Freejack (1992)

[Mitch McAfee]

I'm proud to say I paid to see Freejack in the cinema back in 1992. I can't defend this film at all, I know its BAD. (I'm not talking good BAD, I mean bad BAD) And I really have no intention of watching it again.

The reason I'm proud to say i paid to see this, is that I love BAD movies and thats what I like about it... its a mess. The direction by Geoff Murphy is incredibly uninspired & the production values suffer from the late 80's/early 90's syndrome of expensive Optical FX on a low budget. From memory, Geoff Murphy most recently worked as the 2nd unit director on the Lord Of The Rings films.

And ulthar, I couldn't agree more. This is a Bad movie site after all, no need to discuss commercial/popular/classic films here, there's plenty of other movie boards around for that. Thats why I come here, to read & chat about BAD films. (though I don't post often, I do lurk regularly)

[Alan Smithee]

The way I see it: if you remake a good movie, it'll probably be worse than the original. If you remake a bad movie, it has the potential to improve on the original.

[Menard]

I do have to agree that the TCM remake was pretty miserable and easily forgetable.

[Menard]

plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Batman Begins to you is probably like Conan the Barbarian is to me. The Conan movie has about as much relation to Howard's work as Late Night with Conan O' Brien; they both have main characters named Conan. Despite that, the Conan movie was well done, and I admit that even though I don't care for it.

In the Batman comics, it was Joe Chill who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents. In the Burton film, the blame was placed on a young Joker, before he became the Joker. I have not read enough Batman comics, though, to know how much the Burton films deviated from the stories. I have not seen Batman Begins, so I really cannot comment on the film, but I do like the Gothic feel of the first Burton Batman.