Paycheck (2003)

The Worst Film Ever

Simply A Masterpiece

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

A John Woo Movie Rated PG-13 is like a Disney Movie Rated NC-17.This Piece of Fluff has a Good Cast, the Story is from the Now Hot Property and Prestigious Philip K. Dick, No Budget Restraints and so, What went Wrong? There are so many Bullets Flying and Missing their Mark followed by a Slow-Motion Poof of Debris that after about the first 50 times this happens Audiences and Woo Fans throughout the Land are Nodding Off.The Memory-Loss Story is Handled OK, but it is certainly Nothing New and is somewhat Engaging. But the whole Film has a Wispy Wondering Tone where nothing seems at all Threatening or Suspenseful.It's just Scenes Tacked Together to make a Whole and it's almost like a Walk in the Park or an Amusement Ride for our two Protagonists (Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman). Paul Giamatti as a Friend in Need Barely Registers.In Fact the Film Barely Registers on Any Level other than the most Mainstream, Multiplexed Mediocrity. It's a Misfire, a Missed Opportunity, a Manufactured Movie that Takes No Chances, No Style, and No Winner by Woo Standards and Disappoints to the Extreme.Overall, Recommended for those that like Their Action Films with a Tongue In Cheek Tone, No Danger, and is Nothing More than Pretty People Collecting a Paycheck (this includes the entire production) with as Little Effort or Artistic Input as Possible.This is Product Pure and Simple and Nothing More than a Fast Food Fast Buck for Everyone.

"If you show someone their future, they have no future. " Kind of blows your mind huh? Well, that is what the basic plot of this movie does! The premise is, would you give up three years of your life, and all memories of those years, for almost 100 million dollars? What if you fell in love during that time? And what if you changed your mind about the money? And instead, traded it for an envelope of, well, stuff? Those questions, and more, are what Michael Jennings must deal with in this movie, and it makes for a pretty good plot and premise! Now, the short story that it is based on moves much quicker and feels like a tighter, better written version of this. But this movie is good, and though the action sequences could be much, much shorter, I think it stays pretty close to Philip K's tale. My only problem with this film is the editing. I think it gets pretty loose with the location of the characters, and twice I was completely dumbfounded as to where the characters were, even after I rewound to try to figure it out! It felt sloppy. But I liked the movie, even the cheesy ending!

As someone with a scientific background, I am always on the lookout for gross errors in the scientific logic and principles shown in the scripts of movies. I wonder how a creative endeavour that lasted months, possibly years, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, can have flaws in it that could be identified by someone with a fairly modest knowledge of science. My conclusion is either that the entire creative team - scriptwriters, producers, directors etc. - were unaware of these mistakes, which I feel is unlikely, or that they choose to treat their audience disrespectfully and assume that they will either not be aware of or care about these errors. I find this arrogant attitude to be extremely condescending and irritating, as it diminishes the pleasure that I get from watching the movies.In the case of 'Paycheck' I will leave aside the time-travelling aspect and focus upon a 'real' science flaw, namely the explosion of the liquid hydrogen which is used in large quantities to, presumably, maintain the future-predicting machine at a constant, extremely low temperature.Hydrogen at room temperature is obviously highly flammable, burning extremely quickly by reacting with oxygen in the air in a rapid, energy-releasing combustion process. However, whether it would ignite so easily in the liquid state, namely at lower than minus 253 degrees C (minus 434 degrees F), is another matter entirely, but I will give the film makers the benefit of the doubt on this.Nevertheless, this begs two significant questions: firstly, why did the highly-intelligent scientists involved in the project choose liquid hydrogen to cool the equipment when there are several obvious non-flammable alternatives, such as liquid helium (lower than minus 269 C), liquid nitrogen (minus 196 C) or liquid oxygen (minus 183 C)? The cynical answer to this question is, of course, that their use would not enable the equipment to be destroyed, and the villains wiped out, by the detonation of a cleverly-placed bullet!My second question is this: if the cooling liquid surrounding the equipment was so flammable why were the villains so happy to use guns in the vicinity of their expensive facility? Guns are obviously excellent weapons to beat one's enemy, but not in a location where the deflection or ricochet of as little as a single bullet may result in the complete destruction of the very object that you are trying to protect, as well as the likely death of both the shooter of the gun and their intended target! It is, therefore, illogical that the villains would choose to use guns in this area of combat.

One of the weaker adaptations of a Philip K Dick novel/short story. The central premise (predicting the future) lacked substance. Plus, in trying to draw this short story out into a full-length movie, the fill-in plot was fairly light, mainly involving chases, fight scenes, guns and explosions.Not entirely bad though. The mind-wipe idea was interesting, and if that was used more effectively, and the predicting the future stuff better thought-out, or replaced with another idea, and the action sequences kept to a minimum, this could have been a good movie.Not sure Ben Affleck was the best choice to play the lead character. The action sequences suited him, but it is hard to convince me that he is a technology genius (or any sort of genius, for that matter!). Uma Thurman is more there for eye-candy, and even that gets screwed up: she often looks disheveled, especially towards the end. Aaron Eckhart's performance is probably the best of the bunch: villainous roles suit him.