Freejack (1992)

[Alan Smithee]

Somehow I've always wanted to see this movie. I knew it was going to be bad. I'd file it with the other junky late 80's/early 90's movies (Universal Soldier, Running Man, Highlander 2, Millenium, etc.). Why anyone would WANT to live in Emilio Estevez's body is far beyond me. You can understand why there has been very little demand for Mick Jagger to star in any movies after watching this movie. If you thought Mick's performance was phoned-in, Anthony Hopkins picked up an easy paycheck here. The ending is absurd and anti-climatic.

[ulthar]

I've only caught this through the corner of my eye when it was on TV a few years ago, but a good friend of mine was recently remarking that the story is actually very interesting.  Though the execution is poor (Mick Jagger acting .. who's idea was THAT?), Freejack does rest on an intriguing premise.

Maybe this one is for "remakes I'd LIKE to see" if it can be done 'right.'  I haven't read any of Robert Sheckley's novels or short stories, but he did do the TV show Monsters that I enjoyed.  I'll have to add him to my list of sci-fi writers I'd like to read.

If Immortality, Inc were done properly, it might just make a good flick.  After all, Carpenter hit a big home run with his remake of the The Thing that was truer to "Who Goes There" than the Hawks version.

[plan9superfan]

You must becrazy if you are actually EXPECTING a f**king remake.

REMAKES SUCK.

[Neville]

Ugh. I wanted to see this movie badly when it came out. I was like: "The premise is good, it can't be bad". Oh, boy, how worng I was! Geoff Murphy has absolutely no idea of directing movies (he would prove it again in "Young Guns II", "Fortress II" and several others), the budget is zero (FX and settings are crap), action sucks, script is a perpetual nonsense (Why doesn't Renee Russo change an inch with time?), and, above all, Estevez is more annoying than ever. If you don't even have a hero you can root for, run for cover.

And yes, the ending is a scam.

[Gerry]

I liked this one when it came out, and I still enjoy revisiting it once in a while.  Yes, it's dumb, but it fun dumb.

[ulthar]

plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> REMAKES SUCK.

Have you SEEN Carpenter's The Thing?  It's one of the BEST films of its kind, period.  And it's a REMAKE.

Others on this forum have pointed out many other examples.  In fact, a few months ago, we had a whole thread about this - movies with more than one adaptation and which is better.  You might be surprised just how many movies, good ones, are actually remakes of some kind.

Absolute statements like "REMAKES SUCK" are rarely true.  So, I stick to my original premise: the story idea is very interesting, and if done properly by a skilled director, I think the story Immortality, Inc would make an excellent film.

[plan9superfan]

OK,let me rephrase it: 90's/2000s remakes suck.

John Carpenter's "The Thing", as well as David Cronenberg's "The Fly", were made in the 80s, back when remakes were done for people that cared and liked the original.

NOWADAYS, on the other hand, remakes are done: a) just to make big bucks , b)to cash-in on the sucess of a good movie and c) to not having to think up an original idea.

And in this decade, they churn out remakes like crazy.


I mean, have you SEEN the Psycho remake? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake? The Fog remake or the Assault on Precinct 13 remake?


and don't even get me started on the remakes that are so wussy that they are afraid to acknowledge the fact that they are remakes, like Pink Panther or Batman Begins.

[Neville]

"The Texas Chainsaw..." remake was a fine movie in its own right, and last year the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" was pretty good too.

[plan9superfan]

You MUST be insane. The Chainsaw Massacre remake was AWFUL!

Where are The Cowboy (AKA Drayton Sayer), The Hitchhiker, Sally and her brother Franklin? Hell, Leatherfeace isn't even Bubba Sawyer! And where is that raw, gritty feeling that the original was famous for? The remake sure as hell didn't feel like a "grind house" movie!

And the original Manchurian Candidate is actually closer to the book that it's based on than the (stupid) remake.

[ulthar]

plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Batman Begins.

How is that a remake?  Of what?  It is backstory, a prequel if you will.  And, it was not a bad movie at all in my opinion.

[ulthar]

plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Chainsaw Massacre remake
> was AWFUL!
>

This kind of thing comes up periodically on this board, especially with newcomers.  YOU think it was AWFUL.  That's your opinion, which is cool.  Someone else disagreed.  That's cool, too.

On this board, where we go out of our way to watch things most people regurgitate at the thought of watching, it is hard to impose one's personal taste on others.  Said another way, we have to have a lot of wiggle room for different tastes, likes and interests.

This is, after all, BadMovies.org.

[plan9superfan]

It thrashes everything from the prevoious, GOOD Tim Burton movies.

Burton's fantastic wishmical, neo-noir setting is dropped in favor of a "realistic" (in a DC oOmics movie? are they serious?) setting.

The Batmobile in the Burton films actually LOOKS like both: a) a car and b) a bat.

The Batarangs in the Burton films actually look like boomerangs (which is the way they look in the comics).

Ra's Al Ghul is an Egyptian warlord, he is NOT a Japanese-French terrorist. And where the hell are Talia and Ubu?

The Scarecrow is NOT a guy with a clothbag in his head, he actually dresses as a scarecrow. And his villanous motif is taken from "The Wizard of Oz", NOT some stupid I-Ching thing.

Batman never truly knows who killed his parents in the comics. That is,in his own (comic) words, "the single greatest unsolved crime of Gotham City".

Comissioner Gordon in the Burton films was actually COMMISSIONER Gordon, and he stayed out of the spotlight so that more interesting characters take center stage.

The Batsuit in Burton's fiilms actually HAD a Bat-logo.

And in the Burton films, Batman made all of his gadgets and did all of his detective work (as it is in the comics) . He didn't have Morgan Freeman do all the thinking for him.

But, as you say, that is just my opinion.

[odinn7]

To say that batman Begins was a remake simply shows that although you say quite a bit, you're not saying much.

[BeyondTheGrave]

I don't really see how "Batman Returns" trashes any of the Burton flims since this was prequel to a comic book and not in anyway related to the previous Batman films.

(NERD ALERT READ AT OWN RISK) ................ In the comics, Batman did find out who killed his parents in a pre-crisis Batman before the "Crisis on the Infinte earths" that revamped the entire DC universe.

Also since this was prequel of course Gordon was just a L.t. and it needs to be estblished how Batman met him before he became the Comissioner for future flims.

[The Conqueroo]

Poor Emiliio.His Dad Played The President on "The West Wing"while Charlie plays a Sophisticated International Swinging Playboy on "Two and a Half Men"!!Plus his Old Flame Paula Abdul is a Judge on "American Idol"!!Then to add insult to injury,Keifer Sutherland plays a CIA Agent on "24"while his Dad plays an advisor to the President on "Commander in Cheif"!!Poor Guy Can't Get A Break,Can He??