Jumper
 

Just saw Jumper. Wasn't worth the hype, but it was okay.

Mostly I liked the movie. Griffon was a great loose cannon on-again-off-again ally. Roland was a great villain.

But, honestly, David wasn't that compelling of a hero. It's good to see Hayden Christiansen act someone who isn't Anakin Whinypants Skywalker, and to be fair he did a great job as a self-centered jackass, but all the same he didn't seem like much of a 'hero.'

Really, stealing from the bank? That I could understand. You gotta do what you gotta do if you have teleportation and stuff. But, spending the money on extravagant art and statues and multiple computers and furniture and huge apartment...And teleporting to London for one-night stands? How can you expect us to take your relationship with Millie seriously if you pretty much sleep with anyone?

So, yeah. It was a decent movie but David just stuck out strangely in the plot.

From the preview the main character seemed like a rather cliche' douche. One of those times a good movie being ruined by protagonists I seriously want to see die.

I have to ask, is this based off anything or is it a rare instance people actually come up with an interesting concept?

It's based on a book trilogy.

There should be two more movies if it does well. From what I understand it stayed pretty true to the books. I haven't read them myself, but a coworker has and was talking about it today.

I just saw it today. I thought it was terrible, and I'm pretty easily amused(seriously, coming from someone who liked Eragon, which I understand everyone else hated..)

Terrible acting( Nobody seemed terribly surprised to see someone who they thought had died in high school or to see someone randomly appear in front of them. Hayden Christianson's "acting" in this made his role in Star Wars seem award-worthy) terrible story, terrible characters-I got to the final battle and realized I really couldn't care less about who won or who died. I just wanted to leave.

About the only good thing about it was the Indiana Jones trailer at the beginning. I want my $5.50 back.

It's based off a book, although from what I've heard it's based off the book's plot in the same way a Uwe Boll movie is based off...I don't know how to end that simile in this state, so just get the general jist that the movie plot sucks.

Goddamnit, I love me some Slate.

I, for one, never read the book, so I thought the movie was riddled with plotholes. After doing some research on the internet then some of the things made sense.

Also, I wasn't expecting to much, to be honest, so I thought that the movie was pretty good. I couldn't really take any of the characters seriously, though. It all just seemed fake. Especially when David learned to jump and started to take advantage of it, I felt that he lost all character, but that could be just me.

I also thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Differences between the novel and movie: Griffin and the Paladins were not present in the novel, David suspects he is unique and Cox confirms that no other Jumpers have been found. The premise of David using his Jumping to capture airline hijackers to avenge his mother was not in the film. Brian Cox is an NSA agent in the novel who pursues David. In the film, Roland Cox has an NSA agent alias, but his primary occupation is a Paladin. In the film, David's mother was a Paladin and left her family to protect David's identity as a Jumper. In the novel, David's mother left her family due to spousal abuse and never knew David could Jump. In the novel, there were no discussions on "Jump Scars" and how the Paladins used them to track Jumpers. In the film, David has several pictures around his apartment to remind him of his Jump sites. In the novel, David uses a video camera to remind him of his Jump sites. No explanation is offered for why David Jumps to his local library in the film. In the novel, David has a deep love for reading and explains that he always felt safe from his father in the library, which is why he Jumped there by instinct. In the film, David Jumped for the first time to avoid drowning and the second time to avoid abuse from his father. In the novel, David Jumped the first time to avoid being beaten with a belt by his father, and the second time was to avoid a gang-rape. In the film, Griffin has a fortress in the middle of a desert. In the novel, David created a small cliffside dwelling using materials he stole and Jumped in from a lumber yard. In the film, Millie never discovered David's ability until he Jumped with her to Griffin's fortress. In the novel, Millie discovered David's ability when he Jumped away during an argument. In the film, the space around David/Griffin produces an audible pop when they Jump. In the novel, there is no noise during their Jumping. In the film, David's father was attacked by Roland and left for dead. In the novel, David admitted his father to a substance abuse center for his alcoholism. In the film, David and Millie were childhood friends. In the novel, they met in New York City after he started Jumping. David was 18 and Millie was 21.

Seriously? I thought that this was miles better than his Anakin performance.

you say that like its some great acomplishment

Huh. I remember sitting in the theater going "I would rather watch some anakin emo-ness than this character any day"

Maybe it was because his character was completely unlikable.

Well as I said, his character came off as a bit of an arrogant jackass, but Hayden did a surprisingly good job of playing an arrogant jackass so I was entertained.

I mean it contrasted heavily with the innocence of Davy in the book and made a pretty lousy hero, but David as a character was well acted. The Colosseum scene was a good example; He goes into the middle of it, holding up his hands, and thanking invisible fans.