Jumper: C

Jumper is mindless, but it isn't mindless fun. That's a unique distinction that needs to be made because, over the course of 89 minutes, Doug Liman's latest film - marked very little by any sucessful cheeky wit (as seen in previous of his works: Swingers or Go or The O.C.) - continues to tease the viewer with what could have been; however it does so in such a vague, middling way that even that lust to see more will wane in audiences. What remains is one eye-poppingly constructed bore - mildly entertaining, but barely even there.

A hallmark of this treading-water style is obvious from the very first frame. We listen in on the (laughably unintentionally) disconnected voice-over of our hero, David Rice (Hayden Christensen), as he fills us in on his abilities to jump anywhere and everywhere in the span of a breath ("Paris...Egypt...the NBA Finals, courtside of course, and all before lunch," he quips). Moving away from that he attempts a limp "origin story" of how he first discovered his jumping abilities. The tale is rote on the surface, and worse, one can see the plot mechanics a mile before they even begin turning. That, coupled with the prologue-y speech, is purely emblematic of Liman's new style (first glimpsed in the second-half of Mr. and Mrs. Smith): to overload the audience from the word go; stuffing us with ever-increasingly less satisfying filler, junk.

But one could argue that not all of the film is so mediocre. Indeed, the effects sequences are exuberantly conceived, but they are served to no purpose, to no plot. The main narrative thread was concocted mainly from David S. Goyer, the co-writer of Batman Begins - a far more astute look at a loner with scary "leaps" of ambition. But then he worked with Christopher Nolan, a master of psychology (and better, solid entertainment) in the film medium; here his partner is Jim Uhls, he of Fight Club fame. Enough said. But even if the story was fully realized enough to merit the technical wonders, it couldn't sustain them. In fact, few movies imaginable could use so much mindless swoosh! and poof! before running out of breath and collapsing. So if the great ones wouldn't have been able to do it, guess what Jumper does? You guessed it: it pulls that whole DOA trick.

I wax optimistic though. There are perhaps one or two bright spots. Foremost is the length; then comes Rachel Bilson (that soulful ditz from The O.C.) who makes her indecision (and, heck, lack of character) sparkle. And third is Jamie Bell who, as Griffin - a daredevil fellow jumper - has all the fun that David should be having. Too bad Liman and Goyer leave him stranded in Bosnia...

Which brings me to the numerous dark spots. Foremost among them is the half-baked (and this I truly, really, mean) plot - full of at least two dozen loose ends - and all the elements that entails: character, purpose, audience interest. Such slap-dash work then leads to the mis-use, and mis-casting, of greats like Samuel L. Jackson who, as the head of the antagonistic "Paladin" cult out to cleanse Jumpers from the Earth, does just about all he can with a character who isn't even one-dimensional, he's one-line (and not even a good one, mind you). Finally in my list of complaints is the director himself, who should have had the sense to realize Jumper needed shaping up, or simply ditched the project all together. Instead we get this late-winter dud; a sci-fi adventure with a pathetically undershaped "mythos" (necesary to any enjoyable alternate, sci-fi, universe). Remember what I said about the whole thing being a "bore"? I'll add onto that: Jumper is the screen version of a still-life - lushly rendered in beautiful lighting with great technical skill, but lifeless and static. Pretty ironic for a film all about the ability to move, right?