both hayden and rachel are so hot!!! anyway the movie is exciting, although the plot can be better i think... not bad:)

This film annoyed me the first time I watched it. I gave it another go just in case and it's still a big letdown. Hayden is just a bore and, in what's supposed to be an action/sci-fi film, that's just irritating. I've seen my grandmother paint her... (read more) This film annoyed me the first time I watched it. I gave it another go just in case and it's still a big letdown. Hayden is just a bore and, in what's supposed to be an action/sci-fi film, that's just irritating. I've seen my grandmother paint her toe nails with more enthusiasm. Samuel L. makes a decent villain but he is not enough to warrant watching this film. Pass this one by unless you've already tried watching paint dry and really have nothing else to do.

i think the script was 5 pages long. however the movie was 2andahalf. so about 2 hours of special effects. but still. its teleporting. and SLJ.

One of the worst movies I've seen, none of the campiness that can actually make me love a move either...

didn't particularly thrill me when i watched it but upon mental review the next day there were certain scenes that were memorable/funny. if you can catch it on free on-demand it's not a complete waste of time

One day, I feel sure, the rich mantle of charisma will descend upon [Hayden Christensen], but Jumper is not that occasion.

Jumper, based on the novel by Steven Gould, re-defines -- downward -- the notion of dreadful. It does so by dispensing with everything a movie needs for a shot at being merely awful.

I can't see people lining up for a sequel -- unless Samuel Jackson's hair grows out and marches on Tokyo.

Liman's movie candy is philistine, banal and lacks surrealist thrill. His sci-fi, quasi-political allegory is like an X-Men or Hulk narrative told from the ass end.

It took three screenwriters to turn Steven Gould's novel into an unholy mess.