Jumper

Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Rachel Bilson, Jamie Bell, Diane Lane, Max Thieriot, AnnaSophia Robb, Michael Rooker
Running Time: 88 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

I can’t stand it when a movie botches an intriguing premise. I think I’d almost rather see a film that’s consistently terrible and has no potential for success because being teased is never fun. The teleportation sci-fi adventure Jumper opens with a fascinating prologue and then completely blows it, dropping the ball the rest of the way through. Before popping in any DVD I always take a glance at the running time on the back of the case just so I know what to prepare for time-wise. You never know when you need a bathroom break. I was surprised to read that this was going to be 88 minutes (insert your Al Pacino joke here), an unheard of display of restraint in today’s age of bloated, overlong blockbusters. I took it as a good sign, that maybe it would do what it needs to and get out quick. I should have known better. What’s not going to work won’t, no matter how many minutes you’re filling. A shorter film isn’t necessarily a tighter one any more than a longer film is guaranteed to be an epic masterpiece.

A great movie could have been made from all the questions that go unanswered in this screenplay and maybe one day someone other than Doug Liman will decide to make it. And when they do they might realize it probably isn’t a good idea to make your hero an arrogant brat who physically and emotionally abuses his girlfriend. Or waste talented actors in nothing roles. Or cause motion sickness with dizzying special effects. It’s a shame because this really could have been something, had they chosen to really explore an idea brimming with dramatic possibilities. Instead, it’s just a big mess with a very few bright spots, most of which come within the first ten minutes.

The opening of the film is so good that it’s almost hard to come to terms with what follows. A childhood accident prompts teenager David (Max Thierot) to discover has the unique ability to teleport or “jump” from one place to another instantaneously. This incident separates him from his childhood crush Millie (AnnaSophia Robb) and his abusive alcoholic father (Michael Rooker), both of whom believe him to be dead. What he’s doing is transporting across the globe, gaining control of his powers and robbing banks for some extra cash. That last part is what attracts the attention of NSA agent Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) who tracks down jumpers and kills them because…well, we’re never really quite sure. He’s just a bad guy.

It’s when we flash forward a few years into the future with David as an adult (played by Hayden Christensen) being pursued by Roland and reuniting with Millie (now Rachel Bilson) that the movie starts to develop some major problems. Thieriot and Robb gave absolutely sensational performances in the opening minutes as the younger versions of David and Millie. I was captivated by their story and couldn’t wait to see where it would go in the future. I knew Christensen and Bilson would have their work cut out for them attempting to follow it, but I couldn’t have been prepared for results this disastrous. The two older performers are out-acted in every way possible by their younger counterparts who opened the film. I felt like getting on my hands and knees and begging Liman to bring them back.

When they reunite, adult David has suddenly transformed into an egotistical, self-entitled jerk and Millie has turned into Summer Roberts from The O.C. I can almost picture Liman (who not so coincidentally was a producer on that show.) telling Bilson: “Rachel, just act like Summer ” Insulting, really, because at least that character had a lot more depth to her than this. Anyone who's seen The Last Kiss knows Bilson is capable of delivering in an important supporting role but this isn’t one. It may as well be described in the script as “SOME GIRL.” The only actor who effectively conveys the adulthood transition is Veronica Mars’ Teddy Dunn, who hilariously recaptures the childhood bully we saw in the film’s opening. He disappeared into the role so well it actually took me the entire length of the movie to finally realize who the actor was.

David and Millie have morphed into different (and noticeably more unlikable) people and their big reunion falls flat. She doesn’t even seem to care that he’s alive and he doesn’t care that she doesn’t care. So of course minutes later they’re jumping into bed together. Since she doesn’t know his “big secret” he’s literally dragging her on the vacation from hell when he’s being chased by Jackson’s Cisqo look-alike and trailed by another jumper (played by Jamie Bell). I find it ironic that the filming of this led to a real-life relationship between Christensen and Bilson because they share ZERO chemistry on screen. They actually seem more like bickering siblings.

The character of Millie often comes off as an idiot by putting up with David’s cocky attitude the entire time and never questioning him. It sets female characters in films back about 50 years. And sorry, but there’s no other way to put it: Christensen plays David as a complete asshole. He’s rude and sarcastic to everyone he encounters and we’re supposed to have sympathy for him because he leaves “I.O.U” notes at the banks he robs. At this rate Christensen seems destined to spend the rest of his career paying for George Lucas’ sins, which is a shame. The worst thing he could have done was take another role as an unlikable, angst-ridden man-child in a science-fiction film. I actually think even Annakin Skywalker was more likable and had greater depth than this guy.

Why shouldn’t I root for Jackson’s character? If nothing else he’s dedicated, which, unless I’ve lost count, is one more positive attribute than David has. Or at least I would root for Jackson’s character if I knew the slightest thing about him. Why does he want to kill jumpers so badly? He says that all jumpers “go bad,” whatever that means. Maybe he’s talking about David’s selfish behavior and abuse of his powers. If that’s the case I can’t say I blame Roland for wanting to kill him, which is a problem if you’re trying to root for the hero.

No one’s given any motivation or development. We never know how David actually feels about jumping or why he feels the need to do it so often. And when I say often I mean like every two seconds. Wouldn’t he get dizzy or sick? I know I was starting to after a while just watching him with all the hand-held camera work and cheesy special effects. The intriguing notion of jumping, set up so well in the prologue, is overused to the point where it isn’t important or special anymore. We just want it to stop. At one point Jamie Bell’s character says that he likes to just walk sometimes rather than teleport because it makes him “feel normal.” In that one line he suggests all the possibilities this film failed to exploit.

You may have noticed in the credits that Diane Lane is in this, She has a scene as David’s long-lost mother where she runs into a room and screams like a lunatic for 15 seconds then leaves. It’s embarrassing, but not even the worst scene she has. That comes later. Kristen Stewart appears…to open a door and deliver one line of dialogue. Why cast talented big name actors in cameo roles where they do absolutely nothing? It’s a waste of money and a sure sign something went horribly wrong at the production stage. When you have actors of that caliber you try to get the most out of them that you can. As bad as the movie is, it’s compulsively watchable because of its premise, which in a way just makes all of it that much more disappointing.

I’ll give author Steven Gould (who wrote the 1992 novel from which this is based) the benefit of the doubt that his ideas were completely thinned out if not altogether eliminated by David S. Goyer and Jim Uhls’ script. I know this is an action/adventure and don’t expect characters to pause every second and explain there motivations but it isn’t asking too much for there to be a clear set of rules and the characters’ desires come through in their behavior. The ending hints threatens they’ll be a sequel and Christensen has stated in interviews there may be as many as two more Jumper films. I hope for his and Bilson’s sake that’s not true. If it is, I’m teleporting myself out of the theater.

The Last Kiss

Director: Tony Goldwyn
Starring: Zach Braff, Jacinda Barrett, Rachel Bilson, Casey Affleck, Michael Weston, Eric Christian Olsen, Marley Shelton, Lauren Lee Smith, Blythe Dannner, Tom Wilkinson, Harold Ramis
Running Time: 115 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

There's an agonizing choice and a deep, morally ambiguous dilemma at the center of The Last Kiss. It's so deep I'm not too sure the filmmakers knew what they had. The movie is brutally honest and risks going places most films wouldn't even touch. All the ingredients were there for this to go the distance and stake its claim as one of the year's best and it came closer than you might think. Unfortunately, amateur mistakes are made, and by Oscar winning screenwriter Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash) of all people.

Just when the movie seems poised to let the emotionally moving story take center stage, it pulls back and instead push useless supporting characters we could care less about in our faces. It's a shame because there were actually times during this film where myself and the person I was watching it with actually paused the movie to discuss the moral implications of what the main character was doing. It's not as cut and dry as it first seems. On the surface it appears it's just about a guy cheating on his wife, but it cuts deeper than that. It isn't necessarily clear he's making a big mistake. It's complicated. With all it's flaws, the film is probably still smarter than 90 percent of the junk that's put out there today. It's just by the end I was banging my head against the wall wondering what could have been.

Zach Braff plays Michael, a Wisconsin architect who seemingly has it all as he approaches his 30th birthday. He's got a beautiful girlfriend, Jenna (Poseidon's Jacinda Barett in the film's toughest part) a great job, and good, loyal friends. However, his whole world turns upside down when faced with the news she's pregnant since this is a guy who can't even bring himself to discuss the "M word." He tells her "I'll marry you when you can name five marriages that have lasted more than five years." She can't. When they visit her parents, Stephen and Anna (played exceptionally well by Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner) to deliver the big announcement they naturally think they're getting married. When they get the real news dad is thrilled but it awakens all kinds of crazy feelings and behavior in Anna, as she begins to examine her own thirty year marriage, which from her standpoint has been a complete disaster.

You can feel a crisis brewing on the horizon and the wedding of Michael's friend proves to be the catalyst when Michael encounters cute, flirty college student Kim (The O.C.'s Rachel Bilson making her feature film debut). What's interesting about this is although Kim comes on pretty strong and makes her intentions very clear from the get go, she isn't just some homewrecking vixen trying to destroy his relationship, though she is slightly manipulative and knows her power over guys. She gives him plenty of room to say "no" if he wants to but knows he can't because she senses he isn't completely happy. We sense it too. Something's missing. "Everything feels pretty planned out. There's no more surprises," he confesses honestly. As he closes in on thirty quickly this could be his last shot. He's scared and he gives in to temptation. Is this wrong? Morally most definitely, But is he making the wrong decision? This would be much easier if his girlfriend was a hen pecking ball and chain but she's not. She's fantastic, if a little too predictable, so it's almost unbearable for the viewer to sit back and watch him do this to her. This is what I mean when I say Jacinda Barrett has the toughest role in the film as Jenna. That part, in the wrong hands and not played perfectly with subtle nuances, would have caused the film to collapse. Too likable and Michael looks like a complete dirt bag for cheating on her. Too clingy and we don't blame him for cheating. She finds just the right balance and her performance is easily the best in the film.

Making this even tougher is that we get the impression if the two women ever met they'd get along great because they're actually quite a bit alike. In the looks department they're almost dead even with Kim having only maybe a slight edge. This reminds me of the urban legend that guys almost always cheat with a woman who's similar to the one they're with. That just may be true. In Michael's defense, who wants their whole life planned out for them? No matter how great his girlfriend is he's going to have to grow up and become a husband and a father...for the rest of his life. If that's not enough to send any guy flying into another woman's bed I don't know what is. This may be a desperate attempt to recapture his youth (one scene with him sneaking behind the trees waiting for Kim on campus looks particularly pathetic), but it's coming from an honest place. There are no responsibilities or strings attached with Kim, which has to count for something.

In some really smart writing, Michael's best friend Chris (Casey Affleck) is put into the unenviable position of helping him cover up the affair, although by this point it couldn't technically be considered one yet. What he does I won't give away, but let's just say it raises all sorts of conversations when the film's over as to what a true friend really is and the real definition of loyalty. When Jenna does eventually uncover it, what results is the most emotionally powerful scene I can remember seeing in a feature film this year. Michael has other friends struggling with relationship issues too and that unfortunately ends up being a major problem for the movie and sends the smart writing down the toilet.

Chris' wife Lisa (Lauren Lee Smith) just had a baby, is emotionally unstable and blames Chris for all of life's problem's. He's contemplating leaving her. Another friend, Izzy (an over the top Michael Weston) wants to quit his family career in the cheese business and is pretty much stalking his high school sweetheart, Arianna (Marley Shelton). Then there's Kenny (Eric Christian Olsen), a care free soul who's spending most of his free time having sex in many different positions and locations with a girl he just met at the wedding. When she suggests he meet her parents he freaks and plans to take a road trip in a van to South America with the guys. How four guys can take a road trip in a van from Wisconsin to South America is a question left unanswered. All of these characters seem like they were just thrown in the screenplay by Haggis to reinforce the idea of commitment phobia. None of them are there long enough for us to care about them, yet they're in it just enough to take away from the intriguing story at the center and annoy the hell out of us.

At one point the movie cuts away from an emotionally resonant scene with Michael and Jenna to show Kenny and his new girlfriend from the wedding spread eagle and naked, having wild sex on the living room floor. What's the purpose of this? This isn't Wedding Crashers. It has nothing to do with anything. This movie was adapted from the 2001 Italian film L'ultimo bacio so I'm assuming all of these characters were in that film in some form or another. If they were, creative license should have invoked and they should have all been taken out for the American remake. If they really wanted this movie to be about a bunch of guys facing an existential crisis as they approach thirty then they should have gone all the way and made that movie, not just lightly sprinkled the screenplay with underdeveloped characters in at their convenience. If they wanted to make this completely about Michael's story, which they probably should have, then there's no place for all this other nonsense. They should have made a choice. The presence of all these minor characters struggling with their relationship problems makes this project feel like a made for TV movie at times.

Of all the supporting characters, only two strike a real cord and directly relate to the central storyline. Those are Jenna's parents and Wilkinson and Danner bring a quite dignity to the roles that just works outstandingly. Wilkinson is kind of playing a variation on his character from In the Bedroom in that on the surface he appears cold to his wife, sarcastic and uncaring while the circumstances of his life situation force something deeper to come to the surface. Danner as Anna, frustrated with the lack of communication in her marriage, forces that something to come out of him in a tour de force performance that never goes too far over the top. She must also come to grips with an affair she had with a college professor (the great Harold Ramis, brilliantly cast against type as a ladies man), which she flaunts in Stephen's face. This all provides a nice counter balance to Michael's dilemma. After all, if he stays with Jenna they could end up exactly like them. This is the only supporting story that not only works, but adds to the themes of the film.

Interestingly enough, director Tony Goldwyn, who's best known as an actor (he was the villain in Ghost and played the creepy college counselor who hit on Katie Holmes in Abandon) states on the DVD interview the importance of casting the roles of Michael's friends. Why? Izzy seems mentally unstable and obsessive, the character of Chris' wife is a complete bitch, and I won't even get into Kenny and his sexual gymnastics partner from the wedding. All of this would be forgivable if it it didn't happen at the expense of the powerful dilemma at the heart of the movie and the character of Rachel Bilson's Kim. Just when we want to learn more about her all these morons take center stage and the movie discards her like a piece of trash, even filming a scene that really makes her look immature, stupid and even stalkerish. In a way, the movie ends up treating her worse than Michael eventually does. It's too bad because Bilson's performance is actually spot on for a girl her age in that situation.

Goldwyn enlightens us on all the details of Kim's life on the DVD's special features, letting us know her likes, dislikes, dreams and aspirations. It would be nice if we found this out in the movie. The strong central conflict would have been even stronger and we would have viewed Michael's decision as being tougher. I couldn't figure out if they did this because they didn't have enough faith in Bilson as an actress to give her more important scenes or they overestimated her and thought she could just convey all these emotions through her natural charm and ability. This is particularly problematic when Michael and Kim first meet at the wedding. Rachel Bilson is beautiful and likable I have absolutely no problem believing any guy would fall instantly in love with her the second they see her, but it would have nice if they didn't have her just throw herself at him in two seconds. They aren't randomly introduced or slowly get to know each other through casual conversation, she just decides this average looking guy who's ten years older than her is the guy of her dreams. It kind of makes her look like a desperate seductress and I don't think that's what the movie was going for. The one conversation they have, in a tree house, is a good one and they should have had more of those. I will admit the fact that I ended up caring that much about the character proves the movie must have done something right with her.

Luckily toward the end of the film the focus shifts back to the conflict between Michael and Jenna and the revelation of what he's done. He commits himself to making a choice and what happens at the end of the film is so surprising and I thought so smart. When Jenna's parents find out what he's done to her their reaction to isn't what you'd expect and it leads to the most interesting conversation of the film between Michael and Tom Wilkinson's Stephen. You think you have a good idea how he'll treat this loser who just destroyed his daughter’s life, but what happens ends up being smarter and far more satisfying.

I always thought the key to a successful ending of a film is if I'm left wondering and caring what happens to the characters after the movie is over. I did here. There has to be some degree of closure, but not too much. Issues are messy and aren't patched up nicely in real life so why should they be in a movie? Especially one with an issue that cuts as deep as this. I'm sure they'll be many who will try to compare this film to Zach Braff's 2004 cult classic, Garden State. That's not fair since Braff wrote, acted and directed that film whereas he just acts in this one. He does a fine job here as he really does have sort of an everyman quality that's relatable to the viewer and works well for the part of Michael.

After the incredible success of the Garden State soundtrack, Braff was asked to compile the soundtrack to this film and it's quite good as well featuring music from Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Ray Lamontagne, Aimee Mann, Athlete, Fiona Apple, Amos Lee and others. Garden State was pretty much hailed as a masterpiece. I thought it was good, not great. This would fall into a similar category but it's worth mentioning that in his last two film outings Braff has come very close to being in a great movie. More notably, he starred in two films that have something important to say about life and leave you thinking and feeling for a while after it's over. Garden State knew what it was about though, and stuck with it the whole time without adding needless distractions. I'm starting to wonder if this film would have been better had Braff written and directed it himself. The Last Kiss may be messy, but at least it's never uninteresting.