[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::sf

Title:	Arcana Caelestia
Notice:	Directory listings are in topic 2
Moderator:	NETRIX::thomas

Created:	Thu Dec 08 1983
Last Modified:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1300
Total number of notes:	18728

1045.0. "Film: "Free Jack" (Gibson)" by SUBWAY::MAXSON (Repeal Gravity) Mon Jan 20 1992 19:29

    Film Review:  Free Jack
    			directed by Ridley Scott ["Blade Runner"]
    			starring: Emilio Estavez
    				  Anthony Hopkins
    				  Mick Jagger
    			based on a story by William Gibson
    
    Premise:	Emilio Estavez portrays an overachieving race car driver
    who, in 1991, looses control of his formula car on a Long Island
    raceway and suffers a fatal, spectacular crash - the explosion is
    so cataclysmic that his body is mysteriously never found. He leaves
    a grief-stricken fiance and a scheming, slimy manager/promoter to
    attend his funeral. Possibly, they bury the car - the film doesn't
    make that clear.
    
    In 2019,  Mick Jagger plays a BoneJacker, who uses devious time-travel
    technology to recover human beings from the past who are snatched,
    as it were, from the last second of their lives before impending death.
    This can only be done when the moment of death is well-recorded in
    place and time, such as, say, a fiery auto race crash. The recovered,
    intact humans are then intellectually destroyed and their bodies are
    occupied by nameless, wealthy clients who can afford the BoneJacking
    procedure and subsequent Mind Transplant. C'est Va, Immortality - for
    a price, and what harm? The victims were doomed to die, anyway.
    
    You can pretty much fill in the rest of the story.
    
    Opinion:  The production values of this film are extraordinary - Scott
    has made an eyepopper, and some of the visual themes are directly
    from Blade Runner (and less originally, 2001, A Space Odessy; and,
    regrettably, Escape from New York). In fact, much of the imagery is
    lifted from other films, which frankly at times was so clearly
    identifyiable as a rip-off that it bothered me. There were elements
    of Mad Max, Damnation Alley, a PBS Made-for-TV edition of the Lathe
    of Heaven which is mentioned in this conference some years ago, and
    another PBS offering of Bradbury's "Martian Chronocles". There was
    such an extraordinary amount of this that I felt that I was watching
    sort of a "Short Attention Span Theater" collection of highlights,
    but from science fiction instead of the usual comedy.
    
    The casting was lurid. Emilio Estavez was somehow, indefinably wrong
    for this movie; and Mick Jagger was ludicrous as the villain. Hopkins
    can play anything and he'll be OK with me, but there was no meat to
    this part (contrasted with "Silence of the Lambs"), and really I wonder
    why he consented to do it. The money must have been extraordinary to
    collect all of these names for one high-budget film. I will make one
    concession here - Jagger can act! I was expecting a disaster from him,
    but he did as well as anyone could do when wedged into this character
    (which really called for another sort - more of a Harrison Ford, I
    suppose.)
    
    Overall rating: two stars out of four. With this author, director, and
    cast, I was really hoping for something great. It didn't happen.
    
    - Mark Maxson

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1045.1	Hannibal the Cannibal...no comparison	SELL3::FAHEL	Amalthea Celebras/Silver Unicorn	`Tue Jan 21 1992 09:27`	9
	>Hopkins >can play anything and he'll be OK with me, but there was no meat to >this part (contrasted with "Silence of the Lambs"), and really I wonder >why he consented to do it. You've GOT to be kidding! Any comparisons of ANY part to SOTL is crazy. K.C. (who is looking forward to seeing this)
1045.2	Don't think it was Gibson's story	TRCU05::IAN	CROSS the bridge before you burn it!	`Tue Jan 21 1992 15:14`	10
	I was not aware that William Gibson had anything to do with it -- I though it was a loose adaptation of _Immortality, Inc._ by (I think) Ron Goulart. Can anyone confirm? Cheers, Ian S.
1045.3	_Immortality, Inc._ by Robert Sheckley	ZENDIA::BORSOM		`Tue Jan 21 1992 18:54`	6
	The television promos cite _Immortality, Inc._ by Robert Sheckley (Sheckley certainly wrote I.I., but I have no idea whether he had any direct connection with the movie.) -doug
1045.4		PEEVAX::GIFFORD	Mowing the weed's at Mum's.	`Tue Jan 21 1992 23:16`	14
	Re .0 Just in case anyone thought this was MJ's first movie, he appears in the title role of Ned Kelly a number of years back. It has been so long since I saw this that I won't comment. I do believe however, that the Australian populus took exception to an imported actor portraing an Australian (Ala Kirk Douglas in Man from Snowy river). Just as an aside there was a little disension when Mad max was dubbed for overseas (read US) markets. Stan.
1045.5		RUBY::BOYAJIAN	History is made at night	`Wed Jan 22 1992 00:00`	9
	re:.0 As others have pointed out, FREEJACK is based on the Robert Sheckley novel IMMORTALITY, INC., not anything by William Gibson. And I'm not sure why you thought it was directed by Ridley Scott; it was directed by Geoff Murphy, a New Zealander who's directed (among other things) THE QUIET EARTH and YOUNG GUNS II. --- jerry
1045.6	Don't listen to everything you hear	SUBWAY::MAXSON	Repeal Gravity	`Wed Jan 22 1992 21:09`	13
	Sorry! Sorry. I based much of my information on conversation which occurred on the streetcorner outside the theater between my party and a group of technopunks who passed on the erroneous information. "Who wrote this?" I asked, "Gibson" replied the seven-foot studded leather vampire. "You're kidding," I replied. There was a flash of reflected light and sudden movement, and I glanced down at a double-bladed knife nestled snugly below my adam's apple. "I never kid," it said, quietly. "Right. Gibson." I agreed, and hastily made my way to the subway.
1045.7	A certain "So what?" air about it...	STAR::WALL		`Mon Jan 27 1992 09:29`	10
	I thought Jagger was well cast -- an essentially unfeeling mercenary type with enough smarts to get by, I didn't actively hate anything about this movie. I thought some of the visual effects in the final scenes were largely worthless. Probably the big problem with the movie was I didn't care about anyone in it. It was interesting to watch, but largely unmoving. DFW
1045.8	FWIW	PATE::MACNEAL	ruck `n' roll	`Tue Jan 28 1992 15:13`	2
	Good Morning America's Joel Siegel hated it. From Emilio Estavez to the special effects he didn't have a good thing to say about the film.
1045.9	I liked it.	TRCOA::KGORDON	what's your reality?	`Wed Jan 29 1992 14:54`	10
	I'm new to this conference...saw this movie last night at the late show and was a little leery because a bunch of early-show viewers came out of the theatre raving about how awful it was. We saw it anyways and I enjoyed it. Knew who the true villan was all along. What I thought was really neat was the echo effect that they used on Jagger's voice. Did you notice it? It was quite subtle and you have to really watch for it. I thought that they over-used the painting backgrounds, but the special effects were quite good. All in all a nice sf break from the mundane movies that we've had inflicted on us. Kristy
1045.10	I liked it too	CSCOA1::WILBUR_D		`Wed Jan 29 1992 20:36`	7
	I thought MJ was the best casting in the whole flick, My opinion is that "They didn't do anything wrong." So I give it two and 1/2 stars.