ThiefHott Too much of everything

ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Stanley Jackson 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.

adonis98-743-186503 Saw Paycheck again and it was fun not as awesome like the first time i saw it but still a good film a little bit slow but still good i liked the cast (Ben Affleck, Uma Thurman, Paul Giamatti, Joe Morton, Michael C. Hall and Aaron Eckhart). Also the movie is directed by John Woo which he made one of my favorite Mission Impossible movies. I think it has a lot of explosions, action and sci-fi elements to overcome some of it's problems. At the end Paycheck was full of action and awesome fight scenes and it was a fun movie to watch not the best sci-fi/action film ever made but not the worst one either. Final Verdict: 10 out of 10!!!!!!!

daniel-poirier-570-557312 What a fabulously stupid movie! I can't believe all the positive reviews issued previously by others (they must have been from 13-year-olds, or something).The storyline is lame and filled with stunningly impossible coincidences and the hero reaches conclusions that defy logic. The entire premise is just a pretext for Woo's usual abuse of explosions and flames.I'm shocked that the director (John Woo) could make even relatively good actors (Uma Thurman) appear to be one-dimensional and uninspired. Of course, the lame actors (Ben Affleck, Aaron Eckhart) are, well, lame... but I didn't expect much more from them - never seen them in any movie where the characters actually have some kind of depth to them.The movie isn't even bad enough to make it fun as only really bad movies can be (i.e. Attack of the killer tomatoes)...In short, rent it if you have $3 to waste, and even then, you may be upset about the waste of time.

Tss5078 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.