Freejack (1992)

Discussion in 'General Film Discussion' started by Annette, Mar 15, 2001.

  1.  
    Annette

    Annette This is Star - my honey!!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,864
    This film starred Mick Jagger.

    All I remember of this film is it being a load of old codswallop. There seemed to be no storyline at all. I came out of the cinema feeling holy disappointed with a film I believed to be pretty good.

    Annette. :(
  2.  
    Dave

    Dave Wherever I Am, I'm There Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,163
    http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0104299

    I was going to say this wasn't very good, but a load of old codswallop is going a bit far!

    I know that Mick Jagger isn't the worlds best actor, but he has a small role. It also has:

    Emilio Estevez - not usually good, but okay in this.
    Antony Hopkins - a SIR now, no less.
    Rene Russo - not well known then, after this she had a lot of sucess.
    Jonathan Banks

    It has a great concept for a story -

    Just as Auto racer Alex Furlong is about to die in a fatal accident, he is snatched away by time travel, a split second before a fatal explosion. Vasendak's 21st-century team of techies, plan to sell his healthy body to an ailing rich man at McCandless Corporation, for a mind transfer. He escapes, but has no rights in this nightmare future of violence and sleaze.

    That's the good bit.....The story continues with his survival, and his attempt to revive his relationship with his fiancée Julie, now 15 years older and an executive at McCandless.

    It gets very boring, and I've only seen it late at night on TV, when it sends me to sleep.
  3.  
    King Donut

    King Donut KiNg DoNuT Club Starter!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    69
    Boring? I can think of reasons why many people might of hated it but boring? It had loads of action scenes and it kicks Pitch black's @$$! (which IS "a load of old codswallop"...)
  4.  
    Annette

    Annette This is Star - my honey!!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,864
    OK I take it back. Film didn't do much for me. Everyones entitled to their opinions, right?

    Hi King Donut, welcome to ascifi. :wave:


    annette :)
  5.  
    Dave

    Dave Wherever I Am, I'm There Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    14,163
    Some of us require MORE than car chases and "loads of action scenes" in our films.
  6.  
    Metryq

    Metryq Cave Painter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    940
    Immortality, Inc. by Robert Sheckley, the book this movie is allegedly "based" on, is classic sci-fi positing some new technology, then examining the way society reacts. The movie was none of that.

    Some time in the future it has been scientifically proven that an afterlife exists. The "soul" of a person is an electromagnetic field generated by the body. Typically death destroys the pattern, and all that the "person" was is lost. A tiny handful of people naturally survive, or are adept at yoga and other arts to survive the death trauma by sheer will. Now science has learned how to reinforce one's pattern to guarantee an afterlife—"hereafter insurance." Naturally, only the very rich can afford the process.

    And so society responds with healthy but poor people "selling" their bodies to the rich in exchange for hereafter insurance, rich adventurers who have already received hereafter insurance conducting to-the-death manhunts for the thrill (typically, the hunters are not insured), and other bizarre practices.

    Into this we drop a 20th century man, snatched from his body at the moment of death by a new process. Now the insurance sellers can protect one even from death because they can reach back in time and snatch you out of your body and drop you into a new one. After proving the technique, the 20th century man is essentially left to his own devices in a world he cannot understand. And there is a zombie following him—a soul badly "spliced" into a new body so that the soul can animate the body, but the body is not truly living. And the zombie claims to know the protagonist. (Through the same technology, the story also gives rise to ghosts and other "occult" beings.)

    The book—highly recommended.
    The movie—a bad splice, a lifeless body shuffling around and dropping parts as it rots on its feet.
  7.  
    Rodders

    Rodders |-O-| (-O-) |-O-|

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,744
    I remember seeing this on video, but that's it. If i remember rightly it did have a pretty decent concept that was ignored. Millennium did this a lot better IMO.

Share This Page