Hayden Christensen in a Good Movie?

I know, I know --I wouldn't believe it, either, but what can I say? While Jumper is no modern masterpiece, it sure delivers the goods. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Jumper, starring Hayden Christensen, opened last Thursday as an unlikely St. Valentine's Day offering. On principle, I am interested in nothing the wooden actor stars in, but an intriguing trailer, and director Doug Liman's only other movie I could remember off the top of my head made me say yes when a friend of mine asked me if I would like to go see the movie with him. As it was said, so it was done. We raced to The Rave right after school, ready to be crushed by the worst disappointment conceivable. Then the movie started, and I found myself caught in its spell.

Jumper tells the story of David Rice, a teenager who suddenly finds himself able to teleport to different locations. Throw in a love interest, a youngster's disregard for the rules, and lots of eye candy, and you get the picture. Said picture is expertly paced, with lots of action, tension, and suspense. The movie grabs you and doesn't let you go until it's over. And, at ninety minutes, it certainly doesn't overstay its welcome.

The action sequences are well put together, with the main characters jumping from one city to the next, from an exotic location to the most modern of buildings. The dialogue is serviceable, and it is well delivered by the actors. And here of course I have to talk about Christensen's performance. While I am going to keep calling him the new Keanu Reeves for a while, he does a better job than he did as Anakin Skywalker. He still smirks most of the time, looks blasé about pretty much everything, and saunters nonchalantly on screen. Add a cloak and a lightsaber and you have a Jedi padawan, right? Well, for one, Jumper's dialogue is better than anything Lucas could possibly commit; and second of all, Christensen actually emotes a couple of times. I mean, I even saw tears once! He still is a cocky youngster, but at least he doesn't look like a puppet being ordered around by the Man of the Silvery Beard.

The one thing that could have been improved is the Paladins' backstory. The Paladins are a group of people who devote their lives to chase Jumpers. I don't want to spoil anything here, but as my friend pointed out, the explanation and motivation we get for them is so cardboard-thin, so barely there, that the result is that they only seem to be there for conflict's sake. This is how I picture the writers hanging out at the studio:

"How can we have conflict in this movie?"
"Well, we'll throw in a buncha baddies."
"Yeah, but how will we justify it?"
"Oh, don't worry: they're just the bad guys, and that will be enough."

The movie is based on a well-reviewed novel by Steven Gould, and I would bet my house and lot the Paladins are more fleshed out in the book (how could they not be?). Still, maybe David S. Goyer (again!), Jim Uhls, and Simon Kinberg decided that information wasn't really relevant and decided to ditch it. Bad idea.

This fact might prompt my dear Halagan to excoriate the movie if and when he gets to see it (I hope he doesn't label it the next Next), but other than a minor smudge in an otherwise very enjoyable movie, it didn't bother me all that much. (Then again, my reviews are always much more superficial than his.) Therefore, my sage advice is that you give Jumper a chance, and see how you like it. Despite the extremely harsh reviews, it is the movie I've enjoyed the most this year so far, and that must mean something, right?