Movie Review**Spoiler Alert**

Well, I saw Jump yesterday in Shanghai and think that that review is reasonably accurate. Also it doesn't seem a very harsh review but balanced.
The phrase "playing the race card" also clanked in my ears and distracted me while I assured myself that it couldn't date to 1928, let alone be used in Austria at that time.
And yes, mostly everyone speaks American English.
I thought Sybil Danning as the barmaid was pretty good in her early scenes, but then sounded and acted rather American during the trial.
Not a huge condemnation, but a mistake/weak part of the film.
And yes, the film was a bit heavy-handed at times.

I thought JUMP was mostly interesting and well done, but seemed like rather familiar story-telling, primarily because the film is largely a courtroom drama, and there's only so much that can be done/shown in such a well-worn genre. [Exhibit 27C was impressive though]

IMDb needs to examine the ratings, because right now 21 of 34 people have given Jump a "10." 8.7 out of 10? Either the Shanghainese love it, or people connected to the film are voting with their hearts (to be kind).


Here's what I posted about the film on another board (I'll try to re-work it into a review and add it the comments section):

So far, my Shanghai Film Festival viewing has been limited to Jump: The Philip Halsman Story. Based on a true story of an alleged patricide, involving a Jewish family during the rise on Nazism in Austria (1928)

It's reasonably interesting and mostly well done, but also comes across as rather familiar story-telling. This is primarily because the film is a courtroom drama, and there's only so much that can be done within the confines of a trial. Though Exhibit 27C is pretty impressive (the severed head of Halsman's father, on a platter).

The father-son tensions are explored, if a bit heavy-handed at times. The main actors playing Philip Halsman, his father, and his lawyer are all good. The female characters, mostly peripheral to the story, are underdeveloped and mostly give less convincing performances. The Austrian waitress was good in her early scenes, but then inexplicably sounds and acts very American throughout the trial. At times the film has trouble balancing the father-son conflict with the racial-political tensions.

The biggest surprise was that Halsman's lawyer was played by Patrick Swayze. He looks a little plasticky, but does a credible job as the moral backbone of the film, Halsman's Jewish lawyer battling the rise of fascism.

Mostly I was disappointed that the trial and imprisonment took up so much of the film. At least it wasn't as grim a Nazi-era trial as in Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. But the problem is that we never really get to know the later Philip Halsman, the famous photographer. We get a very basic and brief glimpse into his method and approach, but the audience is left to guess how he turned out as a person, how the tragedy affected him, and how it relates to his life work. We needed more of Halsman in 1950's New York, either to begin or end the film, so that we could sympathize with him more and understand him as a complex (real) person. Also, it would have been nice to see at least one, or preferably many, of his photgraphs -- to see how Halsman captured others and appreciate his skill. One possibility would be for the photos to have been shown along with the closing credits. I assume that cost or rights were at issue here, but it would have added significantly to the film

The opening scene with Halsman photographing Marilyn Monroe in NYC circa 1950 was poorly done and unconvincing. Didn't help that Paris Hilton played Monroe. Okay, I made that up, but a better Monroe impersonator can probably be found in Vegas on any given weekend. Plus her giggling was overdone and dubbed in somewhat poorly.

A decent, reasonably entertaining film. And my two Chinese friends liked it. Probably works well as something to watch on cable tv for the story and the good lead actors, but not worth making much effort for.

Unfortunately the Shanghai Film festival made a pretty big hash of the screening. The film was out of focus for the first 15 minutes, until I told them to fix it. Then the boom mic was present in dozens of scenes, which apparently means it was projected incorrectly (without the proper matting). Not to mention the musty old theater and the muffled sound.