| . |
Paycheck
(Reviewed December 6, 2003)
-
Watch in disgusted horror as a group of criminally misguided moviemakers exhume the rotted corpse of Philip K. Dick, claw off his moldy trousers, flip him onto his dessicated stomach, and anally rape
the poor bastard for two excruciating, infuriating hours.
Until now, movies made from Dick's writings have ranged from classic ("Blade Runner") to okay ("Total Recall," "Impostor") to ambitiously-impressive-although-flawed ("Minority
Report," which really should have lost its final 20 minutes or so). "Paycheck" is not only the first Dick adaptation to fall short of "watchable," it is just plain lousy in every respect. Director John Woo and
some screenwriter hack I won't dignify by naming have taken a slight-but-sly pulp SF story, thrown out most of the original's noirish plot and motivations and all of its paranoid subtext, and substituted a
bunch of preposterously unbelievable chase-and-shootout scenes and lamebrained plot elements that make no sense whatsoever.
In Dick's original story, Jennings is an engineer who agrees to work for a mysterious corporation for two years and then have his memory wiped of the entire experience, in exchange for a hefty
"paycheck." Instead, he discovers upon re-entering society that while he was "under" he gave up all that dough in exchange for an envelope of seemingly worthless trinkets: a piece of wire, half a poker
chip, a strip of cloth, and other stuff that fits in his pocket. Each item ends up being important as he tries to discover why he possibly could have thought they were preferable to a fat wad of cashola.
SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANY MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PLOT, STOP READING NOW, AND SIMPLY TAKE MY WORD FOR IT THAT THIS
MOVIE IS AN UNHOLY ABOMINATION THAT IS NOT WORTH SEEING.
Okay, so here is the first problem with the adaptation: In the movie, Jennings has been given many more items in the envelope, almost none of them the same as the items in the story. What's
worse is that we are expected to believe that he somehow was able to create several of these items...even though he was living in a controlled environment's dormitory-style housing where his every move
was monitored. Now, you tell me how a guy in that situation could somehow "manufacture" things including a fortune-cookie fortune with winning lottery numbers printed on it, a matchbook with a fake
wipe-away logo on its cover, and a crossword puzzle with a printed clue that relates directly to information he later will need to know. In the original story, everything in the envelope was a real item that
had been "scooped" from the future, but that "time-scoop" device has been replaced in the movie with a monitor that merely (merely?) shows future events. Which brings up possibly the biggest blunder in
the entire movie: One of the things Jennings has in his envelope is a key that unlocks a maintenance door in a shopping mall. WHERE DID THAT KEY COME FROM? Did the moviemakers forget that
they had thrown out the "plucking objects from the future" function of the device?
Any time-travel story (including Dick's original, but to a lesser extent) has inherent problems related to the alternate futures created when any element of the present or past is changed. For
example: In the movie version, how can Jennings possibly know what even the second -- much less the third, fourth, fifth and so on -- item he might need could be, if he is changing a version of the future
that is the only version he can see? In other words: Once he uses the first device, he has altered what will happen next, and so he should have no way of knowing where he will go or what he will need
next. The other big brain-scratcher is this: Because Jennings does end up changing the future, why was the future-viewing machine showing him things that never ended up happening? (Calling Professor
Einstein!) Another problem that the story and movie have in common: It defies belief that the evil corporation would allow Jennings to "mail" himself a package of items that give away secrets the
corporation would not want him to know after he leaves their employ. I mean, those guys aren't stupid; wouldn't they be just a little bit suspicious as to why Jennings would give up nearly a hundred
million dollars and take an envelope of junk instead? (This is finessed in the printed version with an explanation that is pretty implausible, but at least an effort was made to address the problem.)
But forget all of that stuff. File it all under "stupid sloppiness" (like the newspaper headline we see at one point that has a glaring typo even the most inept editor would catch) and "suspension of
disbelief." Those shortcomings are nowhere near as offensive as this:
In the transition from printed page to silver screen, the oppressive American police-state that was the backdrop of Dick's story has been replaced by an FBI whose team leader eventually decides
to HELP Jennings. Also in the movie, Jennings himself is out to destroy the corporation, because "nobody should have the power to see the future, or everyone will lose hope!" (Disregard the fact that
seeing his own future is what empowers Jennings to change it for the better; like I said, the movie version takes "nonsensical" to a whole new dimension.) Those changes should make Dick rise in outrage
from his grave and go on a Hollywood homicidal rampage...because in Dick's original story, Jennings wanted to get back INSIDE the corporation and assume control of it, because he completely
AGREED with the corporation's intentions to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT! (I guess the producers of the movie version thought that kind of thing wouldn't play well in George W. Bush's
Fortress America.)
Another tragedy: Before seeing the movie version, I told a few people that the best thing about the short story was its final scene, which had a very crowd-pleasing gimmick that would translate
perfectly to film. Well, folks, it's not in the movie, because the moviemakers changed the setup that would have made the scene possible. Idiots.
The best way to sum up everything that is wrong with "Paycheck" is that it borrows from other Philip K. Dick movies instead of from Philip K. Dick. The first scene, in which Jennings moves
computer-monitor visuals around by hand, is shamelessly ripped off from "Minority Report." The brain-drain dentist-chair is straight outta "Total Recall." And lead actor Ben Affleck's workout and fight
scenes are pointless "Daredevil" retreads. (Okay, Philip K. Dick had nothing to do with "Daredevil." I just thought I'd throw that one in.)
Uma Thurman looks really haggard and wasted as the love interest, but hey, who am I to judge. Paul Giamatti plays the stock cardboard nebbish friend of Our Hero (a character who does not
appear in the original story, thank God).
How bad is "Paycheck?" Let me put it this way: I saw it right after a screening of the abysmally awful "Cheaper by the Dozen" remake...and I'm having a hard time picking which movie was
worse. Yikes!
Back Row Grade: F
(Return to index by closing this window)
|
. |