Nick Damian This movie has a plot...unlike many.It has a reason for the evil corporations to exist and actually BE evil.It has action, suspense and martial arts...with a touch of mystery and drama.While the future was made a little bit too futuristic as it is supposed to be 2008 and this review is almost in 2007, it's not impossible to see too far off.Nice pacing, good casting.This goes on my watchable list of movies.If Arnold or Bruce Willis would have headlines, this would have been a blockbuster instead of a straight to video.I'm glad they didn't headline it, because they would have destroyed the lead character with their presence.Eric Roberts was cast great as the father.Cool movie...

w0aq This is a TNT original made for TV movie. Like "Stiletto Dance" - also starring Roberts, it was filmed in Quebec.This is a cool idea, sort of a "Die Hard" meets "The Running Man." Of course, it's not perfect. There are dialogue problems, there are continuity problems, there are acting problems. But hey, it was made for TV.It looks futuristic as it is set in 2008. In some ways, I would think it might be a bit advanced for 2008 and in other ways the CHEESY computer graphics and such look right out of the early 1980's. So you have some exceptional work and some that is not good.In one case, our main character busts the controls off of an elevator and instantly uses a wire touching a resistor to control the movements of the elevator. A bit too far fetched and this is not the only example of such.Also, too much firepower with guys dressed in black uniforms. It becomes mundane when you constantly see black uniformed thugs constantly firing at our hero. C'mon now.The basic premise of the movie is a good idea though: Selling your body for cash now and the delivery of body organs later. Unfortunately, this causes your death - and of course, the company that "buys you" intends to collect on what they purchased. That part is interesting.So, what can we say for this? Well, it stars Eric Roberts and as far as I am concerned this guy can't really do anything wrong. Even in a bad movie, he makes it good. This guy should be starring in blockbusters as far as I am concerned. His acting and presence in this movie is excellent.It's fun to watch and Eric Roberts is in it. Overlook the obvious flaws and it is 90 minutes of entertainment.

Pro Jury Eric Roberts is a popular movie actor. He brings extra dimension to the characters he plays.In Race Against Time, along with Eric Roberts are many fine actors playing their parts here with all seriousness. The acting is above average and clearly money was spent on the special effects.However, this movie is sunk by amaturish direction. Time after time, there is no continuity cutting between camera shots. Such a basic direction blunder is unforgivable.In one camera view, a gun barrel is seen being pressed against the side of a person's head -- the pressure of the metal making the skin of the temple wrinkle. Cut to another camera view and the gun holder's arm is fully stretched and the gun barrel is 4 to 6 inches away from the person's head. Cut once more and it touches again.One camera view shows Eric Roberts leaning over an 18 inch thick building roof wall with the belt to his pants coming about even to the outer edge. Cut to another camera and his belt is now back even with the inner edge. Back to the first camera and Roberts is again shifted more than a foot. Cut again and ZAP there is another shift back.All through this movie people's actions don't connect correctly as camera views change. This is very distracting.Another major problem with this movie is a thing that should have been gone with the 1970's. Recall how often the leading man in a '70's action movie with all the world out to kill him would bare-fistedly defeat the first batch of bad guys. They are unconscious at his feet with all their loaded and unused guns spilled on the ground. The leading man has time to say a few words of dramatic dialog then walks away leaving behind all of the best weapons. This is exactly what happens in Race Against Time! This is certainly not a John Woo movie. The last major problem is that throughout the first 3/4 of this movie our leading man treats those out to kill him with way too much mercy. Wimpy. Lame.

bmcclain I remember when I went to see Freejack in 1992: I was hungry for some good post-apocalyptic cyberpunk cinema.The premise that time was the same as now: Protagonist tries to stay alive while penetrating to the heart of enormous, amoral forces that seek to turn him into spare parts. Back in 1992, we got a callow Emilio Esteves -- A world-class race-car driver? C'mon! -- as hero and romantic protagonist hopelessly miscast as a romantic foil to Renee Russo, who gamely did her best. What else? Let's see: Mick Jagger, phoning in his role with little more than a sneer, and Jerry Hall in a cameo doing her best Jerry Hall imitation. Even the normally excellent Anthony Hopkins seemed almost a plastic copy of himself.Compare with this time around. Same premise, but this time Eric Roberts' character and Sarah Wynter's generate some actual sympathy and chemistry when they're not adding to the body count -- both showing some depth of character and conscience, each in his/her way. Cary Elwes is chillingly effective in his role as a hunter of almost reptilian persistence. Diane Venora turns in a fine supporting performance as an executive apparatchik who discovers the gross misjustice being perpetrated. And the curious flatness and jerkiness of Freejack eight years ago is eclipsed by this much better-paced story.