Does JUMPER Belong in the Dumper?? - The Official RAZZIE® Forum

STARRING 2005 WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR RAZZIE® "WINNER" (and 2007 WORST SCREEN COUPLE NOMINEE) HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN, with PLOT HOLES BIG ENOUGH to SNEAK a PYRAMID THRU and REVIEWS SUGGESTING IT SHOULD be ONE of OUR CONTENDERS, JUMPER IS a TOTAL WASTE of TIME. THE ONE THING IT DOES HAVE GOING for IT, SAMUEL L. JACKSON as a CHARACTER HUNTING DOWN CHRISTENSEN (NOW THERE'S a PLOT POINT WE COULD GET BEHIND) ISN'T IN the MOVIE ENOUGH to SAVE IT...

NOW IT's YOUR TURN -- JUMP RIGHT IN!

HAYDEN: "Okay, so maybe this wasn't the smartest

place to set up my yard sale..."

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry

I'm really looking forward to this movie, even though I like brainless action movies. However, I do like the director, who made Bourne 1 and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

This movie feels like this years's "Invasion": It has that whole "This movie is a disaster and we are going to lose a lot of money, so let's recast it with people that will make this happen for sure". So I went IMDB and sure enough my inner sense was right...

The roles of Davey and Millie were originally cast with Tom Sturridge and Teresa Palmer. After 2 months of filming and inflating production costs, Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson were recast as the leads.

What better way of doing that than casting than man who literally killed Ainiken Skywalker. If that is what FOX is trying to d,o it will work in spades because no one saw the last 2 Star Wars Film's because of Hayden -- they saw Star Wars in spite of him. JUMPER will not have that same luck.

The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger

I thought the director was supposed to be good...ok, I know. Great directors sometimes make bad movies. But I was hoping for this to be good. Anywho, I might watch Spiderwick Chronicles.

Probably not if they couldn't make the main character any more sympathetic than he pretends to be here. Seriously, Lavrenti Beria would emminate more warmth than this guy.

I saw Spiderwick and was a bit disappointed. I've made a theory: People who have watched movies based on books will be more critical than a person who hasn't because there's something to compare to. Yes, I was disappointed they deleted the 4th book for the film...

my brother read Eragon and watched it and hated it...I have yet to read it and watch it.

Ok. I just saw it. Was decent, if not good (6/10):

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.

This is the type of film where you go along with it. There's no need to have your millions of questions answered. Maybe, for some of you, the film needs to answer questions you will have after you've finished this film. But I'm one of those people who don't mind. In fact, I really didn't mind it during Spiderwick Chronicles and Cloverfield.

Those three films have one thing in common: SHORT RUNNING TIME. You could've probably expect with it's time running 83 minutes that you'll probably have a serious let down. Of course, the director is Doug Liman! He's a great director. I just don't see the problem with adding about 30 more minutes to fill us in.

On the other hand, having that to be sacrificed, you have the movie running in a fast pace. That's why you don't care who's who and what's what. You go along with it. One problem: LACKLUSTER ACTION SCENES. I will say that the action here is good but not great. The special effects are great but the whole jumping thing gets really old really fast.

So this film turns out to be a huge let-down, lackluster, disappointing action film by Doug Liman. The performances are decent and I like the film overall. I just thought it could've been better. It's your choice to see this or not.