Print Page | Close Window

Does JUMPER Belong in the Dumper??

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: JUMPER
Forum Discription: From the Title, We Surmise That RAZZIE® "Winner" Hayden Christensen Will Be Wearing...a Little Girl's DRESS?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2517
Printed Date: April 18 2014 at 4:51pm


Topic: Does JUMPER Belong in the Dumper??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Does JUMPER Belong in the Dumper??
Date Posted: February 12 2008 at 2:04am

STARRING 2005 WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR RAZZIE® "WINNER" (and 2007 WORST SCREEN COUPLE NOMINEE) http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Hayden+Christensen&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - , with PLOT HOLES BIG ENOUGH to SNEAK a PYRAMID THRU and http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2516&PN=1 - SUGGESTING IT SHOULD be ONE of OUR CONTENDERS, http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=259&PN=1 - 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



Replies:
Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 12 2008 at 7:56am
I think "Step Up 2 The Streets" will be worse.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: Reefer Madness


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 12 2008 at 8:35am
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.


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: February 12 2008 at 10:03am
I thought the whole teleportation element looked pretty awsome. Even if it did remind of Sliders, which I was a huge fan of during its run on TV.

-------------


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 13 2008 at 5:04pm

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 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489099/trivia - IMDB and sure enough my inner sense was right...

The roles of Davey and Millie were originally cast with http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0836432/ - Tom Sturridge and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1954240/ - Teresa Palmer . After 2 months of filming and inflating production costs, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159789/ - Hayden Christensen and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1377375/ - 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


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: February 13 2008 at 9:18pm
But there is something good about this movie...

I lied, no there isn't.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 14 2008 at 9:25am
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.


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: February 15 2008 at 12:37am

Here's something else I have heard: Eminem was originally considered for the lead role.

The film would have been very different with Eminem as the Jumper, and probably better than Hayden Christensen.  But would it have had a plot and story that wasn't made out of swiss cheese?



-------------


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: February 15 2008 at 12:05pm
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. 


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 17 2008 at 10:35am
I just saw it. I had a good time. Also, I'm getting my dad to take me to "Steet Kings" and "Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: Reefer Madness


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 17 2008 at 12:47pm
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...


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 18 2008 at 4:40am
moviewizguy might be on to something. Case in point: "Eragon". People who havn't read the book hate, but the people who have read really hate. I was talking to some kids at school who read the "Eragon" books and they said they movie was the worst film the've ever seen. Similarly, "Batman & Robin" is my least favorite film because of Der Schumacher's disrespect of the Batman. He may claim to be a fan, but after what he did, I say he hates them. Also, he messed up two facts every die-hard Batman fan knows. First: "Dick Grayson will become Nighthawk". Grayson becomes Nightwing. Second: "The Thing breaks Batman's back". Bane did that and The Thing isn't even DC; he's Marvel.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: Reefer Madness


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 18 2008 at 9:14am
my brother read Eragon and watched it and hated it...I have yet to read it and watch it.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 18 2008 at 9:18am
Somehow this piece of garbage managed to pull just about http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080218/en_nm/boxoffice_dc_3 - $68 million worldwide  , Just goes to show that the youth of our world is so hard up for a action/adventure movie that they will even see this blantly god awful movie. I guess the bright side is it looks like the executives that green light this XMEN/STAR WARS wannabe rip off at FOX can breath easier now knowing they will still have jobs when they go back to work tomorrow. Hopefully they will not put us through a sequel!!!!

-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 19 2008 at 9:41am

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.



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: February 19 2008 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

It's your choice to see this or not.

...It's also your choice also to roll up a $20 dollar bill and then smoke it, I'll just wait for it to either come on free TV or it goes in the $1.00 bin at Wall-mart.



-------------
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


Posted By: Bonogamy
Date Posted: February 19 2008 at 3:55pm
Originally posted by tomsmobr

I thought the whole teleportation looked pretty awsome it did remind of Sliders which I was a huge fan of when it was on Television.


Hmm...you have tickled my curiosity bone.  I must see this "Television."


-------------
Dreams for Stallone sequels:

Hawk: Over the Top Part II
Marion Cobretti: Cobra Part II
Joe Bomowski: Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot Part II
Nick Martinelli Rides Again: Rhinestone Part II


Posted By: WaterBoySucks
Date Posted: February 27 2008 at 7:11am
When I first saw the ads for Jumper I thought to myself "Geez they made a sequel to The Covenant", so there was no way I was gonna waste my money to see this when cable premiere is less than 12 months away

-------------


Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: February 28 2008 at 8:49am
I'm going to see this on Friday. Making fun of Hayden's "acting" will be so much fun.


Posted By: ramsde
Date Posted: March 05 2008 at 7:38am
Hayden is a good actor is some of his movies. Then other times it is like "What was that?" Star Wars (good), this (I don't think so). This was disappointing for me, had some good parts, but they were not good enough to make this movie good. Oh well, I really need to listen to my gut when it comes to previews. When I have doubts, I know there is something wrong and this movie proved it.


Posted By: iliahtida
Date Posted: March 07 2008 at 2:19am

Will anyone tell me what is wrong with all those ideas about infections, viruses and genetic anomalies going on those days? I know its supposed to be the future scenario but is becoming tiring.

http://www.moviesoftheseason.com - www.moviesoftheseason.com



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: May 12 2008 at 11:30am
Ah, another great idea for a movie, raped by Hollywood. It would have been just fine if it was about a young man discovering he has the power to teleport and how it affects his life (which is what the book the movie is "based" on was about). But NO! They have to add a bunch of uncalled for action scenes, have him being chased by a secret society, and then to top it all off, they cast the actor who ruined the Star Wars franchise for us all...  

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: June 11 2008 at 3:18pm
I saw this movie yesterday, and I did not really think it was bad movie. I think it might be The Best Bad Movie in one way: I wish they would have told us how Jumper is able to do The Teleporting thing...

-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 1:30am
Well, some complained that the movie was too short to tell us information because the pacing of this movie is really fast, while others just liked it because it was a quick action movie to kill your time for 85 minutes...   

-------------


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 3:03am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The failure to explain the whole "teleportation" concept was just one of this film's major problems. The biggest one was that it constantly "jumped" all over the place (literally) with little or no sense of time, place or logic. I'd have to rate this one of the most confusing films I've seen this year...and one of the most boring. In a time/space continuum feet not unlike its characters' teleportation abiltities, JUMPER somehow makes 85-minutes feel longer than three-and-a-half hours! 

FOOTNOTE: I also found myself wondering throughout the film (since the movie itself barely held my interest) if all those exotic world locations (the Roman colliseum, Big Ben's clockface, etc.) were genuine, or achieved digitally. The idea of film-makers pitching the concept of allowing Hayden Christensen to sit in a lawn chair atop the head of the Egyptian sphynx (and then having to figure out how to do it without damaging a historic site) struck me as hilarious -- the only amusement the film offered...



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: myworksucks
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 4:15am
I liked the concept, but it felt like it wasn't thought out through. They just had this concept and decided to create scenes for it and oh, there has to be a love interest and a bad guy (or guys) without any real clear reason. Samuel Jackson does so many movies, he couldn't find something better to do than this stinker?


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 13 2008 at 11:44am

The Movie Preview Critic reviewed the trailer and for the most part agrees of the over using of the jumping effect. Mine you, this is just him judging the trailer, it's more of a debate of the current state of sci-fi movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKLw29uD1TA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKLw29uD1TA



Posted By: Tyleben
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 8:07am
This is an obvious Worst Picture contender; but I'm too cheap to get a membership.  I just wish I hadn't wasted 2 hours of my evening after work.  I'd have been more productive taking a dump for that period of time!   

-------------


Posted By: Queen_of_Toad
Date Posted: November 18 2008 at 10:13am

This sounds exactly like a Gayden Crystalmeth or Natalie Shortman movie. 
Did he finally give up acting? Not yet? Damn!

Originally posted by Tyleben

This is an obvious Worst Picture contender; but I'm too cheap to get a membership.  I just wish I hadn't wasted 2 hours of my evening after work.  I'd have been more productive taking a dump for that period of time!   




-------------
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 7:11pm
It's evident that Hayden had not yet cleared the "Darth Vader" from his system when he made this movie --  His "playing the hero" wasn't up to what I had anticipated.

-------------


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: January 06 2009 at 10:48am
This film was No. 5 on Moviefone's Top 10 Worst Movies of 2008...AND IT DIDN'T MAKE THE NOMINATING BALLOT!?  I don't believe it!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 06 2009 at 2:59pm

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

This film was No. 5 on Moviefone's Top 10 Worst Movies of 2008...AND IT DIDN'T MAKE THE NOMINATING BALLOT!?  I don't believe it!

I remember Hayden being under the Worst Actor catagory and rightfully so. "Jumper" is now playing on HBO this month, so that will give voters a chance to see just how bad of a job he really did.



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: January 06 2009 at 6:33pm

Seriously, I didn't see the movie or the actor on the nominating ballot.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 10:15am
Thank God they're makin'a sequel!They'll solve the plot holes,and this movie will be justified.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by Vits

Thank God they're makin'a sequel!They'll solve the plot holes,and this movie will be justified.
I'm sorry, you're "glad" they are making a sequel to a BAD movie?
 
Little lesson about Hollywood, they don't like to fix plot holes, they like to pretend they don't exist. "Transformers 2" is a key example of that. And as for a sequel, Vits, all Hollywood makes nowadays are movies with two pre-planned sequels. They were going to make a sequel to this no matter how it did at the B.O. or how badly critics ripped it apart.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 3:19pm

Thank you for the lesson, but I'm still trying to figure out whether the plotholes in Trannies 2 were elements of the comic books/TV series/past movies or mistakes Michael Bay forgot to remove during post-production.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

Thank God they're makin'a sequel!They'll solve the plot holes,and this movie will be justified.
I'm sorry, you're "glad" they are making a sequel to a BAD movie?
 
Little lesson about Hollywood, they don't like to fix plot holes, they like to pretend they don't exist. "Transformers 2" is a key example of that. And as for a sequel, Vits, all Hollywood makes nowadays are movies with two pre-planned sequels. They were going to make a sequel to this no matter how it did at the B.O. or how badly critics ripped it apart.
 
Yes and no.I'm glad for the sequel,but I wish that if they make movies with planned sequels,they leave things open,but not plot holes.Like my boy Shyamalan's UNBREAKABLE.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Thank you for the lesson, but I'm still trying to figure out whether the plotholes in Trannies 2 were elements of the comic books/TV series/past movies or mistakes Michael Bay forgot to remove during post-production.
I'll answer that for you: MICHAEL BAY! He forgot to remove the plot holes? No, he didn't care! He got to film this explosions and Megan Fox bending over and whatever else gets him hot and bothered and then went to spend the undeserving millions he was paid to "film" that piece of s***.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 2:16pm
Wow!I thought your name was after the Alan Smithee movie,but cleary you hate Hollywood.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 3:21pm
Originally posted by Vits

Wow!I thought your name was after the Alan Smithee movie,but cleary you hate Hollywood.
Yes, the irony that I picked that name, based on a bad movie that was suppose to mock Hollywood. Yes, I hate Hollywood. It has lost all creativity. Now everything is a sequel, remake, reboot, etc. They can't leave well enough alone. They are greedy and will throw anything on the screen, hoping people will mistake their s*** for ice cream and eat it up. And what's worse is that it usually works, ie. "Transformers 2".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:20pm
But when you chose your name,did you already knew about the movie?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by Vits

But when you chose your name,did you already knew about the movie?
I was just thinking of a title that would be most fitting to in define my hatred of Hollywood. And it wasn't until after I finished my profile that I realized, "oops, that's the name of a movie!".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 3:03pm
Can't you edit your name?

Anyway,I'll still see the sequels to JUMPER and UNBREAKABLE.

B.T.W.,I just joined Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172 - This  is my profile.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 3:56pm
Originally posted by Vits


Anyway,I'll still see the sequels to JUMPER and UNBREAKABLE.
Well, a sequel to "Jumper" just further proves my hatred of Hollywood, which now makes sequels to any movie that is A) overall bad and B) only break even at the box office. As for "Unbreakable 2", the original was 10 years ago and Mister Shy admitted it was his least favorite of his movies. But I guess with the whole superhero movie craze, now would be the best time to cash in on a movie that was about a modern day/"real life" superhero.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 8:42am
1)The sequel was planned from the beginnin'.
2)UNBREAKABLE is Night's favorite of his movies.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 11:05am
Originally posted by Vits

1)The sequel was planned from the beginnin'.
2)UNBREAKABLE is Night's favorite of his movies.

1. I know. 2. From what I read, he hated it and how depressing it was and how it ended in this grey area.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 11:17am
Where did you read that?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Vits

Where did you read that?
It was in a newpaper. But then again, it was written back in 2002, when he was making "Signs", so maybe he changed his mind since then. That or he just realized it was the one movie of his that could be the most profitable as a sequel, especially with the superhero movie craze we're having now.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 25 2010 at 11:48am
I read it on Wikipedia.I know that's not a certain source,but it's more recent than your article.

I don't think that's the kind of things he considers when he rates his movies.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 7:49am
Here's some things I think you should consider when rating this movie: 

1. When it's clear ALL the actors just wanted a quick paycheck for their bills because they are ALL sleepwalking their way through it...it's a bad movie. 

2. When the script doesn't explain ANYTHING, it's just all cryptic, one-liners with no detail...it's a bad movie. (I doubt "Star Wars" would have been as successful as it was if they never bothered to fully explain the Force, Darth Vader, etc.). 

3. When it's supposed to be an action movie, but we can't follow the action at all...it's a bad movie. 

4. When your movie is about teleportation, but the most creative thing you do with it is have a British double-decker bus flip over in Egypt...it's a bad movie. 

5. When EVERY character is not so much a well-rounded, fleshed-out character, but is nothing more than plot devices...it's a bad movie. 
 
Need I go on?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 12:36pm
So you think all the success STAR WARS received in 1977 was fake up until 2005?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 04 2010 at 1:51pm
No. In the original 1977 movie, they did give some explaination as to what the Force was and so forth. However, if they went about it like "Jumper" did, every time Obi-Wan used the Force in front of Luke, and Luke asked how he was able to do that, Obi-Wan would have replied, "It's just something I can do." Not very informative now, is it? 

As for the prequels, they do not exist to me.  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.



Print Page | Close Window