28 April 2008

Post 120

Well, I just saw Jumper. I didn't really expect to like it too much because it really isn't my kind of movie, but I wanted to see it because Doug Liman directed it. The only Doug Liman I had seen before today was The Bourne Identity, which I have long held up as one of the best directed movies I've ever seen and certainly my favorite example of smart camera work. Just watch the scene when Jason is looking at the stuff in his Swiss bank box and try to tell me that the camera isn't doing exactly what your eyes would be doing if you were actually observing a scene like that. You may not even be consciously of the way the camera moves because it's so natural. I watched a bit on the making of The Bourne Identity and learned that Mr. Liman often works the camera himself, so I've always kinda wanted to see another one of his movies to see more of his handiwork.

Well, now I'm kinda wishing I would have quit with The Bourne Identity because I have no idea what Dougy was thinking when he was filming Jumper--perhaps he was drunk, I don't know. Maybe The Bourne Identity was just a fluke because Jumper was garbage--any example of shoddy camera work I've ever had showed up in this flick; I was most disappointed.

Worse than the camera work (and directing as a whole) was the acting, but the bad acting was almost forgivable in light of the writing, which was worse yet. In fact, this is the poorest writing I've encountered in quite a while. In fact, I have no words to express how ridiculous the writing was. In fact, this movie makes me wonder whether Hollywood is testing the finite well theory and that this movie was no more than the random finger strokes of a chimpanzee with a typewriter. In fact, I bet a chimpanzee with a typewriter would have produced something more interesting. In fact, the writing has me so bereft of compliments that I've been reduced to saying "in fact" to demonstrate bad writing so I can assure you that, in fact, no matter how, in fact, the writing of this particular post may, in fact, be, it is, in fact, infinitely better, in fact, that the writing of Jumper, which was, in fact, pretty terrible, in fact--and that's a fact.

Okay, okay, okay.... I'll try to be a bit more specific:

  • The protagonist had no redeeming values--not a single one. He was unlikable, unheroic, rebellious, cocky, and stupid. The only redemption for such a protagonist is a tragic ending, which he failed to receive.
  • Not that there was any logical progression in Jumper's vague plot, but there were three fairly dramatic scenes--a bar fight, a sex scene, and a romantic apology--that were totally unjustified. The bar fight was totally unprovoked; the sex scene was sudden and inconsequential; the romantic apology was unmotivated and unbelievable.
  • David (the main character) has the ability to teleport (which is about as close to a plot as the movie gets; by the time you get to the end of this bullet point, you will have essentially seen the movie). But David is not the only jumper. A jumper named Griffin shows up. And there is an ineptly named group (they call themselves Paladins) that is trying to hunt and kill all jumpers. Unfortunately for this movie, Griffin is more a more interesting person than David, and the Paladins seem more justified in their desire to exterminate jumpers than the jumpers are in their wanton lives of sin.
  • David's mother is introduced briefly in two short scenes and does absolutely nothing for the plot except make a punch for a sequel (which is scheduled for release in 2011, by the way).
  • All conflict is left totally unresolved.
I could probably go on, but this movie isn't worth any more of my time. Besides, I'm pretty sure I've made my point clearly enough. If not, let me summarize:

Dude, this movie sucked.

11 comments:

  1. I actually heard someone rant and rave about how thought-provoking this movie was. I've not actually attempted to watch it, but I knew Hayden Christensen would be in it. And that was enough for me to know I would never watch it. (I'm of the opinion he is, hands down, one of the worst actors in recent history. Seriously, does the man have a facial expression aside from that faux-serious, concentrating look?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, knowing he was in it told me that there wouldn't be any acting worth watching, but I was really hoping for interesting camera work. It really is just an all around bad movie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How is it, anyway, that Hayden Christensen can be a top-billed star in something like that?

    And they're really making a sequel? Didn't the movie flop???

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    Yes, but the new Will Smith movie which shares some antihero DNA looks AWESOME.

    ReplyDelete
  5. .

    Wait---have any of us seen Shattered Glass? We shouldn't be too hasty in dismissing him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, I haven't seen Shattered Glass . . . If you're saying it makes him not-dismissable, though, perhaps I should.

    Even movie stars deserve a fair shake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Th. - is that a serious "AWESOME" or a jesting one?

    Will Smith has pleasantly surprised me in many instances. I would be very leery of HANCOCK if it were anyone else; I'm kinda leery of it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and Confuzzled: in a movie like Jumper, that's the only facial expression he needs.

    Not that that's any sort of defense for Hayden's so called "acting"....

    ***

    I don't know anything about Shattered Glass. Is it supposed to be good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. According to the reviews I've looked over, the movie itself was quite critically acclaimed. (It scored a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, and that's saying something) And many of the critics gave props to Hayden Christensen . . . so I requested it from the library.

    I predict that I'll watch it by this weekend or the middle of next week. And then I shall blog about the movie. Because it seems only fair . . .

    ReplyDelete
  10. .

    Yeah, when HC was picked for Star Wars he was little known but highly regarded. Now he has to live down Anikin for the rest of his life; he's not off to the best start, even though Shattered Glass is supposed to be great, him in particular. Every third time I read a review of an HC movie, the critic laments, What happened to our Shattered Glass boy?

    And it's a serious AWESOME. Even though the whale thing would make me snort with anyone else, Will Smith can make movies work that wouldn't otherwise. Even in crappy tripe like Independence Day he's great.

    That said, I won't see it unless it gets good reviews. I never saw I, Robot, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Confuzzled: I look forward to that post.

    Th.: I thought "I, Robot" was okay; like you said about "Independence Day"--Will Smith can make tripe good.

    ReplyDelete