Timewaster's Guide Archive

Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: House of Mustard on December 23, 2003, 11:39:00 AM

Title: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: House of Mustard on December 23, 2003, 11:39:00 AM
My question is:
I don't know much about the show, but it seems awfully similar to the Bourne Identity (secret agent with amnesia).  Is it different enough that I shouldn't ben bothered by this?
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: stacer on December 23, 2003, 11:55:56 AM
Well, he's not a secret agent. He's a regular everyday guy, an engineer. So it's different in that respect, though given some things that happen it makes me wonder whether he'd have the training for such things. But the Bourne Identity was based in sheer realistic terms, and there is a science fiction part to this story that asks some intriguing questions.

From slant magazine's review:
"The film is centered around a computer engineer, Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), who makes a living by stealing other programmers concepts, selling them to mega-corporations and then having his memory of the business transaction erased to protect both himself and his clients. Shortly after the film opens, Jennings becomes involved in a major new project only to find himself waking up three years later with no memory of what he did in that time. With a series of nick-nacs and household items tucked inside an envelope he sent himself from the past, Jennings has to figure out why he can seemingly predict the future and why the safety of the world is now threatened by a project he can't remember having devoted three years of his life developing. It's an intriguing premise: a man has to work backward to recover information that he once knew, uncovering that information by moving step by step into a future that his past self has already seen."

Oh, and RT is giving it a whopping 29% right now.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: House of Mustard on December 23, 2003, 12:04:36 PM
Well, then I guess I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Fellfrosch on December 23, 2003, 01:29:55 PM
In the story, the envelope full of objects was literally his paycheck for the job--there's a clause in his contract that says he can choose to take certain items in lieu of money. I never really believed that part, though, because if the company he worked for had taken the time to look through the items he choose to give himself (and they'd have to be incredibly curious) they would have realized what a huge security risk it was.

Is that the way they do it in the movie?
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: stacer on December 23, 2003, 02:05:10 PM
Yeah, it is. They gloss over it pretty quickly, just describing it as an envelope full of everyday items (like a matchbook). Except that some of the items are not everyday items (such as a security pass) and I'd think that if he tried to smuggle a security pass out, someone would want to know why.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Fellfrosch on December 23, 2003, 02:50:29 PM
Exactly. You'd think the top-secret conspiracy he was working for would think to check his items before handing them over.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on December 23, 2003, 03:13:01 PM
or just do approval before he says what he wants.

Although, not haveing seen the movie, it seems more likely than the fact that Tom Cruise's removed eyes in Minority Report still got him in a secure area even after he was to be arrested. Those things would obviously keep track of who's coming in and out (easy to do when you do a retina scan on everyone coming in).

So i guess they just have those little quirks with any PKD story that gets adapted to film
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: House of Mustard on December 23, 2003, 03:16:59 PM
Especially since the police were closely monitoring the subway's retina scanner - you'd think that they'd keep an eye on their own too.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Fellfrosch on December 23, 2003, 05:57:18 PM
The eyeball thing was completely Spielberg--PKD didn't even bring up the subject.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Spriggan on December 23, 2003, 07:29:30 PM
I'll just take this time to point out that Rotten Tomatoes currently has Paycheck at 15%.  So I doubt I'll see it.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: stacer on December 23, 2003, 09:22:23 PM
Wow, that went down in the matter of what, 7 hours? Maybe all the sneak preview reviewers filed their stories? Hmm.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Mad Dr Jeffe on December 23, 2003, 11:56:23 PM
I wonder if its cause the movie bites, or Afleck.
Its a shame because the idea would be cool.
Cooler if someone like Harrison Ford did it.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Fellfrosch on December 24, 2003, 01:09:48 AM
I think the problem may have been Woo--not that he's a bad director, but that he's the wrong director for this kind of story. It would lend itself better to someone who'll slow down and deal with the ideas rather than slide stylishly between action scenes and slow motion doves.
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: Mad Dr Jeffe on December 24, 2003, 01:23:54 AM
So who would have been better than Woo?
Title: Re: Paycheck (sans spoilers)
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on December 24, 2003, 07:42:53 AM
I think Ron Howard could pull it off, but then, I'm talking out my ear, since I haven't seen Woo's version.