Mick Jagger Tried To Make It Big In Movies With This '90s Sci-Fi Failure

The Maroon 5 lyrics celebrate having "moves like Jagger," not "acting" like Jagger, and there's probably a good reason for this. Believe it or not, Mick Jagger has been cast in a handful of movies over the years, with his highest-profile role being a villain in the 1992 sci-fi action flick, "Freejack." Unfortunately, this film only made $37 million total from domestic and worldwide markets on a budget of $30 million, and it was deemed a financial and critical failure.

Starring opposite of Jagger, Emilio Estevez plays the lead role of Alex Furlong, a Formula One racer pulled out of his timeline just before a fatal crash and thrown into a futuristic dystopia. The reason? In the future, the super wealthy snatch people before their deaths and transport into their bodies, effectively making themselves immortal. Imagine "The Matrix" if human bodies weren't batteries but instead containers for the rich. Would-be vessels who escape (which Furlong does) are called "freejacks." Jagger's dastardly mercenary character, Victor Vacendak, chases him down on behalf of the evil corporation behind the scheme. It's actually based on a Robert Sheckley novel called "Immortality Inc." The movie sounds more exciting than it is, but I'll admit, it's a guilty pleasure. Every so often, I revisit oldies like this. For me, it's up there with cult classics like "Equilibrium," "Fortress," and "Hardware."

Mick Jagger is, obviously, a highly successful rockstar who continued to lead the Rolling Stones after his acting in "Freejack." He also released quite a few solo albums, including original songs performed for the "Alfie" soundtrack. Coincidentally, he produced the intro and theme music for the espionage series "Slow Horses," one of the best shows on Apple TV.

Even with a headline in the June 1991 issue of Rolling Stone about Jagger's "Freejack" role, the movie opened to minimal fanfare and is not popular to this day. There are probably some people out there who have never even heard of it. Even for a '90s era flick, Jagger's acting leaves something to be desired, though he certainly appears to be having fun onscreen as Vacendak.

"Freejack" may have set the stage for Jagger's future in film, who rarely stepped in front of the camera after. But his movie credits span decades, including 1968's "Performance," 1970's "Ned Kelly," "Julien Temple Running Out of Luck" in 1985, "Bent" in 1997, "The Man from Elysian Fields" in 2002, and more recently, 2019's "The Burnt Orange Heresy." Outside of that handful of credits, he has executive producer bylines for various films, mostly documentaries, and shows up in many biopic features on the Rolling Stones, like "Gimme Shelter" from 1970. He also founded Jagged Films, a production company in the early 1990s, which went on to produce films and shows like "Enigma" and HBO's one-season "Vinyl."

"Freejack" has its moments, but many viewers have come away disappointed. On Rotton Tomatoes, this film has a 29% rating from critics and 25% from users, and on IMDB, it has a 5.4 out of a 10-star rating. Reviewers describe it as a "terrible, cheap-looking sci-fi action flick" with a "ridiculous premise." These abysmal reviews are even more surprising when you consider that, in addition to the Rolling Stones' frontman and Estevez as the lead, the film featured major actors, including Rene Russo, Anthony Hopkins, and Esai Morales.

There are some positive critiques out there, as well, with one calling it a "cheesy movie but fun" and another saying, "as weird as this was, I'd watch it again." Somone even floats a comparison with the '90s Keanu Reeves sci-fi movie, "Johnny Mnemonic." Having recently watched both for some laughs, they do have similar themes and settings. Though I'd argue "Mnemonic" is a bit more put together, if you can believe that's possible.

Ultimately, "Freejack" for all its strange portents is a novel concept, and if you can stomach some of the aged visuals, the wonky storyline, and the phoned-in acting, you might enjoy it for yourself. It really depends on if you can get behind one of the eras campiest of sci-fi experiences. If not, you might want to stick to watching one of the best sci-fi movies of 2025, or, for that gritty realism, go with a more scientifically accurate sci-fi movies.