How is Paycheck?
#27
Moderator
Originally posted by Derrich
Broken Arrow is a lot worse. I'd rank Paycheck as one of Woo's better American films. Behind Face-Off and about even with MI:2.
D
Broken Arrow is a lot worse. I'd rank Paycheck as one of Woo's better American films. Behind Face-Off and about even with MI:2.
D
Thoughts about Paycheck:
Eckhart as the badguy, come on all he had to do was smirk to convey his evilness (real stretch for him there).
For a Woo film the gun fights were pathetic. the dry ice/fog machines were tacky, I kept on thinking someone on roller skates was going to whiz by.
The overuse of the bird flying out from a door near the end of the movie, how about a duck instead of a dove, this Woo trademark has gotten corny.
The script was just plain awful, some of the worst dialogue exchanges I have heard in this genre (the agents came across as complete moronic buffoons).
And as my friend pointed out: "for a movie dealing about time travel and the future, it was dreadfully predictable".
#28
Suspended
Originally posted by cdollaz
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!! ALTHOUGH READING THEM MAY SAVE YOU A COUPLE OF HOURS OF YOUR LIFE!!!
This was one of the silliest stories I have ever seen. I can get past the whole building a machine to see the future thing as this is supposed to be a sci-fi movie. However, the following 3 things bugged the hell out of me and just left me shaking my head:
1. Ben fraternizing with Uma. The bad company goes the thru the trouble of creating this top secret project, confiscating all of Ben's items, erasing his memory, yet they let him fraternize with the other staff that has nothing to do with his work and they let him fall in love with Uma, whose memory they are not erasing and who can freely leave the complex. That is just so inconceivable that it is laughable.
2. Mailing the items to himself. Once again, they have all of this security, yet they let him mail items to himself. In the movie, he explains that they would check all outgoing mail, so he mailed himself items that would not raise alarm. WTF??? Mailing yourself a paper clip wouldn't cause suspicion!!!??? Who mails themself a paperclip??? And a keycard to the very lab he works in!!! This is just so stupid.
3. The bad company sets him up to take the fall for building the machine and get caught by the FBI. And exactly how does the company benefit from this??? As soon as the govt. finds out that a machine has been built using stolen govt. research, they can confiscate the machine and the company wouldn't gain anything. Do they think the govt. will just let them keep the machine????
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!! ALTHOUGH READING THEM MAY SAVE YOU A COUPLE OF HOURS OF YOUR LIFE!!!
This was one of the silliest stories I have ever seen. I can get past the whole building a machine to see the future thing as this is supposed to be a sci-fi movie. However, the following 3 things bugged the hell out of me and just left me shaking my head:
1. Ben fraternizing with Uma. The bad company goes the thru the trouble of creating this top secret project, confiscating all of Ben's items, erasing his memory, yet they let him fraternize with the other staff that has nothing to do with his work and they let him fall in love with Uma, whose memory they are not erasing and who can freely leave the complex. That is just so inconceivable that it is laughable.
2. Mailing the items to himself. Once again, they have all of this security, yet they let him mail items to himself. In the movie, he explains that they would check all outgoing mail, so he mailed himself items that would not raise alarm. WTF??? Mailing yourself a paper clip wouldn't cause suspicion!!!??? Who mails themself a paperclip??? And a keycard to the very lab he works in!!! This is just so stupid.
3. The bad company sets him up to take the fall for building the machine and get caught by the FBI. And exactly how does the company benefit from this??? As soon as the govt. finds out that a machine has been built using stolen govt. research, they can confiscate the machine and the company wouldn't gain anything. Do they think the govt. will just let them keep the machine????
4. The machine shows that it will lead to armageddon. Why would the evil company want to create armageddon? Sure, they want to be rich, but I don't think they would want to destroy the Earth. After all, they live here too.
5. Why did Ben get his memory erased? The scenario was first, he agrees to get his memory erased, then he falls in love with Uma and decides to stay with the company, memory unwiped. It is only at the last minute that he realizes he has created an armageddon machine and must stop it. Why does he decide the best way to stop it is to get his memory wiped? Why doesn't he stay with the company, memory unwiped, and destroy the machine from within?
6. The bad guys use the machine and see Ben gets killed at 3:03 P.M. Ben sees this too and mails himself goodies. Are we supposed to believe the bad guys never used the machine again, and therefore never learned that Ben was going to survive 3:03 P.M.? The explanation can't be that the machine didn't show the changed future until after Ben changed it, since Ben was able to see the changed future and know what items he would need after 3:03 P.M.
All that said, I actually enjoyed the movie quite a lot. It's not the sort of plot that holds up to scrutiny, but it was a lot of fun guessing how Ben would get out of the various predicaments he was in and how he would use the various items. It's the kind of movie I should hate, yet somehow I enjoyed myself. I'd give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.
#32
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Philly, PA
I saw it last night, it wasn't bad, but it also wasn't great. It was just a typical action moive only with less action than it needed. I thought Ben was good though, but I'm like one of the few people who don't mind him. I think Pig Vomit should have been in it more though
#34
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally posted by JasonFliegel
There's more:
4. The machine shows that it will lead to armageddon. Why would the evil company want to create armageddon? Sure, they want to be rich, but I don't think they would want to destroy the Earth. After all, they live here too.
There's more:
4. The machine shows that it will lead to armageddon. Why would the evil company want to create armageddon? Sure, they want to be rich, but I don't think they would want to destroy the Earth. After all, they live here too.
5. Why did Ben get his memory erased? The scenario was first, he agrees to get his memory erased, then he falls in love with Uma and decides to stay with the company, memory unwiped. It is only at the last minute that he realizes he has created an armageddon machine and must stop it. Why does he decide the best way to stop it is to get his memory wiped? Why doesn't he stay with the company, memory unwiped, and destroy the machine from within?
6. The bad guys use the machine and see Ben gets killed at 3:03 P.M. Ben sees this too and mails himself goodies. Are we supposed to believe the bad guys never used the machine again, and therefore never learned that Ben was going to survive 3:03 P.M.? The explanation can't be that the machine didn't show the changed future until after Ben changed it, since Ben was able to see the changed future and know what items he would need after 3:03 P.M.
All that said, I actually enjoyed the movie quite a lot. It's not the sort of plot that holds up to scrutiny, but it was a lot of fun guessing how Ben would get out of the various predicaments he was in and how he would use the various items. It's the kind of movie I should hate, yet somehow I enjoyed myself. I'd give it a 6 or 7 out of 10. [/B]
#35
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Guelph, Ontario
I'm surprised that so many people hate this flick...for a mindless entertaining sci-fi actioner, it sure delivered. I thought it was one of the better genre pics I've seen in a while. To each their own.
MATT
MATT
#37
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago
Originally posted by fumanstan
(1)The company didn't want to create armageddon, nor did it. The machine predicted another war, so the USA responded first.
(2)Ben always got his memory erased to prevent him from remembering the devices he created, so he couldn't go off and make his own and sell it to other companies. Plus, he's almost stealing other companies ideas.
(1)The company didn't want to create armageddon, nor did it. The machine predicted another war, so the USA responded first.
(2)Ben always got his memory erased to prevent him from remembering the devices he created, so he couldn't go off and make his own and sell it to other companies. Plus, he's almost stealing other companies ideas.
(2) Yeah, he usually gets his memory erased. But then again, he's usually consenting. I think the earlier argument was that it would have been better (more logical for the character's plight) had he refused to have his memory erased, which he very well might have. For all we know he might have been forced into getting that second isotope shot.
And while both of those counter-points are easily arguable, you must admit that Affleck would look mighty suspicious mailing himself a paper clip, access card, etc.
Speaking of access cards, why wouldn't the company just render Affleck's obsolete?
#39
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally posted by Corvin
(1) No, the company didn't want to create the end of the world. But by keeping their time-seeing machine up and running, they were doing exactly that. If Affleck's character could have gotten the "headlines," there is no reason the company couldn't have seen those same newspapers. And if Affleck gets hit with the premonination that they were essentially predicting/creating their own demise, there is no reason to think the company wouldn't be hit with the same reasoning.
(2) Yeah, he usually gets his memory erased. But then again, he's usually consenting. I think the earlier argument was that it would have been better (more logical for the character's plight) had he refused to have his memory erased, which he very well might have. For all we know he might have been forced into getting that second isotope shot.
And while both of those counter-points are easily arguable, you must admit that Affleck would look mighty suspicious mailing himself a paper clip, access card, etc.
Speaking of access cards, why wouldn't the company just render Affleck's obsolete?
(1) No, the company didn't want to create the end of the world. But by keeping their time-seeing machine up and running, they were doing exactly that. If Affleck's character could have gotten the "headlines," there is no reason the company couldn't have seen those same newspapers. And if Affleck gets hit with the premonination that they were essentially predicting/creating their own demise, there is no reason to think the company wouldn't be hit with the same reasoning.
(2) Yeah, he usually gets his memory erased. But then again, he's usually consenting. I think the earlier argument was that it would have been better (more logical for the character's plight) had he refused to have his memory erased, which he very well might have. For all we know he might have been forced into getting that second isotope shot.
And while both of those counter-points are easily arguable, you must admit that Affleck would look mighty suspicious mailing himself a paper clip, access card, etc.
Speaking of access cards, why wouldn't the company just render Affleck's obsolete?
Although, i think one of the reasons i enjoyed it was it reminded me of old adventure games where the hero has a pocket full of items that he'll use and combine together to get out of situations.
#40
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 8,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Corvin
Speaking of access cards, why wouldn't the company just render Affleck's obsolete?
Speaking of access cards, why wouldn't the company just render Affleck's obsolete?
#43
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Worst movie I've seen in 3 years. And I have been going to the movies almost every friday for the last 8 years.
Uma Thurman is the first actress in the history of film who ruined her career (again) in the middle of her come-back film.
I've stuck up for Ben Affleck for years but this is just too much.
Awful is too good a word for this mess.
Uma Thurman is the first actress in the history of film who ruined her career (again) in the middle of her come-back film.
I've stuck up for Ben Affleck for years but this is just too much.
Awful is too good a word for this mess.
#44
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago
Originally posted by jay77
Uma Thurman is the first actress in the history of film who ruined her career (again) in the middle of her come-back film.
Uma Thurman is the first actress in the history of film who ruined her career (again) in the middle of her come-back film.
#45
Banned
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago, IL
How is Paycheck?
Terrible.
I wish John Woo would go back to Hong Kong. His movies were so much better there............ The Killer, Bullet in the head, Hard-Boiled, A Better Tommorrow, etc.....................
Terrible.
I wish John Woo would go back to Hong Kong. His movies were so much better there............ The Killer, Bullet in the head, Hard-Boiled, A Better Tommorrow, etc.....................
#49
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrible? Worst movie in 3 years? You guys must have amazing luck in picking movies.
The only thing particularly bad about this movie was the idea that Woo, Eckhart et al wasted a year on making such an average picture. The film itself is far from terrible. It's just another slick, well-made but uninspired Hollywood product. There are bits to enjoy all over the place, but it lacks the spark that would make it truly fun. Nothing about it sucks though.
The 2 things that really piqued my interest were:
1) Watching how slick Woo has become as a director. Broken Arrow had no style outside of the action scenes whereas this one remains slick & stylish throughout, but subtly so. It flows like the better, A-level Hollywood movies. Forgive me for saying this, but I didn't think Woo was capable of that for his dramatic scenes. His stuff always struck me as either completely super-dramatic/stylish, or flat. Now he has a middle ground.
2) The climactic battle was unusually fun and loose for John Woo.
Worth a rent or matinee.
The only thing particularly bad about this movie was the idea that Woo, Eckhart et al wasted a year on making such an average picture. The film itself is far from terrible. It's just another slick, well-made but uninspired Hollywood product. There are bits to enjoy all over the place, but it lacks the spark that would make it truly fun. Nothing about it sucks though.
The 2 things that really piqued my interest were:
1) Watching how slick Woo has become as a director. Broken Arrow had no style outside of the action scenes whereas this one remains slick & stylish throughout, but subtly so. It flows like the better, A-level Hollywood movies. Forgive me for saying this, but I didn't think Woo was capable of that for his dramatic scenes. His stuff always struck me as either completely super-dramatic/stylish, or flat. Now he has a middle ground.
2) The climactic battle was unusually fun and loose for John Woo.
Worth a rent or matinee.
#50
DVD Talk Godfather
I disagree about Woo, although i thought it was a decent movie. I thought the action seemed less slick and stylish then his other work in the States. It seemed forced and just wasnt as riveting as Face/Off or MI:2. The bird at the end... which i loved as Woo's trademark in other films, just seemed slapped on. Windtalkers and Paycheck seem like a step backwords after delivering some pretty good movies in Broken Arrow, Face/Off, and MI:2.



