Paycheck (2003)

Michael Jennings (Ben Afleck) is well-groomed and wears exquisitely knotted ties and tailored suits. He is a self-employed contractor who accomplishes tech jobs for participating companies; that is, reverse-engineering new computer breakthroughs. He improves the computer products originally developed by others. If one thinks about it, his work is borderline ethical at best. He is very well compensated for his work, and when his contract is over his short-term memory of the work is erased so that he cannot reveal secrets. The job may be risky but it pays well. His largest contract has been for two months, but now his old square-jawed friend, James Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) of Allcon offers him a job that will last three years and pay tens of millions of dollars. It involves a system that will change the world by predicting future events. Wow! Jennings agrees and when he awakens he soon discovers that not only is he NOT getting compensated, but that the FBI is on his trail. The FBI is involved because the program that Jennings improved upon was originally designed by a former FBI scientist whose project was terminated. He has been set up by his pal Rethrick, and all he has is a manila envelope with 20 personal items. They include a passkey, a ring, a silver coin, watch, sun glasses, cigarette lighter, a matchbook, bus pass, a partially-completed crossword puzzle, and others. Jennings needs these articles as they are clues to assist him in his personal mission; he has to determine when to employ each to save him from predicaments. Jennings is immediately on the lam, accompanied by sexy Rachel porter (Uma Thurman). He cannot fully remember her as their relationship occurred during the three years that coincided within the same period of his memory removal. Helping out for a very short screen presence is his assistant, Shorty (Paul Giamatti), who is in charge of memory erasure. We find out through convoluted reasoning there is a danger of World War III. The theme is weak while most characters are ill-developed. Screenplay is sub-par. You as the viewer know this is true when a director tries to pad his plot holes and weak story-line with absurd choreography, very long high-speed chases, explosions, constant and annoying screen flashes, and quick editing (don't blink). Riding a motorcycle (with a passenger!) he can outrace and outmaneuver hardened armed men in cars who are shooting at him. Then Dillon, a computer nerd and up to now not a he-man, suddenly morphs into a superhero to save the world from nuclear destruction and takes on . . . and defeats . . . a series of trained and tough security men! Then the last one, the top honcho, snickers with his handgun, figuring he finally has Jennings. Hey, buddy, you just lost your entire gang. Oh, never mind, you'll get yours anyway! Dillon's 21st century movie choices have mostly been less than favorable, and this one proves it. Here the man tries hard enough, but still cannot save the show.

As the memory formation takes place, the structure of neuron changes. The part in the movie where (getting rid of certain memory) this is shown is brilliant. Although going through every neuron one by one, changing in multiple numbers (for ease) would have been better. A technology where this would be possible would be very difficult to obtain. In my opinion that's impossible. It may be for the factors like human rights.Yet the movie is better in generating thrill across ones spine.There's part where the movie plays dumb. The lottery ticket that's obtained . . .is obtained from a cage below the paper. It's very obvious that the birds would have made the paper dirty. A little better scripting could have been resulted in an even more awesome movie.

This film is as under-rated as "Minority Report" is over-rated. Both are passable Dick adaptations, but without the flair of the master for mental paradox.People seem to love to hate Ben Affleck, and this may be part of the reason this film has been dinged so much. Like "Minority Report," it suffers from gaping plot holes that come with not-so-carefully crafted premonition/time travel stories. Not Dick's fault: the directors (Woo and Spielberg) should not have toyed with the stories 'to enhance drama.' Here the problem is as follows: Affleck has taken on a top secret job, with the understanding his memory will be wiped afterward. The job is to create a machine that can inspect the future, and it tells him his boss is going to kill him. So he watches himself and every time he gets caught, figures out an item that will get him out of the pinch. He then sends himself the items in an envelope in lieu of his paycheck, to get his attention after the memory wipe, and from there on his cat-and-mouse game with his boss ensues. The problem here is chaotic dynamics: every time he figures his next escape and adds another item, that item will newly show up in the envelope, changing in ever less subtle ways what actually happens, so the situation for the item will never arise.If you forgive the film that basic flaw, it's jolly good action and fun. Uma Thurman does not interfere too much and the two never get gooey-schmooey, which really does not work in a B-action movie anyway. I loved that bathroom mirror message thing.It is very rare that time travel or premonition movies get pulled off right. The only recent example is the Spierig brother's "Predestination," and only because they stuck exactly with Heinlein's story. Go see "Paycheck" when you feel like a harmless evening with a brew and some friends, and "Predestination" if you want to see a film where you really have to think through the plot carefully to realize that every time you think something's wrong, you were not thinking clearly enough.I rate this the same as "Minority Report" because it has no more flaws to its logic, yet lacks the pretense of Spielberg's opus at something higher.

While you may not know the name Phillip K. Dick, many of the biggest Science Fiction films of the last thirty years have been adaptations of his work. Dick is responsible for the films Blade Runner, The Terminator, Total Recall, Minority Report, and Paycheck just to name a few. Due to the popularity of his work in film and how successful they've been, even a lesser known work like Paycheck has been made into a film. The story includes many of the action sequences and interesting characters associated with Dick's stories, but Paycheck does lack the futuristic Science Fiction that has become Dick's signature, which is the main reason this story isn't as well known as his other works. The story takes place in modern day, where a man is offered an irresistible deal. Jennings (Ben Affleck) is told that if he works on a secret project for the next 3 years, he will receive 100 million dollars. The only catch being that after the 3 years are up, Jennings memory will be erased and he will have no idea what he worked on. As expected, Jennings accepts the deal and returns to his life 3 years later, but nothing is that simple. Soon everyone from the FBI to bounty hunters show up trying to get to him, and the only clues he has come from an envelope he sent himself, containing 19 random items that seem to have little or no value. Ben Affleck stars and by this point we all know how I feel about him. Affleck is a terrific Director, who seems to have little interest in acting anymore. Paycheck however is a 2003 film, a time before Affleck had proved himself and he shows that rare charisma that is only present in his real early work. His performance is outstanding and aided further by his chemistry with co-star Uma Thurman. Thurman is another performer who I find isn't very good unless she's in very specific type of role, and fortunately for Affleck, this is one of those roles. Paycheck is missing the big signature associated with Dick's work and will be somewhat disappointing to his fans. I did miss the futuristic element, but I was intrigued by the mystery Jennings was trying to solve and the 19 items. Combined with the action sequences, (that are always top notch) Paycheck isn't what I expected, but was still very well done and definitely worth watching.