|
|
Techtite's DVD Reviews! |
"Let the nitpickers whine about having too much fiction in their science fiction. For fans of old-school whimsical sci-fi storytelling, this is a good time at the movies." --from the review
------------- Sidebar :: ------------- "Yes, but it looks cool this way..." Techno-geeks will tell you of one glaring film flub, when Jennings is at first trying to "re-invent" a new holographic computer monitor. When tinkering with the circuit panel, he very clearly places the CPU in its slot...upside down. See; all those little pins sticking up in the air? That's the pins that are supposed to be connected to the circuit board, friend. Of course, this is mere nitpicking, though more to the point, I'm reminded of Woody Allen's Small Time Crooks, where one of the crooks is digging his way to the bank vault, only to wear the light on his miner hat backwards. "Yeah, but it looks cool this way," was the crook's defense. Similarly; I guess John Woo and/or fact checker to this piece of science fiction merely thought that the CPU upside down looked "cooler." If that's why...I'd have to say he's right. ----------------- Feel free to contribute. As always, review submissions are accepted! ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paycheck
Click picture to order either DVD A Techtite ReviewAs Always, a review of The Film and The DVD (extras)! The Film: I remember my last noteworthy contribution to a Star Trek fan board. James "Scotty" Doohan had just guest starred in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Data offered one of Scotty's most humorous jokes. Looking at an alien alcoholic beverage he was enjoying, yet not even knowing what the drink really is, he merely responds when asked what the drink is, "It's...it's...it's green!" It's not that I expected a lot of internet high-fives when commenting about four words of dialog, but I certainly didn't expect these four little words to be worth...nitpicking! Yes, nitpicking! The only response my message ever received was from some collegiate fanboy who snorted, "Well, actually, what Data *really* said was "It IS...It IS...It IS green." See, silly me, I forgot that Data does not speak contractions. If this is the way you similarly nitpick your science-fiction, well then, have fun in the Star Trek message boards (what's left of them, these days). If you're someone else, however, who thinks all such mind-numbing minutiae best belongs in Who Gives a Rat's A$$? Magazine, then you're going to love Paycheck. Leave your Einstein physics book at home, kids; it's only a movie!!! Said movie is about Jennings (Ben Affleck) in the not-so-distant future. Jennings is a sort of techno-spy, brought in to backwards engineer new technology for a rival electronics giant. If this is too much for you in one sentence, let's put it in simpler terms: he goes to electronics shows, buys new product, then sees what makes the new product tick, only to resell the discovered technology to his employers. The only downside to this arrangement is that his employer demands his memory is erased, to prevent anyone else from getting said technology. This has the additional problem of Jennings not remembering what he did for, say, the past two whole months. Jennings doesn't care; all he responds when awoken from his latest memory-erasure is, "Where's my paycheck?" (hence the title). The film's core story begins when Jennings is offered "the last big score." This will earn Jennings 96 million in stock options, though it's a very long project; one that will erase a whole two years of his life! He awakens from this job --one he quickly agrees to-- to discover that he gave up his money for the job, his former employers want him dead, and what's worse, the FBI is on his trail. What did he "invent" in those missing two years to cause such an uproar? That's what this movie is all about. At this point in the review, it's hard to not spoil the story, because apparently the story goes a bit over the nitpicker's heads. No, that's too cruel: the concept of fictional storytelling goes over their heads. See; it's not a spoiler in itself to say that what Jennings invented is, based on current technology, a piece of pure science fantasy. However, geeks who insist that they could invent a "Warp Drive" in their parents' basement if only Mom would let them, insist that every piece of science whimsy, has to be based on fact. Why? Would these same geeks go to see Peter Pan and whine that kids cannot go "second star to the right and straight on 'till morning" without space suits...? This apparent need to overanalyze science fiction escapes me. It's only a movie kids! This whimsical doohickey Jennings invented doesn't even have to be possible! I remember a similar commentary back when I saw the movie Frequency, where by some twist of reality, a son in the future could talk to his long-deceased father in the past, and change both their fates. I remember saying that movie was enjoyable for those of us who can remember a simpler, Twilight Zone style method of storytelling, and I repeat that comment here. This film is not as good as other work based on Philip K. Dick stories, like Minority Report. Nor is John Woo's directorial job here as action-intense as, say, his work in Face Off. This is still a fine film for the holiday season; a nice reprieve from all the Oscar pushes that the holiday season is so frequently overridden with. Cruise-controlled performances also detract from the picture. Jennings is assisted by his love interest during those missing two years, Rachel Porter (Uma Thurman), in a performance that is as acceptable as it is not Thurman's best work. This is an Academy Award nominated actress who has done work ranging from a naive ingénue in Dangerous Liaisons, to an accidentally heroin overdosed trophy wife in Pulp Fiction, to the action-savvy vengeful female in this year's under- appreciated Kill Bill: Volume One. Maybe she just didn't have enough screen time to feel this role was worth her excessive talents; an opinion that could also easily excuse why the villain of the picture, Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), doesn't seem half as menacing as he should. You would think that Jennings' business relationship with this man would be better developed, like why Jennings would sell two years of his life to this man with such blind trust, and why Jennings would be so blasé about losing said years, when he finds out what happened within them. That's about all I will say about a film that, if I say more, will spoil the whole surprise of many of the scenes. I went to this film knowing all in advance what Jennings had invented and what that envelope of knick-knacks pertains to, and I regret that. It makes it all the more fun if you discover this along with Jennings, as the film advances. Just be sure to, much like Jennings, reserve any references to Einstein to a mere one-line homage and an amusing, inside-joke ridden postage stamp. This is a cute little piece of fiction. Give it a fair chance, kids.
The DVD: Let me begin by saying that I'm glad when a film that got this lambasted by critics still has the decency to offer some cool extras. There's a comment track, deleted scenes, and more, for those who would want such things. The film wasn't that bad, after all. It's nice that someone behind this film would agree. That would seem like a facetious statement, but you'd be surprised how often a film does poorly at the box office, only to have it's entire cast and crew abandon it upon the release of the DVD. So, bravo to not just one, but two commentary tracks. One is by director John Woo, with a second by writer Dean Georgaris. These are two different thinkers, even if they worked on the same film, and they provide two completely alternate commentaries. Woo talks about what a director cares about most, which is the film as a whole. Georgaris talks about what a writer cares about most, which is how so many scenes had to be revised, as he discussed scenes on an individual basis. As one critic mentioned elsewhere; it would've been more intriguing to see these two talk together in a commentary, providing a separate opinion to bounce their ideas against, not unlike a classic episode of Siskel & Ebert. Still; their individual commentaries are worth listening to at least once. There's a featurette as well, called Designing the Future. Although it's pretty short by modern featurette standards, at a mere 18 minutes, it does provide insight from not just Woo and Georgaris, but Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman as well. This feature more or less urges you on to the next one, Tempting Fate: The Stunts of Paycheck, which is self explanatory, and runs for 16 minutes. You may have read a promo elsewhere that the DVD offers not just deleted scenes, but an alternate ending as well. Bad news, first: don't bother with the alternate ending. Though not as totally imbecilic as the alternate ending offered for The Butterfly Effect's DVD, it is an ending that is pretty lame. This is coming from someone who felt the ending of the actual film wasn't too bad, even though many critics felt even that was pretty lame. That should give some perspective to this other ending. The other deleted scenes are no big deal, either, with moments that were already described elsewhere in the film, or didn't need any explanation. One scene in particular has Shorty suggesting that Jennings not take the job he's decided to take on, that's the basis for the whole movie. Well of course he's going to take the job since that's the whole film, and to have a character ominously warn him beforehand because of a hunch, or just quicker thinking, is never a good plot device. That's about it aside from the obligatory
trailer for the film, as well as teasers of other films. This really isn't
a bad DVD, for a film that really wasn't bad, either. Just keep your
nitpicking to a minimum for two hours, and you'll have a good time.
Click picture to order either DVD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Burnout
Near
Miss
Small
Crater
Large
Crater
Deep
Impact
