

Cast

• Hayden Christensen as Davey aka David Rice
• Samuel L. Jackson as Roland
• Diane Lane as Mary Rice
• Jamie Bell as Griffin
• Rachael Bilson as Millie Harris
• Michael Rooker as William Rice

The best character in the story was Griffin, played by Jamie Bell.  His delivery was so authentic I found myself surprised to be watching a one dimensional action flick.  His charisma, and the depth he contributed made the movie all that much more.  Sam Jackson is riot no matter what he does, and pretty much succeeds in doing whatever it is he's attempting to do in any role, be it ridding of snakes on a plane or carrying around a mans soul.  In Jumper he's the big bad who leads the group that wants to rid the world of all the Jumpers and is pretty intimidating, charismatic, you know......all the things one expects from a Sam Jackson performance.  Diane Lanes small role was actually kind of awkward, though her character leaving the movie open ended in the way that concludes the story but is ready for another chapter, was not unlike the end of a Bourne movie, and I liked what that offered.  It was really a good cast that satisfied the bulk of the story in making the character's plausible in a very unrealistic universe.

Ratings And Suggestions

Jumper was pure popcorn flick fun.  It's not going to dwell with you for days, or be remembered as the best action flick of the year, but it certainly was a solid movie that may find it's way into my DVD collection eventually.  It's violence and action sequences are hardly offensive, and I really don't see the crime in letting a younger than 13 audience view it.  For a lot of fun, with some pretty astounding action Jumper is your movie rental this week.  You won't be sorry so long as you don't expect Jason Bourne.  Three out of Four Stars.

Semi-Pro is merely the latest Will Ferrell loveable loser movie. In short it's better than Talladega Nights, not as good as Anchorman and nowhere near Old School.

Film of the Week is Seth Gordon's documentary King of Kong. On the surface this is the story of some guys with a little too much time on his hands (says the guy writing a film blog) trying to become the world's top scoring Donkey Kong player but, look below this and you will find a story of intrigue, obsession and competition. Whilst it is fair to say that this is documentary film making at it's most narratively 'tuned' edge (and you suspect that some people may have been unfairly dealt with by the director) it is hard not to be dragged into this underdog movie. If I'm honest I've disparaged other films of this type for their constructed nature but I just couldn't help but be seduced.

Elsewhere we have gory thriller WAZ and the new Ryan Reynolds' rom-com Definitly Maybe plus Kidulthood being given the 'special edition' treatment ahead of the arrival of the sequel Adulthood... but of most interest is The Exonerated. This is a filmed version of Erik Jensen and Jessica Blank's play concerning people convicted for murder then... err... exonerated. Whilst this might not sound like a fun piece of entertainment it is well worth checking out for the basic, sparse presentation and a veritable feast of great actors.

Have a good week.

Hayden Christensen is an obnoxious young man with special abilities in Jumper, the 2008 Doug Liman-directed thriller. Based on the science fiction novel of the same name from 1992 by Steven Gould, this film is a relatively hollow narrative with little emotional investment and bland characters. While the premise is nice and has gobs of potential for great stories, Liman’s final product suffers under the weight of poor acting and sloppy storytelling.

Christensen stars as David, a young man with a genetic anomaly that allows him to teleport like Nightcrawler from X-Men. David even leaves a little trail of dust and smoke, just like the horned blue guy. While exploring his gift, David decides to live the high life and escape his less-than-ideal circumstances back at home. He is a jet-setter, firmly entrenched in a lifestyle of adventure and fun. David can show up anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat, which enables him to eat a sandwich on top of the Sphinx.

David reconnects with his childhood sweetheart, the ridiculously-named Millie (Rachel Bilson) and they head to Rome the old-fashioned way (in a plane). While there, David’s adventurous side clashes with his desire to keep his “jumping” ability secret and it makes for some interesting but bland moments as he tries to sneak into various parts of the Coliseum. While mucking about in Rome, David discovers that he is not alone with his talents and also learns that there are those who want to kill “jumpers” for being abominations. While grappling with religious zealots and his new jumping ability, David learns about what’s really important in life.

With a supporting cast that boasts Jamie Bell, Samuel L. Jackson, Diane Lane, and Michael Rooker, one would think the acting would be a little more on point. As such, the performances are generally all lacking in any substance or punch. Jackson’s turn as Roland, the story’s lead villain, is uninspiring and unintimidating. The chemistry between Bilson and Christensen is laughable, especially during a handful of terrible scenes at the Roman Coliseum.

Jumper will be a dream movie for some, as the idea of jetting off out of a bad situation and into a good one in another part of the world is sure to be exciting. It’s just too bad that Liman’s efforts with the premise fall so darn flat. For starters, there are no rules to the jumping. It is implied, somewhat, that a jumper has to have visited the place he is going to jump to. The film plays by these rules sometimes, but for the most part it appears to just make things up as it goes. The screenplay meanders around, correcting things where convenient and leaving huge gaps in logic. Why would a jumper need a car for any reason other than stylish purposes?

There’s also a lot here that isn’t touched, which makes the idea that Jumper serves as an introduction to this whole scene a laughable one. There is a war going on, don’t you know? Jumpers have been fighting with Paladins for centuries, although we wouldn’t know there was anything less than a slight skirmish taking place. There is no history given to the conflict, except a few lines that Jackson’s Roland utters when he’s about to stab someone. Nobody knows or cares why Paladins are named after ancient Roman guards and officials of the Catholic Church, which makes the name “jumper” even sillier for those who are able to teleport and defy “God.”

Overall, Jumper is just uninteresting. For all of its special effects and CGI backdrops, there’s not a lot of exciting stuff here. A fight sequence between David and Jamie Bell’s Griffin character is a highlight, but the potential of using the jumping mythology is simply shot by poor direction decisions and a bad screenplay. For much better “jumping” action, I prefer the electrifying opening sequence of X2: X-Men United. For acting, I prefer dinner theatre.

2/10

Trailer:

Direção: Clint Eastwood

Roteiro: William Broyles Jr., Paul Haggis

Elenco: Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Paul Walker, John Benjamin Hickey, Jamie Bell

O que é mais bacana nesse filme é que não tentaram mostrar heróis de batalha, muito pelo contrário, a história passa o tempo todo desmistificando o que seria um herói de baralha.

Baseado no livro de James Bradley, "A conquista da honra" mostra a farsa armada pelo governo estadounidense para arrecadar mais fundos para financiar suas tropas durante a guerra. Em alguns momentos temos semelhanças com algumas cenas de "Cartas de Iwo Jima", o desembarque e o início da batalha ficaram bem interessantes analisados dos dois ângulos.

A trama alterna momentos de batalha com a turnê de três ex-combatentes para arrecadar os fundos para financiamento da guerra. Em Iwo Jima, o pelotão de Doc (Ryan Phillipe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) e Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), erguem uma bandeira dos Estados Unidos no topo da montanha no quinto dia de batalha, no momento esse ato é insignificante, já que após isso vão enfrentar mais de 30 dias de batalha. Uma foto tirada quando erguiam a bandeira muda a participação deles em Iwo Jima. Com o sucesso da foto os três são enviados de volta aos Estados Unidos para iniciar a turnê. Em cada cidade que passam são recebidos como heróis e a foto é tratada como uma ilustração da vitória. O que não foi explicado ao público é que a foto na realidade não representa absolutamente nada, o registro foi feito de um segundo asteamento da bandeira, já que a primeira foi substituída logo após ser colocada lá. Durante a turnê, os três ex-combatentes vão enfrentando os conflitos internos de saberem a verdade mas sem poderem contá-la. O mais importante de tudo é que segundo o filme, eles sabiam que não eram heróis e se sentiam incomodados com esse título.

"A conquista da honra" é um bom filme de guerra justamente porque não é só um filme de guerra e com seu complemento em "Cartas de Iwo Jima" formam uma bela dupla.

It's a real problem, the human characters in giant monster movies. They're nearly always boring. KING KONG is the exception, as with so many things -- in all three versions of KK, the humans are a bit more interesting than they absolutely need to be. The less-is-more economy and pace of the first film make it the winner, of course. Quasi-sequel MIGHTY JOE YOUNG also does OK -- Robert Armstrong is even more ebullient and explosive than he is in KK. A shame he never played anything Shakespearian on screen. What do you think: Lear? Macbeth?

The '70s KONG has Jeff Bridges as a sort of more passionate and committed version of the Dude from THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and Jessica Lange playing the character who's most like herself (slightly dippy blonde actress). The Jackson version has lots of "characterisation", but doesn't really understand the basic principle of characterisation through action, which is a bit of a shame since it's an action film. For example, Adrien Brody is a writer. Yet, once the drama starts (an hour in) he acts exactly like Indiana Jones. I accept that we might need him to be slightly more physical than, say, Truman Capote, but what's the point of all that set-up if you're just going to forget it once the running and jumping starts?

Similarly, Jamie Bell is established as a kid who's never fired a gun in his life, yet soon he's shooting insects off Adrien Brody's privates with the skill of a veritable Lee Harvey Oswald (ah, if only L.H.O. had confined his marksmanship to shooting insects off Adrien Brody's privates, how different the political scene might be today).

(I remember seeing the DJ-musician Moby introduce a GODZILLA movie on TV, with the words, "As kids, we were very keen on monster movies, because the alternative seemed to be movies without monsters, and who would want that?")

I love Ray Harryhausen's work (he's coming to the Edinburgh Film Festival -- we've bought our tickets), but few of his films manage to create endearing human characters to compare to the little rubber guys. The great Lionel Jeffries in THE FIRST MEN IN THE MOON is one (and that film is probably the best film qua filmof Harryhausen's oevre) and Raquel Welch certainly makes her presence felt in ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. but I'm not sure that's anything to do with characterisation. I think she's there to make the dinosaurs look more life-like by comparison. JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS is jam-packed with fascinating thesps, from Nigel Green to Niall McGinnis, and they're always welcome, but they don't make much impact as human beings, since their dialogue is a bit stiff and their scenes feel like between-monster padding. Harryhausen's last opus, CLASH OF THE TITANS, populates Olympus with an improbable throng of thesps (Olivier & Andress! Maggie Smith and Pat Roach!) but they have little of the snazziness James Woods brings to the role of Hades in the Disney HERCULES -- the high-water mark of Greek god impersonation in Hollywood cinema.

In a lot of monster attack films, like WAR OF THE WORLDS, the heroes, being unable to do meaningful battle with an enemy so much bigger than themselves, are reduced to running around helplessly and speculating about what might be going on. Spielberg's version actually gets around this for most of its running time by putting the protagonist and his family in a lot of very dangerous situations, but he comes a cropper on the ending, in which the Earth is saved no thanks to Tom Cruise.

Actually, if we accept JAWS as a monster movie, which I suggest we have to, Spielberg and his writers deserve a bit of credit for serving up engaging, if 2D, characters who actually occupy far more screen time than the sea beast. Of course, his three leading men are very watchable anyway.

I'm going to throw in a mention of TREMORS as well, since that has enjoyable, affable lead characters also. Why is this so hard as soon as a monster rears its head? I suppose these films typically didn't attract the best actors, as much of the budget went on special effects. And the directors were usually ex-designers, photographers and special effects men themselves, rather than "actors' directors". And the writers? Science fiction is full of authors whose ability to deal with wild ideas outstrips their ability to deal with human conversation, so that could be part of it. KRONOS has some decent ideas, but flat characterisation. Imagine a giant monster movie written by Harold Pinter. That would be GREAT. Giant lizard feet could trample Buckingham Palace during the pauses.

THE GIANT BEHEMOTH, A.K.A. BEHEMOTH, A.K.A. BEHEMOTH THE SEA MONSTER, which we watched recently, suffers the same problems of boring scientists and passive protagonists. The film is the work of art director Eugene Lourie, who turned director and gave the world this thing and also GORGO, a man-in-a-suit monster movie much loved for its plot twist of the even larger mummy monster coming to rescue the baby. It's the DUMBO of kaiju films. Oh, and he did Harryhausen's THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, "suggested by" Ray Bradbury's great pulp-poetry story The Fog Horn, which my mum told me about when I was little, sparking my imagination wonderfully (thanks mum!) and THE COLOSSUS OF NEW YORK, which to my regret I haven't seen.

The monster in BEHEMOTH is another of those radioactive dinosaurs, whose sinister emanations have the effect of turning bystanders into drawings of skeletons. Nasty stuff, that radiation.

The only human element in the film is Jack MacGowran, an actor incapable of being uninteresting for a second or of underplaying for a frame. Here he's on good form, having not yet succumbed to the bottle altogether. By the time of Peter Brook's glum and fusty KING LEAR, MacGowran, though still somehow able to remember his lines, was quite unable to remember what they meant. Some how he still compels attention in that film and in THE EXORCIST (that "cursed movie" which supposedly claimed his life), but he's much better when he actually knows what he's doing. It's such a relief when he ambles into BEHEMOTH halfway through -- an eccentric showstopper, a smirking onrush of tics and mannerisms -- and such a shame when he and his helicopter are subsumed by a hungry saurian just minutes later. It's arguable that MacGowran's thespian rampage is far more damaging to the film than the monster is to London -- he makes everything seem so dull by comparison.

The behemoth is played by a glove puppet for most of the film, turning into an animated Willis H. O'Brien creation in the last ten minutes. Too little too late, though all the rampaging provides the usual fun (only kids and monsters actually rampage. Native people go on the rampage, which seems to be subtly different). And we do get a few underwater shots, which for some reason is rare in these movies.

But apart from MacGowran and the above examples, human characters in monster films still seem like an endangered species.

I guess there's always the Peanut Sisters from GODZILLA VERSUS MOTHRA. Their characterisation consisted of (a) the fact that they were very small, and (b) the fact that they were called the Peanut Sisters. Oh, and I think they sang a song.

That's more than can be said for Tom Cruise.

"Anywhere Is Possible."

We went into this movie not expecting much. The concept looked fun from the preview, but we were iffy on Hayden Christensen's acting abilities after his less than stellar performances in Star Wars Episodes II & III. So, he had nowhere to go but up, unless he stayed where he was... And luckily he didn't. He actually did a great job. Rachael Bilson was just... ehh... the British kid was great - Jamie Bell. And Sam Jackson was... well.. SAM JACKSON. He was kind of over the top, but what can you do. It's why we love him. 

So, the premise is, due to a genetic 'anomoly' Hayden's character has the ability to 'jump' to anywhere in the world - kind of like 'beaming' in Star Trek, without the equipment. He just has to focus on where he wants to go and he gets there [sounds good to me - where do I sign up? F the oil companies and airlines!]. As the ability gets stronger, he can also take people or things with him, which makes it more interesting. And he finds out that this ability has existed for centuries, and so has an organization who's sole purpose is to hunt and kill people with these abilities.

There were some fun action sequences, great special effects, some good character conflicts & moral dilemas and a bit of a twist to the ending. Overall, a fun ride and the pace was great. They definitely left us with some questions, so maybe they'll make a sequel. I'd give this a 3 1/2 out of 5. Worth a rental. 

~ HELENA

Add'l Info: Released: Feb 14, 2008 • Runtime: 88 minutes • Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality

Confiram a lista dos indicados...

Melhor Filme

- Juno
- Transformers
- Piratas do Caribe: No Fim do Mundo
- Eu Sou a Lenda
- Superbad: É Hoje
- A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido: O Livro dos Segredos

Melhor Ator

- Will Smith, Eu Sou a Lenda
- Shia LaBeouf, Transformers
- Denzel Washington, O Gângster
- Matt Damon, O Ultimato Bourne
- Michael Cera, Juno

Melhor Atriz

- Ellen Page, Juno
- Keira Knightley, Piratas do Caribe: No Fim do Mundo
- Katherine Heigl, Ligeiramente Grávidos
- Amy Adams, Encantada
- Jessica Biel, Eu os Declaro Marido e ... Larry!

Melhor Vilão

- Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd: O Barbeiro Demoníaco da Rua Fleet
- Denzel Washington, O Gângster
- Angelina Jolie, A Lenda de Beowulf
- Topher Grace, Homem-Aranha 3
- Javier Bardem, Onde os Fracos Não Têm Vez

Melhor Atuação Cômica

- Johnny Depp, Piratas do Caribe: No Fim do Mundo
- Adam Sandler, Eu os Declaro Marido e ... Larry!
- Jonah Hill, Superbad - É Hoje
- Seth Rogen, Ligeiramente Grávidos
- Amy Adams, Encantada

Melhor Luta

- Matt Damon vs. Joey Ansah, O Ultimato Bourne
- Tobey Maguire vs. James Franco, Homem-Aranha 3
- Hayden Christensen vs. Jamie Bell, Jumper
- Sean Faris vs. Cam Gigandet, Quebrando Regras
- Chris Tucker e Jackie Chan vs. Sun Ming Ming, A Hora do Rush 3
- Alien vs. Predator, Aliens vs. Predator 2

Melhor Beijo

- Shia LaBeouf e Sarah Roemer, Paranóia
- Amy Adams e Patrick Dempsey, Encantada
- Daniel Radcliffe e Katie Leung, Harry Potter e a Ordem da Fênix
- Ellen Page e Michael Cera, Juno
- Briana Evigan e Robert Hoffman, Ela Dança, Eu Danço 2

Melhor Revelação

- Zac Efron, Hairspray - Em Busca da Fama
- Seth Rogen, Ligeiramente Grávidos
- Jonah Hill, Superbad - É Hoje
- Michael Cera, Superbad - É Hoje
- Chris Brown, No Natal a Gente se Encontra
- Nikki Blonsky, Hairspray - Em Busca da Fama
- Megan Fox, Transformers
- Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Superbad - É Hoje

Melhor Blockbuster Lançado Até Agora

- Homem de Ferro
- Indiana Jones e o Reino da Caveira de Cristal
- Sex and the City - O Filme
- Speed Racer
- As Crônicas de Nárnia: Príncipe Caspian

A premiação ocorrerá no dia 01 de Junho, e será apresentada por Mike Myers (Austin Powers).

Agora que vocês já sabem quem são os indicados... Façam as suas apostas!

Direção: Doug Liman

Roteiro: David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls, Simon Kinberg

Elenco: Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Diane Lane, Jamie Bell, Michael Rooker, Rachel Bilson, Max Thieriot, Teddy Dunn, AnnaSophia Robb, Jesse James, Tom Hulce

Fez-se muito barulho para o lançamento de Jumper e talvez por isso ele tenha decepcionado tanto. É um blockbuster que não pretende transmitir mensagem alguma e por isso mesmo quer apenas recolher o dinheiro das bilheterias e depois nos presentear com algumas seqüências. E parece que a idéia é essa mesma, de acordo com o que li em alguns sites, provavelmente teremos intermináveis seqüências caça níquel ou um seriado na TV.

No filme David Rice, interpretado pelo Anakin Skywalker, por Hayden Christensen, descobre ainda na adolescência que possui o poder de se teletransportar para onde quiser. Com isso David inicia sua saga ao redor do mundo, vivendo com dinheiro roubado de bancos e gastando das melhores maneiras possíveis. Sua boa vida vai para o espaço quando um grupo de caçadores de jumpers, chamados paladinos, começam a persegui-lo. O líder dos paladinos é interpretado pelo Mestre Windu, por Samuel L. Jackson, que faz um papel muito idiota.

O filme é recheado de bons efeitos especiais e é ai que ele se salva, pois tanto os efeitos, como a fotografia foram bem trabalhados.

Que venham as seqüências e a produção de bonequinhos.

During this weekend I caught up with several films I’ve been meaning to catch but never did – Transamerica, Bicycle thief and Chumsrubber. All of them are great films, but the one that impressed me the most is The Chumscrubber.

Chumscrubber is an extremely popular video game in which the protagonist annihilates competition using his own severed head. Eponymous film is a dark film about the modern urban society. It is a study in a society comprising insulated individuals who go through life popping pills/alcohol to feel good.  They don’t want anyone, they don’t need anyone. Who wants to be happy the hard way when you can buy instant happiness, right?

Chumscrubber begins with the suicide of Troy Johnson who is school’s pill supplier and the protagonist, Dean Stiffle’s (Jamie Bell) best friend, though, as Dean is at pains to point out, “We just hung out a few times, that’s all.”

Dean discovers Troy Johnson hanging by a rope in his room during one Mrs. Johnson’s pool parties. Though shaken, Dean does not tell anybody in the party because he thinks they just won’t care. He is right. They don’t. Dean’s own father, Dr. Stiffle, a bestselling author of psychiatric books, treats how son like a lab rat. In a show of concern over Dean’s attitude towards Troy’s death he invites him to chat man-to-man, only to make research notes for his next book. 

While parents still try and maintain a veneer of interest in their children’s activities, children don’t even accord their parents that courtesy, often cutting them off mid-sentence. Parents think nothing of disciplining their children because to do that you have to admit there’s a problem first, right? And who wants to deal with that?

Anyway, Troy’s death throws everything out of gear in this outwardly ebullient but precariously balanced society because one, who will supply pills to the kids and two, now they’ll have to deal with it. As someone mentions in the film, “But nothing like this has ever happened before!”

Troy’s mother, Mrs. Johnson (Glenn Close) reacts by seemingly losing it. She arrives on the Stiffle doorstep with an empty casserole tray, supposedly to thank Mrs. Stiffle for her thoughtfulness post Troy’s death. Though the way repeats over and over, “everybody’s been so nice!” leads us to suspect that the opposite is the case. And indeed during this exchange Mrs. Stiffle is forced to admit defensively, “But I didn’t bring a casserole….I was meaning to call but you just get so busy.” And then Mrs. Johnson goes about calling everybody with the same message, “In no way do I hold you responsible for Troy’s death,” which leads us to suspect that it’s a transference of her own guilt.

Dean deals with it by donning a cloak of impermeability and indifference. 

Troy’s death has an unexpected fallout. Billy, the school bully kidnaps Dean’s brother, Charlie, to force Dean to hand over Troy’s stash of drugs. Only Billy and his gang get the wrong Charlie. They get Charlie Bradley who’s the son of Mrs. Teri Bradley (Rita Wilson), the recently estranged wife of Officer Bradley. And now Teri Bradley is all set to marry Mayor Michael Ebbs (Ralph Fiennes). In fact, she’s so busy planning her wedding that she fails to notice her son’s missing for two whole days! Or rather she prefers to believe that her son has gone gallivanting, so that it doesn’t interfere with her wedding plans. In fact, she is even upset with Mrs. Johnson because the latter is holding a memorial service for her son on the same day. “How dare she keep the memorial on Sunday! Doesn’t she know it’s my wedding?”

Once Billy realizes he’s got the wrong Charlie, he decides to keep him hostage anyway to force Dean’s hand. Charlie, on his part, is happy to go along because this is probably the maximum attention he’s got.

Dean realizes that they’ve got the wrong Charlie figures it’s no skin off his nose. Except that he does care. So he agrees to get the pills for Billy. Only, at the last minute Dean’s brother, Charlie switches the pills leading to the denouement of the film. So in a way, Troy Johnson is the ultimate Chumscrubber

With a theme like this, it is very easy to go wrong. Yet the screenplay is cleverly crafted and razor sharp. The writers take us to the brink and then just as we are about to go over, pull us back. Even though it is dark, it has us laughing at several places. The key is balance and is often repeated in the film, in a different context of course. The direction is tightly controlled which is a tribute to the capabilities of the director, Arie Posin (also one of the writers, along with Zack Stanford). Though with a stellar cast like that it must have been easier, still, Arie Posin extracts some of their best performances.

Though relentlessly warning us about modern urban society's inevitable march towards self destruction, the film ends with a hopeful message – it all a pattern. Everything happens for a reason and the trick is to capture the magic. Amazing Film! One of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

Finalmente vimos o que poderia ser a chance de Hayden Christensen ser lembrado por mais de um papel que não seja Darth Vader. Porque "poderia'? Siga em frente e saiba.

Por Vinicius Passos

Sabe quando você vai saborear um bom prato de bife, arroz e feijão, talvez com umas belas batatas fritas por cima e está tudo muito, muito bom porém o arroz está absolutamente insosso e acaba estragando o resultado final? Pois então, liso, este é meu veredito sobre Jumper. Caso queira saber os motivos para tanto, continue lendo.

Poster japonês de Jumper

Para quem passou absolutamente batido, Jumper mostra a história de David Rice (a-há, percebeu o 'arroz'?), garoto ultra-bonzinho, incapaz de fazer mal a um teletubbie, apaixonado por uma menina bonita da escola e perturbado por um valentão. Clichês gigantescos à parte, o garoto descobre (por conta de uma situação traumática - clichê nº2) que é um Jumper, ou seja, por conta de uma anomalia genética, tem o poder de se teleportar para onde quiser, desde que tenha estado no local anteriormente.

Eis que então ele começa a aproveitar a boa vida, entrando em cofres de bancos para se abastecer e viajando para vários lugares do mundo. Mas claro que isso não ficaria assim. Oito anos depois de sumir da cidadezinha onde morava com o pai, Rice é rastreado por Roland (Samuel L. Bad MotherFucker Jackson), um Paladino, alguém que caça Jumpers. Rice fica sabendo dessa guerra graças a outro Jumper que acaba por salvar sua pele, Griffin (Jamie Bell, o menino bailarino de Billy Elliott), muito mais experiente e esperto do que ele. Ao tentar reatar laços com seu passado, retornando à cidadezinha para rever Millie (Rachel Bilson, bastante interessante). Eis que o valentão o encontra e confronta. Só que agora, depois de se tornar um ser superpoderoso, ele não vai deixar barato. Justo aí, o caldo entorna.

Hayden Christensen passou por sabe Deus quantos atores para chegar ao papel de Darth Vader em Star Wars. Muita gente odiou com todas as forças sua (falta de) interpretação. Mas em se tratando de George Lucas, conhecido por não querer ou não saber dirigir atores, isso chegou a ser relevado. Mas aqui, não. Quando a história pede maior densidade, Hayden afrouxa e bambeia o resto do filme todo, sem dar espaço para que os bons diálogos pelo menos disfarçarem a obviedade da narrativa. Não empolga como herói um minuto sequer. Samuel L. Jackson, como de costume, tem presença na tela para ele e o elenco de três filmes, porém o personagem não diz a quê veio.

O mal desta falta de rumo em particular talvez se deva a vontade de grande parte dos roteiristas e principalmente, produtores de colocarem iscas para futuros filmes. Quem assina o texto do filme é David S. Goyer, que tem vaga no céu por conta de Batman Begins. Em Jumper, ele está ladeado por Jim Uhls (Clube da Luta) e Simon Kinberg (Sr. & Sra. Smith) e ainda por cima, adaptando um livro de Steven Gould. Roland, o antagonista - que não exatamente é um vilão, diga-se de passagem - passa o filme afirmando que "só Deus deve ter esse poder", o poder de estar em "vários locais ao mesmo tempo" ou coisa que o valha. Pode ser que na trigésima versão do roteiro, alguém achou que a revelação do grande conflito entre as duas facções devesse ser esclarecido em uma ou mais sequências, o que já está garantido. Só que tiraria a força do personagem, não fosse o carisma de Jackson. Para deixar tanta coisa faltando, deveria ser o segundo filme da série. O primeiro precisa ser mais completo.

Mas o filme vale seus caraminguás por duas coisas: Uma é a exploração do teleporte. Quando todo mundo diz que voar seria o superpoder mais desejado, eis que este filme faz titubear, pois a direção em cenas de ação de Doug Liman é bastante ágil, mostrando não só as viagens como combates em teleporte. Lembra da cena de X-Men 2 onde Noturno salva Vampira da morte resgatando a guria em pleno ar e voltando? Imagine duas horas daquilo e explorado de forma bastante imaginativa, para não estragar as surpresas. A outra coisa é Jamie Bell, o grande ladrão de cena do filme, que leva seu Griffin de mentor relutante de David Rice a quase protagonista à certa altura do longa. Não é à toa que o game e os quadrinhos baseados no filme são centrados nele.

Jumper vale o ingresso (se você pagar meia e não esperar muito do protagonista) e valerá a Sessão da Tarde daqui a uns anos. Só dá raiva de ver um ótimo conceito com uma execução que simplesmente não decola.

Nota: R$6,00

Leia mais sobre o filme aqui

Ps. Depois de ver o filme, volte aqui e leia esse SPOILER bacana: No jogo de Jumper (muito mal recomendado por muitos gamers) descobrimos que Griffin teve os pais mortos por um casal de Paladinos. Griffin fica sabendo que eles aprenderam a saber onde os Jumpers estão através de treinamento com monges. Griffin consegue matar o homem que assassinou seus pais, mas não encontra a mulher. No fim do jogo, que entrelaça uma trama própria com a do filme ( a la Enter the Matrix) fica subentendido que a tal mulher é Mary Rice, a mãe de David.

In diese Kategorie fällt auch der jüngst angelaufene Film "Jumper", der mit Hayden "Anakin" Christensen und Samuel L. Jackson (endlich mal so alt aussehend, wie er auch tatsächlich ist) auch direkt zwei Hauptdarsteller ankündigt, die sicherlich vieles versprechen. Unterstützt werden die beiden von einem Nebencast, in dem Jamie Bell (irgendwie find ich den niedlich), Max Thieriot (auch niedlich, aber diesen Namen werde ich immer nachlesen müssen) und Kristen Stewart (wahrscheinlich das einzige weibliche Wesen in Hollywood, dem sogar ich was abgewinnen kann) zu erwähnen werden.

Inhaltlich geht es in Jumper um einen jungen Mann namens David Rice, dem im zarten Alter von 5 Jahren die Frau Mama abspenstig gegangen ist, demzufolge der Herr Papa ein Alkoholproblem entwickelt hat und ... naja - sagen wir mal die Jugend unseres Helden ist nicht wirklich einfach.

Dies ändert sich, als er im zarten Teenageralter (und dargestellt von Max Thieriot) herausfindet, dass er die Fähigkeit besitzt durch bloßes Denken von Ort zu Ort zu springen. Diese Fähigkeit - zunächst vornehmlich eingesetzt, um vor seinem Vater zu fliehen - nutzt er schon bald, um sich durch das Springen in Banktresore das notwendige Kleingeld für ein sorgenfreies Leben zu beschaffen.

Das ihn dies unweigerlich in das Visier des Paladins Roland (Sammy L.) bringt, ahnt er zunächst noch nicht und so verbringt David sein Leben mit Klauen, Rumgammeln und in der Weltgeschichte herumspringen. Die Paladine an sich sind dazu bestimmt, Jumper aufzuspüren und abzumurksen. Die fatal-religiöse Botschaft dahinter, dass nur der Herrgott alleine überall sein darf, funktioniert hier nur insofern, als das man religiösen Fanatisten die Antagonistenrolle gerne abnimmt.

Um es kurz zu machen: Natürlich wird David von Roland aufgespürt und entgeht ihm nur mit knapper Not. Leider lernt David hier nichts dazu, sondern nutzt seine Fähigkeiten lieber dazu, beim Girl seiner Träume Eindruck zu schinden. Es kommt wie es kommen muss (und wie es vorhersehbarer nicht sein könnte) zu einem weiteren Duell zwischen David und ein paar Paladinen, welches jedoch durch die Hilfe des geheimnisvollen Griffin sehr zu ungunsten der Paladine ausgeht. David erfährt, dass auch Griffin ein Jumper ist und es sich zur Devise gemacht hat, Paladine wo immer es geht zu töten - nicht zuletzt weil jene zumeist nicht nur den Jumper töten, sondern auch alle die ihm nahestehen.

Man ahnt was kommt - natürlich ist David's Herzallerliebste in tödlicher Gefahr und natürlich wird David versuchen sie zu retten... An dieser Stelle, die ungefähr bei der Hälfte des Films liegt, endet die Handlung und ein einziges Gemenge an Herumge"jumpe" setzt ein, welches zugegebenermaßen tricktechnisch opulent 'rüberkommt, aber insgesamt doch zu hektisch und zu verwirrend ist.

Irgendwann kommt dann aber doch der Moment, wo man meinen könnte, dass das Vorgeplänkel nun abgeschlossen ist und die richtige Handlung nun beginnen könne... dummerweise ist dies so ziemlich genau die Stelle, an der der Abspann zu laufen beginnt. Hier bleibt einem dann nicht mehr viel übrig, als sich zu ärgern, wieviel Potential hier verschenkt worden ist... oder aber sich in Vorfreude zu üben und zu hoffen, dass ein zweiter Teil erscheinen möge, der diese wirklich guten Ansätze aufgreift und verwertet und dann wirklich der Film wird, der sein Potential nutzt.

Mir persönlich fällt da eine Parallele zum ersten "Spider-Man" Film auf... stellt euch einfach vor, jener FIlm wäre an der Stelle zuende gewesen, als der böse, böse Bursche Peter Parkers Onkel erschießt... dann begreift ihr schon ziemlich gut, wie man sich am Ende von Jumper fühlt.

Mehr soll hier aber nun wirklich nicht erzählt werden...

Erwähnenswert wäre höchstens noch die FSK-Freigabe des Films... unser aller Freunde von der FSK haben auf Jumper eine nette grüne 12 geschrieben... dies ist prinzipiell auch ok - allerdings finde ich, dass ein Film in dem einem wehrlosen Typen im Namen des Herrn ein Messer in den Bauch gerammt und rumgedreht wird auch ne 16 verdient gehabt hätte... zumindest wenn man sieht, was die FSK'ler mit meinem armen Rambo gemacht haben...

Insgesamt verbleiben 3 locker eingesprungene Jumps im Fosbury Flop ohne Starkstrom.

Director: Doug Liman

Writer(s): David S. Goyer (screenplay), Jim Uhls (Screenplay), Simon Kinberg (Screenplay), and Steven Gould (novel)

Release Date: February 14, 2008 (USA)

Genre: Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi | Thriller

Plot: David Rice is a high school student in Ann Arbor, abandoned by his mother at five, enamored with Millie, a fellow student, and picked on by at least one classmate. On a winter's day, while about to drown, he discovers he can transport himself instantaneously to anyplace on earth. He leaves town, goes to New York City, robs a bank vault, and comes to the attention of a shadowy group of government hunters. Eight years later, the hunters, led by the murderous Roland, get a fix on David. He heads home, searches out Millie, invites her to travel with him, and only later realizes that Roland and his crew are seriously deadly. Is everyone close to David in danger? (credit to imdb.com user)

Awards: 3 Nominations

Cast: Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Diane Lane, Samuel L. Jackson

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality.

I'm not a big fan of Science Fiction, but I'm not adverse to it. I wasn't very excited at the prospect of this movie when it was first proposed and even in the making.  The thought of someone being able to "jump through a jump scar" was somewhat juvenile for me. But I couldn't deny myself the chance to see a movie, bad or not.

The idea of the movie was ok, all things considered. Someone who can elude the police, sure it's appealing. Someone who can rob a bank without being detected, not entirely true but whatever. The movie, overall, was badly contructed. All through the movie, I couldn't even bare to watch some scenes and chose to organize my iTunes instead. The whole love plot was entirely not even needed. The whole meaning of the movie, to me at least, was about him trying to survive and elude those who wanted to kill him. Not about him falling in love with his past crush and trying to protect HER from those who wanted to kill HIM.

Now, I HATE Hayden Christensen. So, I didn't even want to sit through 88 minutes of looking at his poorly acting unattractive mug. But I did, unfortunately. The acting was sort of lacking, but it was all they can do with a lacking screenplay.

I'm not going to write much, for I really didn't like the movie. It rubbed me the wrong way and the only reason I chose to LISTEN to it's garbage was that my family had rented it and it was a movie. Plain and simple. My love for movies overcame my knowledge that it was abomination.

I give it a

D-

For the only reason that they tried... and I loved Jamie Bell.

:)

MYV382

Pick of the Week:

King of Kong - One of the best, or at least most entertaining documentaries of last year, this chronicle of the battle between the two best Donkey Kong players in the world, Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, is a titanic struggle between good and evil. Mitchell comes out as a coniving and cowardly villain and Wiebe a lovable sad-sack and it's their stark differences that create this Shakespearean battle. Well worth a watch even if you couldn't care less about Donkey Kong.

Also Out:

Jumper - The pretty awful looking Doug Liman vehicle which I mentioned in the Region 1 picks briefly last week. It's saved for me by Rachel Bilson being in it but from what I gather from reliable source Tom, this is just headache-inducing SFX foolishness.
Peep Show: Season 5 - Still probably the most consistently strong sitcom on British television behind The Mighty Boosh, this one proves further proof that Mitchell and Webb are great performers when someone else writes their material.
Californication: Season 1 - I've written about this a couple of times on the site and why not? It's foul-mouthed, dirty fun but occasionally manages to side-step the limitations of its sex-comedy roots to provide some really sweet moments of pathos to go along with the ride.
Definitely Maybe - I'm yet to see this but a guy I work with who is a notorious misanthrope who said this was a very passable romantic comedy which translated means that this is some sort of rom-com genius.
WAZ: Extreme Sleeve Edition - I honestly couldn't care much less about this terrible looking film but what the hell is an Extreme Sleeve?
Semi-Pro - Will Ferrell tries to be Ron Burgundy as a basketball player and Woody Harrelson sucks the life out of the comedy by acting like he's in a serious, Ron Shelton-without-the-comedy sports movie. Half funny, half depressingly awful.
Mouth to Mouth - Another early Ellen Page curio in which she goes all GI Jane with the hair playing a young girl seduced by a cult. It look vaguely interesting.

Picks of the Week

Juno - The indie darling of this year that's much better than the now-naysayers would like you to think. Any Juno backlash should be counteracted by a) Ellen Page's amazing performance as well as the turns from Michael Cera, Allison Janney and JK Simmons, b) The whipsmart script that never gets too enamoured with itself, and c) the fact it features Cat Power singing 'Sea of Love' and Michael Cera and Ellen Page singing at each other at the close. Lovely.
AND...
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - Just the most moving and honest piece of cinema to be released over here this year. Julian Schnabel's adaptation of Jean Dominique Bauby's memoir written while suffering from locked-in syndrome is an astonishing achivement of acting, writing and cinematography. Also, Max von Sydow as Bauby's father delivers the most crushingly emotional scene of the year and yet, never once is the film mawkish. Brilliance.

Also out:

Curb Your Enthusiam Season 6 - Still delivering great moments here and there but this one's time has passed and the genius of the first three season broadened to create just a very good sitcom rather than a work of misanthropic art.
Cloverfield - I mentioned this last week but it is a decent little monster movie and worth a watch even if the cast bland it to the max.
The Edge of Heaven - Can't wait to see this, Fatih Akin's follow-up to Head On looks like just wonderful.
Dirty Harry Collection - Full box set of all the terrific Harry Callahan films including the truly masterful original.
Dan in Real Life - Decent if deeply unspectacular Steve Carell vehicle in which he is good despite having to share the screen with Dane Cook.
War Inc - No cinema release for this little one starring John Cusack and seemingly some sort of comment on the war-as-business debate. Looks pretty uninspired.
Jesus Camp - Excellent if one-sided portrayal of a Christian camp for young children that features some truly satisfyingly horrifying scenes for us atheists.
Battle for Haditha - Nick Broomfield's outstanding semi-documentary piece on Iraq's My Lai.
Tony Jaa 2 Pack - Ong Bak and Warrior King in one handy boxset for those days when all you want to do is watch someone kick someone else really, really hard. No plot but the kicking, oh, the kicking.

Region 1:

Jumper - Shitty, Hayden Christensen starrer saved fully in my book due to the presence of Rachel Bilson.
The Bucket List - Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman celebrate being old with hilarious/cringey results.

Cuando un amigo me preguntó si el audio de Jumper estaba bien, yo le contesté, "Sí, pero el guión no". La verdad es que la cinta del director Doug Liman (que en su haber tiene la espectacular The Bourne Identity y la horrorosa Mr. & Mrs. Smith) tiene una historia cuya premisa es entretenida. Unos pocos tipos alrededor del mundo tienen la fantástica habilidad de teletransportarse donde ellos quieran y, debido a ese don, un grupo de malandras llamados los Paladines, los persiguen para cazarlos. Como historia de ciencia ficción e incluso como comic, la historia está simpática y da como para pensar bien lo que se presentará, sin embargo el guión preparado por David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls y Simon Kinberg (basado en la novela de Steven Gould) carece de la profundidad que debería tener esta película que ya anuncia secuela para 2011, con el mismo equipo, Liman incluído.

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) era, como el mismo se describe al inicio de la cinta, una persona normal, un bobo igual que tú, hasta que un día y debido a una experiencia que amenazó su vida, descubre una habilidad que jamás se imaginó tener, el poder de la teletransportación. Fue el momento de la epifanía de David, su escape a la aburrida vida que tenía y el paso a aventuras que muchos quisieran siquiera soñar. Pasan los años y David se encuentra gozando de los placeres de la vida, una vida sin preocupaciones ni necesidades ya que con solo desear teletransportarse logra todo lo que se propone, incluso salir de la bóveda de un banco sin ser detectado. Sin embargo, todo debe tener una consecuencia y tal como el misterioso señor Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) le indica, siempre hay consecuencias. Perseguido por los Paladines, la enigmática organización que dirige Roland, David tendrá que intentar escapar y mientras tanto tratar de salvar a su amiga Millie (Rachel Bilson), a ratos con la ayuda de otro saltador, Griffin (Jamie Bell), sin embargo, en medio del confuso caos nada es lo que parece y David tal vez no pueda dar con la respuesta que anda buscando.

Como dije anteriormente Doug Liman presenta una película con alto potencial (no he leído el libro de Steven Gould aún), cuya historia llama la atención. Sin embargo, en esta película faltó dar mayor profundidad a esa misma historia... ¿quiénes son los saltadores? ¿quiénes son los paladines? ¿qué onda su mamá? ¿quién mató a Kennedy? Al final de la cinta uno queda con prácticamente las mismas dudas del inicio, ya que vemos pasar muchas cosas, acción por montones, autos volando, edificios explotando, Rachel Bilson en ropa interior, pero de la historia, la historia de fondo, nada, cero, pa la casa. Lo único claro es que se gastaron hartas lucas en pasajes de avión y hoteles para filmar escenas de 5 minutos en prácticamente los 5 continentes. Las actuaciones por otro lado, son aceptables, nada del otro mundo. Rachel Bilson además de ser OH-MAI-GOSH de rica, es muy buena actriz y tiene sin duda un futuro promisorio. Samuel L. Jackson y Jamie Bell cumplen en sus roles. Distinto es hablar de Hayden "Anakin" Christensen. Sé que algunas personas que entran a este sitio lo aman, pero lo siento, el tipo es uno de los actores más malos que he visto en películas en el último tiempo. Es aburrido verlo, no convence a nadie... un desastre! En fin, Jumper salva pa verla un día latero... un domingo, después de Vantage Point.

TRAILER: JUMPER

FICHA TÉCNICA
Nombre: Jumper
Año: 2008
Duración: 90 minutos
Dirigida por: Doug Liman
Escrita por: David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls y Simon Kinberg
Basada en la Novela de: Steven Gould
Protagonizada por: Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Rachel Bilson, Jamie Bell, Diane Lane y Michael Rooker
Producida por: 20th Century Fox, New Regency Pictures, Dune Entertainment, Hypnotic, Epsilon Motion Pictures, Regency Enterprises

Runtime: 88 Minutes - Country: USA

Warning: I have included every possible spoiler in this review. Take a note of this, if you have not seen the film already ! And caution: long review !

This film (note that it is based on a novel by Steven Gould) is mainly focusing on the life and rather unusual customs of a young man, named David Rice (Hayden Christensen). Ever since a serious accident on the ice while being 15 years old (then played by Max Thieriot), David has found himself a mysterious ability: he is able to teleport wherever he wants. And this referable to a rare genetic anomaly - of course, not only while being in an emergency, this has just been the overall trigger. He can use this way of teleporting as he likes; and wherever to. After having a lot of fun, for example; by anonymously robbing some banks, traveling to almost all worth watching worldwide spots - he decides to return to his original point of origin. The main reason for this is not hard to figure out: he is looking for his early love Millie Harris (Rachel Bilson), who would never have believed that he is still alive. He decides to take her on a trip to Italy - because this has been one of her most important dreams.

But soon he realizes that his ability is also bearing some rather uncomfortable side effects. And these are mainly referring to Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) and his assistants, the so called Templars. These institution has a wide background; their main lays in fighting the Jumpers - because they think that one should be left alive, having the control over such a big power... David finds himself another insider, named Griffin (Jamie Bell) - who also is a jumper. After having some trouble in the first place, they are finally deciding to fight the Templars side by side...

Two rather different Jumpers are facing each other... click on the image to visit the official image gallery at jumperthemovie.com

My first thought after watching this one: oh my gosh... what a disappointing film ! But do not let yourself be influenced by this single sentence. Since I would like to explain this in detail; you know me... but you should know that I have not read the novel, so this will be a totally uniqe review.

This film could be best referred to as an overall Action film with slight Sci-Fi elements - since we have a young teenager who is able to jump (teleport) wherever he wants. This causes a lot of action-packed scenes, which are mainly realized with astonishing special effects, and a lot of general noise. And to state it: these effects where just great. Seeing the Jumpers doing their thing with their own body; but sometimes even with cars; busses, or even parts of a house... they certainly put a lot of energy into this. It looks great, indeed... but what about the overall sense, background and storyline... ?

If you would ask me, this is the most important aspect in a film. But since there is no real storyline in this case, it is now wonder that I am disappointed. There are a few people that are Jumpers indeed, they seem to be capable of a rare ability - but there is no word about the origin nor the meaning of this ability. They can jump, so they are doing it (mainly for their own good) - but this is forbidden, since the Templars would not tolerate men with such a great power. Wow - this is just too less for a film that seemed to be promising in the first place. Everyone could have written such a simple and basic script, I you would ask me - you would not have to be talented or inspired at all. Of course, there are some efforts of adding some finesse to the overall storyline - but they are rather desperate and seem to be way too hilarious. Just take any of the unique side stories; like the history about the family; and especially: the mother of David. I really thought that there just HAS to be something interesting or special about it - just too become totally disappointed again.

Furthermore, we have a lot of different logical annoyings, they are almost appearing within every 5 minutes. Just take one scene from the beginning, where David is entering a bank to spy out the location. He is asking for a lavatory - and this lavatory (for normal customers!) is somewhere in the basement, near the tresor and another private rooms. Just show me one bank that is structured like this, or at least one employee that would lead a stranger near those private rooms ! Or, take the scene when Millie is captured by the Templars - David already knew about their abilities, but beams himself straight into the room - without any preparation. And why would he do that... is he just frustrated, having nothing else but the saving of his girlfriend in mind ? Or has this act of desperation rather been a must, so that the storyline could continue properly ? And this exactly is another great annoying of this film: the overall illogical and non-comprehensible behaviour of the characters.

It would not take much time for the audience to figure out that the whole jump-thing is additionally characterized with the help of a great love story. But just tell me, what is so special about David, why would Millie even love him ? He disappeared for a lot of years, focusing on a rather egoistic and decant way of life - just to return to his flame of youth several years later, taking her on a trip to Italy ? Money rules the world - what a failing message for a film...

Sometimes I even felt like watching a film that could be compared to Transformers - generally a very loud one; with lots of (certainly good!) special effects; but with a non-stating storyline and many logical annoyings to endure. It is no secret that, if we would actually compare these two; Jumper is even weaker than Transformers - because of the bad and uninspired script, the unbelieveable actors; and of course: it is lacking any nostalgic feeling also.

Towards the end I had to laugh for the first time: And this is when David finally meets his mother again (after more than 15 years or so) - he is asking her why she would have abandoned him back then... of course, what a great surprise ! She actually is a Templar, that is why she left him; she could not combine her job concerns with her special child... ! But, she finally shows her golden heart - she is now giving David some time to escape. You bet... !

I have already written about the technical part, it is great - especially visually spoken. The sound and the general (very fast) way of cutting could both convince also. But the actors... especially Hayden Christensen's performance in the leading role (who had no real succesesses after his appearance in Star Wars) is just hard to watch. The only positive aspects: the performances of Samual L. Jackson as the Templar's head; and Jamie Bell's portrait of the one freaky Jumper - they were both doing a good job indeed. But this is no wonder - just compare their filmographies... I was surprised that they were even accepting these roles !

Finally: I you want to see a film that is overloaded with special effects, totally tasting out your home cinema (of course, in a technical meaning only!) by just leaning back without any agonizing - I would recommend Jumper. But even considerate of this way, there are other films that are better. Just like Transformers, that I mentioned above. I just do not like the thoughts that the filmmakers must have had - since this is not even an approach, referring to the ways of good film making. But this is nothing new: in hollywood the main attention is often drawn to the (expensive) special effects only... so it can certainly happen that we have to endure a final outcome like this. Still, I want to give this one an award: it has the most non-stating, uninovative, illogical and annoyingly reduced storyline that I have ever encountered; this combined with the most laughable attempts to add a certain depth and meaning to it. To be precautious - how much time must it take to write such a script, 15 minutes ? Jumper, you should have jumped somewhere else - but certainly not into the common cinemas. 2.3/10.

Buy this DVD at Amazon.com (released on Jun 10, 2008) - Choose you version of the trailer

Matt:

Length: 90 min

Taglines:
Anywhere is possible.
Anywhere. Anything. Instantly.

Précis: Shallow sci-fi/action tale about a guy who can teleport and the ridiculously-hair-styled religious nut who wants to eliminate him.

Review by Matt:

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) is a 'jumper'. That means he is a special - and lucky - type of person who is able to ‘jump' instantly to any place in the world just by willing it. Teleportation. A nice science-fiction premise. The slick new action film Jumper, directed by Doug Liman (who previously directed Mr & Mrs Smith and The Bourne Identity) tells David's story, provoking fascinating thoughts in its audience like "Wouldn't it be cool to be able to teleport?" and... no. Wait. Actually, that's as thought provoking as Jumper gets. It's one of the weakest and woolliest films around, barely managing to articulate even its simple plot. Nope, teleportation is all you get. Fortunately, this is an inherently interesting concept, so with a bit of action jumbled around it, you might forgive Jumper as a semi-interesting piece of escapist nonsense. I can be no more generous than that, because films like Jumper keep making me have to try and defend science-fiction as a good and thoughtful genre (it's true - just read some novels, ok?).

Just like Gyges, Plato's original super-powered everyman, once David discovers his god-like power he cannot resist temptation. He lifts money from bank vaults and quickly sets himself up as an emperor of decadence. He spends his time 'jumping' from his flashy apartment to the world's most exotic locations, drinking life's nectar like a selfish jerk. This is problem one with Jumper - our lead man is thoroughly unlikeable. Hayden Christensen's acting certainly doesn't bring any charisma to his flawed character. To begin with, you think maybe he is portraying omnipotent ennui. You later realise that it is just dull acting. So why should we care when amoral Mr Jumper is suddenly threatened by a fanatic jumper-hating group called "Paladins", led by the hilariously coiffured Samuel L Jackson? We don't care really. But it's a little exciting at least to watch David fill out the rest of the plot by jumping away from these pursuers, along the way getting a little help from Griffin (Jamie Bell), another jumper. David also has some time to try wooing his equally bland love interest, Millie (Rachel Bilson), and to try and protect her when she becomes entangled in the Paladin-pursuit.

Nevertheless, there are a few thrills and curiosities. It's actually nice to see that Millie's character is appropriately scared and angry at this crazy jumper's unexplained behaviour - as anyone would be. Too many film heroines are unrealistically trusting of the outlandish behaviour of their protagonist friends. Secondly, Samuel L Jackson's ridiculous snow-white hair is like a free trip to the freak show. And, of course, if you're interested in sci-fi concepts such as teleportation, it is at least nice to see it manifested on screen with some fine special effects and some frenetic, nicely-styled action.

I'm stretching, of course, because Jumper is so shallow it's almost empty. Morality is always the most interesting theme when it comes to human superpowers. Naturally there's no attention given to it in Jumper. The deepest it gets is the reasoning of the boss-Paladin as he eviscerates his captured jumpers: "Only God should have this power!" The actual plot - when it finally appears - is simply this: will he escape? And there's no embellishment of that simple story. Where does David even get his superpower? Who knows? A slight effort is made to introduce some themes about parental abandonment, but this ends up being one of the most underdone plots imaginable. Ditto to the film's sloppy ending, which does not exactly give us a sensible resolution. Presumably, Jumper 2 will clean up the mess, but I wouldn't put any faith in it.

I admit to experiencing some guilty pleasure watching this film. But you should know that I have not read the book by Steven Gould on which the film is based, so I didn't have a pre-conception that could be sullied. You should know also that I took very low expectations to Jumper, so the mildly entertaining result was a pleasant surprise.

AKA: The Undertow - Runtime: 108 Minutes - Country: USA - A: For Adults Only

This film is focusing on the Munns, a separated family that just moved into the rural woods of Georgia. After the death of his wife, John Munn (Dermot Mulroney) decided that it would be better to retreat, leaving himself a chance to account for the past. His two sons Chris (Jamie Bell) and 10-year-old Tim (Devon Alan) however are not seem to be very happy about it... Chris is often getting in touch with the local police, Tim seems to be very lonely - and furthermore he is suffering from a serious disease that nobody seems to know or care about.

As if things were not complicated enough, John's brother Deel (Josh Lucas) is appearing - he has just been released from prison. John decides to give him shelter - on condition that he would help with the general housework. And this turns out to be a great mistake... since his original purpose does not stay concealed for long. He actually is after some gold coins that have been in John's possession for several years now.

Deel has just been released from prison - he wants to get hold of the gold coins at any cost

Warning, spoilers !

While the first half of the film seemed to be promising at least, the second was totally needless - since it mainly focuses on a run-away trip that should not have taken place at all. The whole situation seems to be unrealistic, the characters' behavior elusive. Just try to imagine why an almost grown-up teenager who knows about life - would decide to run away, after watching his father being murdered; and not reporting this to the police ? Of course, and by referring to the storyline: he thinks that evidence could be laid upon him - still, it makes no real sense. As if this was not enough, he thereafter begins searching for work like nothing had happened, with his brother alongside - and the saved gold coins in the pocket. Of course, they are trying to hide from their uncle - but what is the use of hiding when you do this just one or two miles away, without knowing anybody who could support you ? Very disappointing: the illogical scenes and the serious holes offered by the plot. Regarding to this, I have some more questions left:

Chris and Tim running around helplessly

1. Why have they moved to Georgia at all - and what does this mean for each unique family member, how was it before ? Unfortunately we only get very few sentences about that.

2. Referring to the runaway once more - how come that Tim manages to keep up with his brother who is a very good runner (we can see that right in the beginning) ? I thought that he is sick, especially as regards to his eating behaviour... or are old lacquers and mud some new kind of strengthening drugs ?

3. Why is Chris not taking over responsibility for his younger brother ? He saves him from Deel indeed - but in his later-on condition the only place to go would be the hospital. He acted rather mindless - he did not care about the death of his father, then why would he be affected by his brother's death ? And just how is that appealing to the audience ?

4. Why is the death of Chris' and Tim's father not affecting them at all, mentally spoken - why had Chris done nothing about it, he actually stood at the window ? Where is the desperateness, the grief ? Is it ment to be like this; and if yes: how come ?

5. Deel is trying to convince his nephews to come out of their hideout on the junkyard... why would he be pulling out his knife then - just right away ? But look close, in the next short scene the knife is gone. A few seconds later he holds it again - how annoying. Such things should not be happening, since they actually are very noticeable here.

It can be tough to have a suffering brother - but does a stolen medicine really do the trick ?

The second half of this film is just focusing on a hilarious run-away story; it just starts over and over again. Just like: Knock the evil guy out - run away (not too far, of course) - be encountered a few moments later - start all over again... at least I am glad that they did not made this last for hours. The ending is very disappointing, too. Since it is leaving another aspect indistinguishable: just how did Chris manage to stab his uncle, how could he survive his drowning approach ? But why should I be asking about this... in the next scene we can see the two brothers, being reunited with their grandparents - who were not really mentioned before. A happy end - but certainly not for the common audience.

One could argue about the technical part, and especially: the cutting. To admit it: I could not get anything out of it neither, it rather disturbed me (like: have I just hit the pause-button, are there any serious scratches on the dvd...?). And of course, they are not evenly spread: in the beginning it almost gave me an epileptic fit, towards the middle and ending there were almost none. Maybe only referring to the UK Dvd version that I own: what about the audio? Especially the dialogs seemed to be way too silent, the music too loud. Unfortunately, it is not offering any subtitles (no specials neither) - too bad. An interesting aspect: the music is from Philipp Glass - who has done some remarkable work already. But I do not know what to say here... I could not get a feeling for this soundtrack, it rather distracted me and did not seem to really fit.

"No, you won't get the coins" - Deel (who seems to be immortal) has to be smacked down again...

If there would not be an average acting part at least, I would have labeled this one as one of my alltime worst films. Since Jamie Bell (as the troubling teenager who takes care for his younger brother) and 12-year-old Devon Alan (as his brother, who in turn has serious problems) are doing a great job here. However, I could not get a feeling for Dermot Mulroney, who starred as John, their father - I am glad that Josh Lucas as his criminal minded brother could balance this out. But, and that goes for all actors: they can not balance out all related weaknesses, especially when they are as obvious and annoying as in this film.

Thinking about this average cast... what a great waste of talent. My advice would have been: forget the whole brother and crime story, rather make this a serious drama - by focusing on the loss of the mother, their house moving and social withdrawal (!), their unique problems (especially: Tim's), their relationship, the meaning of the coins. But the way it turned out at last just makes me feel like watching an unspectacular crime story, which is badly mixed with some undetailed personal portraits, general boredom and many logical goofs - 2.2/10.

Download the US-Trailer (Moviemaze.de) - Buy this Dvd (Amazon.com)

Salve, pessoas! Sim, eu sei que o blog está capengando e acumulando pó em alguns cantos, mas em breve isso vai mudar. Hoje temos um filme que ainda está em cartaz, Jumper, com Hayden Christensen (O Anakin Skywalker dos episódios II e III de Star Wars) e Rachel Bilson (a Summer da finada série The O.C.).

ATENÇÃO: essa coluna sempre contém spoilers após o break. Se você não quer saber pedaços da história, não continue.

Aos spoiler adopters: eu não conto o final do filme, mas acabo revelando alguns detalhes e partes do plot. Se você tolera isso, manda ver!

Jumper conta a história do garoto-clichê David Rice, o típico garoto tímido de colégio americano. Zoado por todos e apaixonado pela bonitinha do colégio, David descobre ser diferente dos outro após a maior cagada de sua vida: vai até o meio do rio congelado para buscar o presente da bontinha que o valentão da escola tinha jogado longe. Obviamente, o gelo racha e o moleque é arrastado pela correnteza para uma morte agonizante.

Porém, caros amiguinhos, não é o que acontece... num breve instante, David é teleportado para a biblioteca municipal (trazendo também um pouco d'água). Depois de mais uns três transportes para o mesmo lugar, David começa a pegar a manha dos seus novos poderes e resolve usá-los da maneira que a maioria gostaria: benefício próprio.

Os anos passam, Rice vira Hayden Christensen e o caldo entorna. O personagem de Samuel L. Jackson, Roland, aparece do nada quebrando meio mundo para matar o jumper, entoando o repetitivo "apenas Deus deveria ter o poder de estar em todos os lugares" e enchendo o saco como um psicótico cheio de recursos. Pois é, até o muthafucka do cinema enche o saco.

Daí pra frente a película passa em um ritmo frenético e desconexo, com Rice buscando seu amor de infância na cidadezinha capenga, várias mortes e um tsunami de efeitos especiais.

O legal dessa parte é a introdução de Griffin (Jamie Bell, o moleque de Billy Elliot), que também é um jumper, com a pequena diferença de ter conscientemente descoberto seus poderes aos seis anos de idade e já ter Roland em seu pé desde então. O estressado avisa Rice que ele se enfiou em uma guerra milenar, na qual a organização dos Paladinos utiliza tudo que é possível para exterminar os jumpers.

Após mais ação e cartões postais virando cenas de pancadaria (=D), o filme cai num clichê violento e acaba sem realmente explicar nada sobre os humanos com poderes. Espero que isso seja solucionado no próximo filme, pois a deixa para continuação é tão óbvia que até ficaria mal se não o fizessem.

Apesar de tudo, Jumper vale o ingresso. Compre pipoca, desligue o cérebro e tente esquecer que Hayden está ali.

David nunca foi um garoto popular na escola. Após uma tentativa para conquistar Millie Harris (Rachel Bilson), David acaba sofrendo um acidente em um lago congelado, e é teletransportado para uma biblioteca pública.

Após essa descoberta, David não para mais de se teletransportar e usa esse poder para fugir de problemas do passado.  Mas a vida solitária de David faz com que ele volte a sua cidade natal para reencontrar o velho amor de sua vida.

Porém, David conhece Griffin, outro jovem que pode se teletransportar, descobrindo que não é o único de sua espécie e faz parte de uma raça nomeada Jumpers.

David também descobre a existência de uma sociedade secreta que tem como missão exterminá-los. Seu líder Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), não desiste de capturá-lo por nada.

Com um elenco bem conhecido pelo público, a aventura Jumper conta com muitos efeitos especiais e vale a pena ser conferido nos cinemas.

Elenco: Diane Lane , Hayden Christensen , Jamie Bell , Rachel Bilson , Samuel L. Jackson , Tom Hulce
Duração: 93 minutos
Gênero: Aventura/Ação
País: EUA
Ano: 2008
Diretor: Doug Liman
Roterista: David S. Goyer , Jim Uhls , Simon Kinberg , Steven Gould

Para assistir o trailler do filme clique aqui

Confira também a trilha sonora de Jumper em AINDA MAIS TRILHAS