Doug Liman’s “Jumper” is the type of action fare that you come to see for the dazzling effects and interesting battles, and then… nothing more, after that. The common complaint is that the film doesn’t fully touch on the concept of jumping, and while that’s true, it does indeed explore how this power would be every man’s fantasy. To be able to jump everywhere, to be able to be anywhere you want without restrictions, and to be able to do whatever you want is something “Jumper” pulls off in emphasizing. And the character of David personifies this idea by often working on motives that are never clear. A firm anti-hero, David is that very wealthy young man that everyone worships and wants to be, and he's turned into someone working for a cause by accident once he gets the psychotic Paladins on his tail. And the writers pose the questions: Is David a villain for taking what he wants from this world, or is he the villain for using his power for his own benefit and keeping for himself? Is Roland a hero for fighting to keep these power mad beings from ruling the world, or is he a hero for trying to prevent this ultimate fantasy from continuing and keeping the natural order of things?

The performances are very competent with Samuel L. Jackson as the cold villain Roland who takes it upon himself to lead his brotherhood in stopping the Jumpers, and hunting them down one by one. Jackson as usual takes this role by the cojones and makes Roland a devious foe worth despising. Christensen actually works well here, which is a rarity for an actor mostly on a hit or miss career, and as David he personifies what this concept of teleportation is supposed to entail and the rewards it reaps. There’s also even a nice supporting role from Diane Lane who is the inadvertent key to David’s power, and destiny. Rachel Bilson is really just the damsel in distress, but for what the writers toss our way, her character Milly actually has some semblance of depth and individuality. She's very selfless which helps to make her protagonist worth rooting for and following. “Jumper” isn’t a film you can chalk up to intelligence and innovation, but I had fun sitting through it and loved some of the battles between the Paladins and the jumpers who dash around and blast at one another chaotically. And I may even welcome any sequels or potential series it will spawn, because it's just that disposable where I can sit down and have fun without relinquishing brain cells. Where as “I Am Legend” was my guilty pleasure of 2007, Liman’s “Jumper” looks to be my favorite guilty pleasure of 2008. Sue me, I had fun.

If you try to think of “Jumper” too hard and focus only on the inherent lapses in logic, you’re bound to hurt your head. And aptly smash it into a wall. But with this clearly escapist action fare that is clearly intended for teen boys and general audiences, it’s tough not to, at times. There’s always those series of questions that pop up. How? Why? And to what capacity? Everything about Liman’s film is based on and around ambiguity that I don’t expect will be answered any time soon. Why did David develop this power? How did he develop this power? Are jumpers human or beyond human? How did he steal all of this money without it ever being reported? Were the Paladins simply biding their time? Why, if David stole from the same bank over and over, did the Paladins never simply wait for him rather than waiting eight years later? Why did they send only one Paladin to capture David instead of many? How is their technology able to stop him? Why can it stop him? How do their reflexes enable battle with the Jumpers? Why do they hate Jumpers if they use their methods of travel to get back and forth in some instances? Where did this organization of Paladins originate and—yes—why? And why do they never use guns to stop the Jumpers even when they catch them? Why? Fans of this film will just say “Stop thinking about it and just enjoy it,” and you know what? They’re not incorrect. Liman’s film had every possibility of being one of the worst movies ever made, the reason why I didn’t respond to it as strongly as I wanted, though, was that it just didn’t seem like the adaptation took every chance to extrapolate on the concept and premise. Perhaps the writers didn’t feel like they needed to, but much more substance could have added a much needed cogency, in the end.

You know what? Not much of the concept and premise to "Jumper" makes too much sense on screen. There will be many questions that linger and will continue to linger once the credits roll, but I had a blast just the same. "Jumper" baited me and kept me watching with a wide smile from beginning to end.