Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:
|
|
|
Films Found - Trashed by critics and box office sales, bad publicity or just plain negative non-trendy, knee-jerk reaction; some of the best Films Found for me, have come from society's ‘reject bin.’
Paradoxically, thats whats so interesting, because in this film he didnt need to perhaps that is why it is a shame that PAYCHECK was, for the most part, overlooked because of previous failure. Not hard to do at the time, when you think of popular guru-director Woos many box office triumphs, ...
click title to read more
|
Lately, as I re-watched my way through the maze of vibrant 20th century movies (and sitcoms), something soon became more and more apparent to me the more I watched, to the point of distraction and now alas, I cannot avoid seeing this anomaly no matter how hard I try to pretend I am not noticing ...
click title to read more
|
To this day it remains permanently in the garbage tin of the general viewing publics minds and yet to me, one of the best films ever made perhaps too chilling in prophetic accuracy for people to stand?
Was the thought of all that water too hard to take, perhaps?
Nobody is saying for sure...
click title to read more
|
To me, they are the little gems that I have found along the way, that have fallen from heaven at exactly the right time for me to see them often very often in fact obscure films that didnt do well at the box office; kids films that adults shouldnt be watching; or alternatively, films slamme...
click title to read more
|
Paradoxically, that’s what’s so interesting, because in this film he didn’t need to… perhaps that is why it is a shame that PAYCHECK was, for the most part, overlooked because of previous failure. Not hard to do at the time, when you think of popular guru-director Woo’s many box office “triumphs,” like MI:2 and FACE-OFF … How could Ben Affleck compare, I mean the guy can’t even act, right?
Well, look again because despite this well voiced axiom and a few gigantic plot-holes in the storyline itself, Affleck managed to pull off something that, for him, seriously resembled “smooth” in this film. Perhaps it was the premise itself, which required a soulless, corporate geeky-type who has undergone many ‘electronic memory wipes;’ or perhaps it is simply the fact that some men are made-to-wear a suit … and he really does look like he has been poured into his.
No secret that I love science fiction and particularly ‘time’ movies, so there is another bias for me. No secret too that the same creative team of this film were also involved in the Minority Report and Blade Runner. Whilst the latter is beyond compare in almost any evaluation; in my humble opinion, PAYCHECK was far superior to both MI:2 and the much overrated Minority Report - because if Ben Affleck can’t act - then Tom Cruise surely can not either.
Yeah sure, but are a few temporal fluxes going to be enough to make up for Affleck’s’ notorious, woody, no-screen presence and override your urge to want to punch him in that ‘rather-square’ jaw? I mean enough to make you re-think hiring out and watching this film?
They say that time can heal many things … even Ben Affleck’s bad acting?
Well, from out of the trash can, I dare to say yes, so much so, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the screen play wasn’t specifically adapted and written by Dean Georgaris with Affleck in mind. Indeed, from the moment our hero empties the random contents of an ordinary brown envelope onto his hotel bed - to the conclusion of the awful truth - we are catapulted through a convoluted roller-coaster ride of flashbacks, disembodied scenes and almost familiar personalities; which all fit Affleck as well as his suit.
The mystery of the film is interlaced with a storyline that ties itself ‘very loosely’ to an ‘e-plot,’ whilst hovering on the edge of a collage, like Pulp Fiction. Both ways, it is all at once totally authentic because of Mr Affleck’s genuine lack of personality, which magnificently shines through his on-screen amnesia. Meanwhile, the action of PAYCHECK grounds itself beautifully in the leading lady, who quickly forms our only link to something real, instantly thrusting us into an ominous present, where we realise early that ‘time is running out,’ and only our wits will save us ... and that perhaps even our friends cannot be trusted anymore?
Spooky, and in beautiful segments of stylised frames of ‘real-time,’ (reminiscent in some ways of Total Recall), we are soon pursued by the agents of a primarily faceless evil, into a future that we cannot fully see, from a fragmented past that our hero cannot fully remember. Snippets of this ‘n’ that flicker into focus and out again, as Affleck’s character, Michael Jennings’ last ‘standard memory-wipe,’ seems to be hiding more than the usual technological secrets it has previously been used to protect.
For some reason, this time he needs to remember, before it's too late … if only he could?
Much like the heretofore bits’n’pieces of Affleck’s almost non-existent acting abilities, here in PAYCHECK, his monochromatic presence becomes real for the first time in his memory loss. Chilling, accurate and very timely in a world of colour, our almost unconcerned hero surprises us all from the moment he sends himself what seems like random objects in that simple brown paper envelope …objects which are not recognisable in the present, but soon obvious as ‘keys’ to his future, directly from his unknown past.
With a plot which sadly overlooks a couple vital temporal laws as it weaves through the figure-eights of time, you are going to need an anchor, or you may get giddy and fall off your seat. I can’t think of anyone who would’ve been better as the contrasting dye in Affleck’s laboratory test tube, than Uma Thurman. I think casting her in this role was a masterstroke of genius, but first we must establish who she really is?
She weaves in and out of the plot like a rich chord of luxurious velvet, holding it all together, as the fabric of time itself is twisted and flexed into a pretzel shaped universe of infinite, yet orchestrated possibilities.
Lingering like a long wet kiss (as she does), Uma’s character, Dr Rachel Porter, walks the border of one who doesn’t fully know, but cannot forget either - yet all the time - with her fate somehow inexorably intertwined with our protagonist? Together they traverse a network of intricate loops, spills and thrills as our faithfully awkward hero uses up his ‘magical objects,’ one by one - like some medieval wizard suddenly possessed of arcane knowledge - to eventually come face to face with the awful truth and central theme of the film itself in a single gritty climax; albeit followed by a somewhat surprise sugar-coated, twist-snap ending.
I am not surprised to find that Affleck is proving to be deeper than people originally thought through his surprise ‘new-found’ directing abilities. For me PAYCHECK revealed hidden talent way back then, when all the other under achievers (like Cruise) strutted their stuff on the red carpet … for Ben, it was all just waiting for the right moment in time to reveal itself – just like in the film - but not actually on it.
Rather prophetic really.
Enough said.
Lately, as I re-watched my way through the maze of vibrant 20th century movies (and sitcoms), something soon became more and more apparent to me the more I watched, to the point of distraction … and now alas, I cannot avoid ‘seeing’ this anomaly no matter how hard I try to pretend I am not noticing it.
I am talking about props ... specifically, cups and the fact that they very rarely contain any fluid at all, no matter the scene, actor or director?
Take a closer look and you’ll see the acting involved each time a mouthful of invisible java juice is “savoured,” but trust me, those on-screen cups are empty, even when propy-biscuits are tastefully dunked to expose on-screen tea-totallers. And keep a special watch on the take-away containers ... so easy to see they are too light.
Perhaps would be orbleactors (and over-reactors *giggle*) … should think about acquiring and listing this 'drinking skill' on their CV’s, when contemplating a life in the movies.
As for all you budding script writers, it strikes me that it is a key feature of any scene these days, easily replacing the lighting up of a cigarette as the ‘substance of preference’ for the new Millennium.
To this day it remains permanently in the garbage tin of the general viewing public’s minds and yet to me, one of the best films ever made… perhaps too chilling in prophetic accuracy for people to stand?
Was the thought of all that water too hard to take, perhaps?
Nobody is saying for sure, and about the only thing I ever hear about this film is the ridiculous fact of how it ‘flopped at the box office,’ because it failed to take the statutory 3X the production cost formula. Phooey, so who said there was money in prophesy?
Apparently there is not, comes the now almost standard reply, because ‘…it blew the budget out by a few million – well quite a few million – somewhere in the vicinity of $231.5 million to be accurate, only grossing about $117 million in returns in the States and about 233 million overseas (which didn’t make up for the shortfall when adjusted to USD) blab la bla : so that must make it a bad film, right?
Surely that is only bad business?
The plot to Waterworld is simple enough. The time is someplace in the future – no accuracy needed here – and the worst case scenario has come to pass and the ice caps have melted and left a mutant band of good guys and bad guys to struggle for survival upon endless seas.
As with all cultures there is a myth, only this time it is of ‘land existing sonewhere’ although no one has seen it.. even the hero who sails the seas as a matter of survival. A – predictable failsafe format follows – reluctant hero has to shake off prejudice to overcome all the odds suddenly stacked against him. Enter a love interest to help shift his mindset, in this case played by a lovely tanned and trim Jeanne Tripplehorn, and a child of destiny in the gorgeous little cherub-faced Tina Majorino.
Of course, my love for this film is swayed a little by my particular fancy for Kevin Costner, no problems there, as to me he is very easy on the eye and his quiet unassuming manner always draws me towards his ‘strengths.’ But this film is more than that, both from an envronmental perspective, and in showcasing the indomitable human spirit through battling nature, giving hope in the 'feeble human condition' and that no matter what, love usually saves the day, like it or not.
Perhaps for the Envirowarrior within, too a little bias, as it was a bit of a visual and mental treat in the unique eco-friendly gadgetry and unsophisticated technology that had become a necessity to survive this harsh liquid world. The Mariners boat was a wonderful combination of engineering, requiring just the right blend of precision and physical skill to operate it, which naturally shows off a man to his best advantage in any setting.
Adding gills as they did, for an Ictio Sapien mutation was pure genius.
It progressed at a real-time speed that allowed me to sink into it, with long camera shots (almost as good as Master and Commander, but not quite)… however I was able to leave this world and join a world where Mad Max meets Marine Boy, and that IS entertainment.
The actual validity of people surviving as they did in the film, should the eventuality of the ice caps fully melt and cover the planet in water, was haunting. The chaos and anarchy very real as to how things would probably be played out given human nature as it stands on any given Monday morning.
Me? I like ‘villains’ that make me laugh and almost like them. I find them much more menacing than the seriously sick ones, because they are so likeable and make the line seem so easily blurred. In this case, I thought Dennis Hopper a masterstroke of ‘ugly’ in this role, as were his oil encrusted ‘smokers...’ all equally trying to make the best of a bad situation, and somewhat reminiscent of the playground bully; albeit scary at the time, but funny when you look back on it... and only tough in the end because they had more 'fire power' muscle, not brains and the right intent.
To this day, I think this film bought a really well acted concept to the world, which remains superior to me and perhaps amongst the best of its kind in a highly visual way. Nothing will shake that, but I am curious because every time this one comes up in conversation, nobody else has anything good to say about it.
So, outside of a blown budget and it being a ‘box office flop’ I’m curious, what you didn’t like about this film?
Was it really that bad, or as I said chillingly accurate - perhaps as doomed as Atlantis itself?
I’ll be delighted of course, to hear from you if you thought it was as good as I do.
To me, they are the little gems that I have found along the way, that have fallen from heaven at exactly the right time for me to see them… often – very often in fact – obscure films that didn’t do well at the box office; kids films that adults ‘shouldn’t be watching;’ or alternatively, films slammed by critics. Some have simply been written to fail as tax write-offs and others, just simply overshadowed by bigger budget productions at the time.
[ Click here to read more ]
More Posts
4 Posts dating from March 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Lilla's Blogs
14594 Vote(s)
2392 Comment(s)
143 Post(s)
4276 Vote(s)
697 Comment(s)
52 Post(s)
14200 Vote(s)
2198 Comment(s)
122 Post(s)
|
|
|
Comments (6)
Add Comments
Read More
