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.

John Woo's latest offering has been in the pipeline for some time. Yet, after viewing PAYCHECK, you realise that sadly he is a director going further and further away from his violent, hardboiled roots; since FACE/OFF, his last great work, his films have become more family-orientated and markedly less ferocious. PAYCHECK continues the slippery slide, offering a light plot, unwanted snatches of humour, and some very unimpressive stylised action. It's a film where it seems hard to recognise the director's trademarks and a poor script drags it down from the beginning.I've never particularly liked Ben Affleck, although I enjoyed his performances in DAREDEVIL and CHANGING LANES. Sadly, here is one of his more ignoble appearances, in a puppet-like turn as the heroic, wooden lead. Saying that, Affleck is barely supported by an even more unworkable team – Uma Thurman seems deflated and left on the sidelines after her rip-roaring turn in KILL BILL whilst Aaron Eckhart goes gleefully over the top and loses all credibility as the comic-book villain of the piece. The only person who really shines is character actor Paul Giamatti, as Affleck's old adviser, and he is sadly relegated to about twenty minutes screen time. Eagle-eyed viewers may spot TERMINATOR 2's Miles Dyson, aka Joe Morton, in a role as a cop – surprisingly he seems to have barely changed appearance in the twelve years since that film.The film's plot is extremely complex and involves memory erasing and evil conspiracies. It comes as no surprise that it's inspired by a Philip K. Dick short story, as was TOTAL RECALL – a similar movie to this, but with more imagination and far better action, on an epic scale. Sadly, the script is confused and things really fall apart towards the end of the film, in which explanation is left aside in favour of increasingly clichéd action and fights. That's a shame because early on in the film, where Affleck is on the run with only his envelope beside him, the concept works really well; the mystery is brimming over and as a result the viewer is hooked on the screen. It's just a shame that things end in such a shambles.For the action to be sub-par is almost impossible, considering the pedigree of the director. Fight scenes are pleasingly violent (at least, as violent as they can be for a 12 certificate) but they lack any real impact, and the lack of interest in the characters doesn't help. Clichés rain down in the explosive finale, and often in the film you're reminded of other, better movies assimilated into this one. There's one motorbike chase which proves to be the "big" action sequence, but aside from one inventive moment (Thurman uses her helmet as a weapon) we've seen it all before. That's a real shame, and shame on you, Woo, for delivering a film so bare of thrills. Please try harder next time.

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.

Paycheck (2003): Dir: John Woo / Cast: Ben Affleck, Uma Thurman, Aaron Eckhart, Paul Giamatti, Colm Feore: Science fiction blunder about receiving information or having it erased. Unfortunately after our attention spans and brains receive this film it is an unruly task to erase it from memory. Ben Affleck plays a genius who specializes in expensive projects for big corporations. In order to keep secrets safe he has his memory erased. Fine setup that boils down to Affleck on the run with bad guys in pursuit and only an envelope of items to piece things together. It is total contrivance how some of these everyday items just happen to be of service at just the right moment such as the paperclip. Then comes the action violence climax. Director John Woo is backed by special effects but not the clever suspense he sustained in Face Off. Affleck should have had different items in that envelope such as the screenplay of a better film and perhaps car keys so that he can drive off the set and never look back. Aaron Eckhart is obvious to his motives in a key role. Uma Thurman is a prop for romance. Paul Giamatti is a contact of Affleck's. Colm Feore is wasted as another villain. It seems to substitute a screenplay for special effects and anything that dazzles and fries the mind. The film exists for its action, production and complete nonsense, but for those seeking deep themes there is little payoff. Score: 4 / 10