Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

bobrobertsst Freejack is one of the BEST SciFi movies of this decade. The others are as follows... Dark City-1998, The Matrix-1999, Twelve Monkeys-1995, The Fifth Element-1997, eXistenZ-1999. There are others I like however, Men In Black is not really a SciFi movie (on and on). But for any list not to include Freejack is dreadfully mistaken!!Everyone in this movie does a nice job INCLUDING Mick Jagger!! The story is the mainstay and gridiron of this movie. It doesn't need special effects (or dumb CARTOON -computer generated people like avatar). The story is a wonderful depiction of how rich people in the future will buy immortality. I highly recommend this move for anyone but especially for SciFi aficionados!!!

Neddy Merrill In 1991's "Freejack", 2009 is a dystopian future where nearly all-powerful corporations rule a ruined environment and a wrecked economy. OK, they got that correct but then again so did the equally cheesy "Robocop". By 2009, humans have mastered the ability to control the space-time continuum to the extent they can draw people forward and replace their minds with another being held in electronic stasis. OK, we haven't really mastered those things yet but damn our telephones have gotten pretty cool. Against this shaky premise "Freejack" puts together a cast that includes the less lunatic of the Sheen brothers, the criminally underused David Johansen, the peerless Anthony Hopkins and, yes, in the Boba Fett role, Mick Jagger. And despite the compelling screen stars, it is Jagger who maintains the audience's eye despite the ridiculous headgear he wears in most scenes and the equally ludicrous haircut beneath. Jagger's charisma nearly carries the film but given that it consists of one extended car (or motorcycle or champagne truck or tricked-out golf car) chase after another after another eventually even his power to charm cannot keep the mind from drifting. During this drifting one wonders why a man with the foresight to run the world's most powerful corporation wouldn't have had a back-up plan to pluck some other body from the past if things didn't work out with the first particularly given that any screw-ups would have meant his death? Anyway, in short, people who like their sci-fi cheap and cheesy or anyone who wishes Mick Jagger and David Johansen had done more movie work will be all-jacked-up by this film.

innocuous Nothing very imaginative here. The SFX are serviceable, but badly dated. The story is not too bad, though the script is very clunky. The actors have virtually nothing to work with, though I'm not sure that any of them (perhaps with the exception of Hopkins) could have made anything of a better script. Estevez alternates acting like a madman and an idiot...a typical example of an irritating lead character who both survives and gets the girl for no apparent reason.But do you know what sticks in my mind? (If you don't have an idea of the plot, better check elsewhere or you won't understand this.) Estevez's character is pulled to the future, apparently using a process that is uncommon and is very expensive and complex, and then he escapes. Astonishingly, there is not only a term for such a person ("freejack") but it is in common use by everyone. I mean, does this happen all the time? "What, ANOTHER freejack wandering around? What is the neighborhood coming to?" Watch the movie and see if you don't feel the same way. Just weird.OK for SF fans, but don't expect too much.

jordanvanklinken This movie was a pain in the ass. In particular, the long drawn out ending featuring the Windows Media Player visualization and the spiritual switchboard.Anthony Hopkins shouldn't have wasted his time with such bullshit. It's possible that Hopkins was not actually with the rest of the actors (Estevez, Russo, etc.) when the movie was being filmed. I suspect he might of filmed his parts separately, either before or after the rest of the filming out of disgust.I find it remarkable that Hopkins decided to act in such a horrendous film only a year after Silence of the Lambs, his masterwork.