To: Vantage Point and Jumper
From: Moi
Vantage Point, it would be good, since you’re called, uhm, Vantage Point, and you advertise yourself as being a movie about the shooting of a US president from several different — again — vantage points, if you actually kept intact the gimmick which is your entire premise. Omniscient camera angles do not work when we’re supposed to be seeing things from Bob’s perspective or Betty’s perspective. I love how you repeatedly show one person’s viewpoint and they can, at the very same time, see what someone else is doing, too! Wow. Everyone is clearly omniscient here and yet, Vantage Point, you seem terribly blase about your characters’ supernatural gifts. You take them for granted. You know, I took you at your word on the whole “vantage point” dealio and was therefore totally gobsmacked by all of your characters’ unexplained and unexplored omniscience. Oh, and then about two-thirds of the way through the movie, you seem to completely abandon any feeble hold on this “vantage point” gimmick and turn into the most improbable car chase movie ever. And, I would prefer, Vantage Point, if William Hurt were killed off in any movie he makes from now until the end of time, so spread the word, ‘kay? Watching him is like swallowing a whole box of Lemonheads all at once. He’s very sour. Maybe he drinks his own urine. I don’t know. Just get it done, okay??
Jumper. Look, dude. Okay. First problem: You hired wooden-headed pretty boy Hayden Christiansen to be your lead. Now I was sorta willing to give the kid another shot after his memorably awful turn as Anakin Skywalker in whatever Star Wars movies those were a few years back, because, well, maybe he was just miscast or the script was bad or whatever. But no, after this, I realize, it’s him. He deeply fatally sucks. If I come away with nothing else from this movie — and I do come away with nothing else from this movie — I now am armed with the knowledge that he has chosen his career poorly, that people have lied to him and wronged him horribly by encouraging these bland displays, that he’d be great in a career where he simply needs to stand there and say nothing, a Buckingham Palace Guard, for instance.
Second problem, Jumper: You gave your lead a superhero ability, the ability to jump instantly from one place in the world to another, and then you made him an ass. A boring ass, which is much much worse. I think — although I’m still not sure — that we’re supposed to like Jumper Dude (whose name escapes me). I think we’re supposed to root for him, because it appears that the Samuel L. Jackson character and others like him — the “palatins,” or something? — are the villians in the movie. We know this because they’re the religious zealots and religious people in movies are always insane. They’re the ones tracking the jumpers, getting all preachy and fanatical, saying things like, “Only GOD should have this ability,” as they kill their next jumper victim. Their issue with the jumpers is never fleshed out any further. They rant and rave and overact because they’re mad on God’s behalf and that’s that.
Another thing, Jumper. You have clearly set yourself up for Jumper 2. (I won’t be there, btw.) You have a dude with superhero abilities who we are supposed to like and yet, he’s despicable. We see him, after he’s discovered his ability, watching a flood drama unfold on TV. There are people trapped atop a car in the middle of a flooded river. The anchorman says something like, “I don’t think anyone can get to them now.” And Jumper Dude just stands there and watches. I thought it was an odd moment, a disturbing moment. We see Jumper Dude not caring that these people will die. He could jump there and save them, but he doesn’t. He’d expose his ability, but does that matter in the face of this? And you, as a movie, choose to show us his coldness early on and then want us to root for him later? I don’t have a problem with the whole anti-hero thing. That character you root for who lacks the traditional traits of a hero. Sweeney Todd is an anti-hero. He does despicable things, but we understand the reason why. We know his motivating circumstances. We feel for him, even like him. We think, “I’d want revenge in that situation, too.” But I understood nothing about Jumper Dude. I felt nothing for him. He’s not a superhero because he uses his ability selfishly — robbing banks, for instance — and he’s not an anti-hero because I understand nothing about what motivates him. He’s nothing. Well, not nothing. He’s a boring bastard with super powers who’s NOT the villian. I guess. Basically, you’re a movie with no one to root for. No one to care about. The good guys and bad guys are equally repellent. When they were all still alive at the end of the movie, I was completely bereft.
So … there you have it, lame-o movies. Please do better in the future.
Signed,
Moi
So I take it you didn’t like Jumper :-). It was on my list of movies to see but now I’ll rethink that. I didn’t know wooden-boy was in it. I can’t stand that guy. He almost single handedly ruined Darth Vader for me.
“He drinks his own urine.” – Ewww!
You pretty much said everything I thought about “Jumper” (although I love, love, love Rachel Bilson. . . even though she must stop dating her co-stars), right down to the sequel prediction, although the movie didn’t do that great so I think it might be a straight-to-video sequel. My movie companion told me not to get bent out of shape about the anti-religious bent (you know, that whole “it’s just a movie” stuff) but it’s just so tired and needless to me. I’d like to see what the book was like.
Brian — Yeah. He’s really terrible. It wasn’t a one-time problem. He seems completely unfamiliar with human emotion. (Oh, and I don’t know if he — William Hurt — really drinks his own urine. Just a speculation on something that, you know, could be making him such a constantly sour presence. I thought I put the word “maybe” in there, but now I see I didn’t. Lemme change that!)
Kate P — I like Rachel Bilson fine; didn’t think she had ANY chemistry with what’s-his-face, but now I wonder if anybody could. And I generally don’t get annoyed with the anti-religious stuff. I find it funny, really, and don’t feel such sweeping generalizations have anything to do with me personally, you know?
I’m not sure anybody can have chemistry with what’s-his-face, either. In any event, she could do better.
As for the other thing, I know what you mean. I’m working on it, myself. But for the most part I do get that people who have that ax to grind anyway will latch on to it; otherwise, it’s just “one of those motivations” for the bad guy, and whatevs (as you are wont to say).
Kate P — /whatevs (as you are wont to say)./
Hahahaha! Yes, I AM wont! Where is that post I wrote where I talk about saying “whatevs,” thinking I’m so hip, and someone telling me it’s not cool? That was at the old Beanhouse, I believe.
Still, I am unflinchingly loyal to “whatevs.”
//…people have lied to him and wronged him horribly by encouraging these bland displays, that he’d be great in a career where he simply needs to stand there and say nothing, a Buckingham Palace Guard, for instance.//
I’m gonna get fired for laughing so hard at this.
In re: chemistry – most chemical reactions give off heat as a by-produce, but there’s a specific name for the reverse reaction; the kind that sucks all the heat out of the area, such as the kind you find in those single-use ice packs where you smack it on the table to mix the stuff up. Endomorphic? Maybe that’s the kind of chemistry Hayden has with everyone. He’s an endomorphic male lead.
NF — Maybe scientists need to study him. Maybe he’s the answer to global warming. Someone contact Al Gore immediately.
I’ll remove my tinfoil hat and open hailing frequencies now.