Jumper has been pretty thoroughly hammered by critics. A lot of the arguments boil down to: it's incoherent, it doesn't provide a convincing backstory, it doesn't explain the phony science behind the Hayden Christensen's teleportation abilities. This all leads me to believe, having seen the movie, that many film critics are, let's say, slow. I will concede that there is no scene where a government scientist (played by Val Kilmer, maybe - he sold that bit fairly well in Deja Vu) explains how teleportation ability works, how many people each year are born with it, when they first noticed it cropping up, blah blah bliggedy blah. I will also concede there is no scene depicting sinister rites being conducted, sometime in the distant past, by the quasi-religious/all-powerful/incredibly well-funded organization for whom a white-haired Samuel L. Jackson is the figurehead. There is, in fact, a surprising lack of expository dialogue in Jumper. I submit that this is a good thing.
How much exposition do movie reviewers need? Hayden Christensen's character can teleport. He can also teleport physical objects he's carrying, or sitting inside. Samuel L. Jackson and his organization want to kill anybody who can teleport, for religious reasons. That's enough for me; now let's get to jumpin'.
Car chases: check.
Exotic locations: check.
Explosions and fireballs: check.
Cool fight scenes: check.
Rachel Bilson semi-unclothed (not that I'm a giant Rachel Bilson fan, but if there's a chick in the movie, get her clothes at least partially off, amiright?): check.
Makers of Jumper, you have earned my six dollar Sunday-matinee admission price.