UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

cstewart-24155 Awful. Especially given the cast. The writing was almost incomprehensible and the acting equally bad. This could have been a Leslie Nielsen or Mike Myers parody, it is so improbable.

donaldricco "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!

stormhawk2018 "Paycheck" is the umpteenth adaptation to the big screen of a text by Philip K. Dick, writer of science fiction short stories that has given genre films such as "Blade Runner" (Ridley Scott, 1982), "Total Recall" (by the Dutchman Paul Verhoeven, 1990), "Minority Report" (Steven Spielberg, 2002) and the less popular "Screamers" (Christian Duguay, 1995). These films did justice to these three novels with tremendously complete feature films, mixing with a watchmaker's precision: mystery, intimate drama, sci- fi and action. But unfortunately, the Chinese director John Woo is only carried away by the latter: the action, and it only shows glimpses of science-fiction and criminal mystery very little matured and detailed, setting everything in a contemporary world with buses and cars from few years ago, something quite illogical how we have been able to evolve both in some sectors and in others not? Farewell then to be able to enjoy in "Paycheck" of unforgettable symbolic allegories, and of reflections and situations matured of dramatic weight. Of course no one here expects a monologue on mortality to the "all those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain...", no, because "Paycheck" is limited to the action of a very basic conspiracy with persecutions and a mystery overly simplified and superficial. As I said the written above, probably assigned John Woo to direct this film, to "train" in science fiction, perhaps because the cinema of Hong Kong lacked films of this genre.Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck) is an engineer who spends a year working on a project for a company but, as they agreed, at the end of the task, all the memories he had from that last year would be erased from his memory. When he is paid the large salary agreed, he receives a package with a series of strange utensils, which he has never used or is difficult to get used to...and it seems he sent it himself. There are a couple of situations where he sees that these objects make him escape from death or avoid being stopped by the police and strange men in suits. He does not know why he is pursued, he does not know why he sent himself these objects or if it has something to do with the mysterious project he has been working on for the past year.Interesting, right? For everything is spoiled because then the mystery evaporates, the solutions come by the easy way of science fiction more fictitious, the rest of the scenes are action without feet nor head, things that if you have not done in your life James Bond, Jason Bourne or Frank Martin, how the hell are you going to make a damn engineer who only knows how to design and tighten nuts? Is this guy trying to be cloned off as the future's answer to MacGyver? Plus even when he's offered a gun he refuses. He is such a wuss.It's easy and predictable, disgraceful to see a plenty of actors so good in a stupid and boring turkey...I mean Aaron Eckhart, Paul Giamatti, Joe Morton and Uma Thurman...Affleck is a good screenwriter, but his Interpretative level is to the one of "Paycheck". Thurman, who came from starring in "Kill Bill" as a kick-ass heroine, in this film was reduced to a just a damsel in distress.You know, if you want to laugh with this collosal garbage (with this waste of such a good idea), download it, even if I'm against piracy, because paying to see it is an insult to your own intelligence. And those who liked that movie, I'm sure they praise it because was directed by a Chinese ... why do not they see Japanese sci-fi anime movies instead?

muvi-fan-73 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.