Freejack
The one thing Iâve always noticed about great science fiction (and usually action) movies that were adapted from popular literary works is that the original source novels were always so awfully dry, a minute description of the future technology and technical jargon in the fictional world being described but very little in terms of actual tension or suspense (Phillip K. Dickâs Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep which became the basis for Blade Runner springs immediately to mind) which would lead to the filmmakers expanding upon the original basic idea (which was always there to begin with) to make things more cinematic in terms of chase scenes, shootouts and action packed happenings in general. This 1992 release was another example of that (based on a novel from 1968), although ironically the filmâs major flaw was in expanding a little too much into the action sequences, so much so that after terrible test screening scores, reshoots were called for that added more character driven dialogue and development scenes. Upon its release, the major selling point happened to be Anthony Hopkins in a supporting role, it being that he was red hot coming off playing Hannibal Lecter in Silence Of The Lambs and this was his first film role since then, but his role in many ways is just an extended cameo (and Hopkins himself would later blast the film as being âterribleâ). But what should have been the real cause celebre here was in the co starring role afforded to Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger, taking on his first dramatic acting role in over 20 years (since Performance in 1970 to be exact) and not only that, he was playing an ultra cool futuristic bounty hunter who spends the whole movie chasing after the hero. The star here is Emilio Estevez (a guy with enormous potential and promise who had already starred in several classics but suddenly and abruptly retired from acting full time) as Alex Furlong, a hotshot champion race car driver who is only in his rookie year and planning to have a life together with his girlfriend (Rene Russo). But as he prepares for a race (in 1991), at the same time we see (in 2009), Jaggerâs Vacendak setting up his crew and equipment at the very same race track during what appears to be at night. As expected by Jagger in the future, when Estevezâs vehicle flies off the track into a fiery explosion 18 years earlier, the matching up of the space / time coordinates transports him in a split second 18 years into the future, leaving absolutely nothing of his remains in â91 as now he finds himself on board Jaggerâs convoy being restrained and possibly lobotimized into a passive state. Why? It turns out that in 2009, when incredibly rich people learn that theyâre about to die, they pay to have bounty hunters like Jagger retrieve a fully healthy body from the past before they suffer a known violent death, then sedate them and bring them in to have a âfull consciousness transferâ done where the (already dead but kept on full life support) rich person in essence takes control of the healthy new body while the person who occupied that body before presumably has their own mind (and soul) die instead and potentially the rich person can live forever this way. Why go to all this trouble when a younger body from their own time period can be more readily snatched? Because (so weâre told) the environment in 2009 is so bad and so toxic that nobody living in that time would be a suitable replacement, thus making Estevezâs intact 1991 body both extremely healthy and valuable. However, the convoy carrying him back find themselves ambushed by several armed street people (whom it turns out were hired since not everybody wants a billionaire to live forever) which leads to Estevezâs escape and his pursuit by Jagger through the netherworld of New York City in 2009 (although the film was actually shot in Atlanta). The most interesting thing about this future world is the class warfare system on display, as it turns out that there is only an upper and (much larger) lower class with nothing in between, leading to a place where not just robberies but full scale armed combat can break out at anytime on the streets and seemingly mild things such as disturbing somebodyâs meal can get you killed. Disoriented and confused, Estevez first stumbles across a militant nun (a crazed cameo by Amanda Plummer) and then his old manager and best friend from the past (David Johansen) who now lives in a rundown slum but is more than happy to fill Estevez in on where Russo is and what sheâs doing which is working for Hopkinsâ corporation as an Executive Vice President. After Johansen haphazardly betrays him, Estevez keeps running until he tracks down Russo (who hasnât aged a day over the 18 year period even though that might have been an artistic choice to allow that) and convinces her to help him go underground where Jagger canât find him. Meanwhile, the equally powerful forces who DONâT want the consciousness transfer to take place (if the billionaire dies for good then the second in command takes over) are hunting down both Estevez AND Jagger to see to it that if one or both of them are dead, then so is the billionaire and the transfer of power will obviously go another way. So certainly the story is good and sound while many of the performances are solid, but there seems to be some serious technical issues here particularly with the film editing process. Cuts come across as being abrupt and especially moreso during action and fight scenes where it seems that something violent happening is always kept just out of camera range (despite having an R rating which should have allowed the showing of any sorts of blood and carnage). Also at times the original sound mix is flawed and dialogue sometimes turns out to be hard to hear, most notably during a raging chase scene where Estevez and Jagger are taunting each other via laptop screens but one can barely make out whatâs actually being said between them. As for Jagger himself, his performance here was blasted by many, but thatâs probably because he avoided the super macho, masculine clichĂ©s that one would have expected from such a character, playing him instead as an intense, soft spoken type who never raises his voice and at times almost speaks with a whisper even when giving orders to his men during action scenes. But heâs still a badass though, not taking any guff from either corporate types or Estevez himself nor from the (hired) street people with their random attacks, in essence going against the grain and (not surprisingly) playing the role of a bounty hunter as if he were a rock star (complete with fancy leather outfits). Like it or not, one thing that he does not do is make the movie boring and like many rock stars in these kinds of roles, he makes up for in presence and charisma what he lacks in acting ability. But ironically enough, the best performance here might just be from Frankie Faison (who had played Barney The Orderly in Silence Of The Lambs alongside Hopkins) as a street hobo whom Estevez encounters about halfway through the movie who instead of becoming hostile, actually gives Estevez some words of encouragement. Turns out that the entire Freejack program is no secret in the media and neither is Estevezâs significance having time traveled from the past so that some rich, dying old fart can have a fresh new start in life. To the throngs of millions who are starving and dying in the streets, Estevezâs flight from being taken to his predetermined fate has actually made him somewhat of a folk hero to them, a show of defiance against the wealthy who have maintained a high level of comfort and power by stomping on and exploiting those who are below them. Even as Russo desperately tries to help him survive and escape (and also how in the dying yet lusty old fart had specifically handpicked Estevez to be his new body given both the qualifications of how he âdiedâ and the fact that the rich bastard covets his old girlfriend Russo for himself), a definite vibe develops in the story here that works to an extent, helped greatly by Jaggerâs rock star stunt casting and in spite of the technical errors and glitches that no doubt diminished much of the filmâs impact. But a solid story with a psychedelic finale similar to Stanley Kubrickâs 2001 hold it together well enough to help it place firmly in the category of being underrated with plenty of action and a futuristic vision that (like Running Man) was sadly not quite 100% off the mark in the depressing world to come that it depictedâŠ
8/10