Jumpers is a poor effort which doesn't deserve its current success. ... [It] is a mildly surrealistic farce and not a significant philosophical play ... [its philosophical content] serves the play only in a decorative and marginal manner ... it short [it] lacks structure, and lacks seriousness.Oof! Harsh. But, wait: here's a rebuttal article by Henning Jensen, entitled 'Jonathan Bennett and Mr Stoppard' [Philosophy, 52: 200 (April 1977), 214-17].
Jonathan Bennett, in his article 'Philosophy and Mr Stoppard' [concludes] that Jumpers is a mildly surrealistic farce and not a significant philosophical play ... I agree with Bennett that Jumpers is not a significantly philosophical play ... Bennett's evaluation of these materials as thin and uninteresting is incontrovertible. The arguments are bad, there are inaccuracies in reporting philosophical positions, the whole tone is farcical, and the philosophical content is marginal rather than central to the structure of the play ... I must conclude, therefore, that although Jumpers is very witty, the weakness of its philosophical materials is such as to render it of no philosophical significance and of little worth as a play.Not so much thesis, antithesis, synthesis, as 'thesis, thesis, yah-boo philosophic commoners'. The impression, rather, is of two philosophers ganging up to put the boot into Stoppard. That'll teach him!