Payback: Straight Up

Before studio execs and Mel Gibson got all uppity with Brian Helgeland, Payback was a darker, meaner film. But after an apparently poor test screening in 1997(honestly, what IS the point of these?) they put Payback on hold for over a year so Mel could do Lethal Weapon 4 before going back for some re-shoots, with a new director, to make the film happier.

So they approved a script of a dark, moody revenge thriller, green-lighted it for production and changed their minds to make it lighter because a ragtag audience didn't understand/like it? Man, Hollywood is one weird town.

The resulting film, which was eventually released in 1999, seemed a bit tacked together. There were scenes that just seemed out of place and irregular. It was obvious that any scene actually shot back in 1997 was shot on location and any scene shot for the 1999 cut was just shot in the generic 'street set' on the Warner back-lot. Despite all of this, Payback was still a fun film that failed to go all the way with it's concept.

The new DC is a superior version, no doubt and is about 33% different. There are new scenes and odds and ends through out the running time and the last act is completely different. Kris Kristoffersen is gone and replaced by Sally Kellerman (voice only, Bronson is never seen). James Coburn and John Glover also have smaller roles. The narration from Porter is gone as well as the blue tint to most of the film. Now most scenes are just lit as normal without any post-production filtering.

There is also a new musical score. The jazzy feel to the opening scenes is still there but through-out the rest of the film the score is more atmospheric and understated. Both are as good as each and fit the differing tones, so there's no better of the two.

It does end a bit abruptly and without any truly satisfying conclusion. I guess this is what annoyed test audiences. But a disgruntled audience should not be a decision-making committee when it comes to making movies.

I think this was miles ahead of the theatrical cut. People probably knock it so much because of the "bond" they have established with the theatrical version over the years.

I having never seen either version, I unbiasedly watched Payback a few days ago. I liked it, but I didn't think the last act suited the movie at all. It felt not only tacked on, but it had a different tone and took the movie in a different direction that it should have gone. Gibson's character is a very destructive person, and I just couldn't see it ending so perfectly.

When I saw this version however, I thought it was not only a much better film, and suited the tone of the film much more, but it is also a better homage to the revenge-type films from the 70's.

This film had a very consistent musical score that was very pleasant to listen to throughout. It's the music that should have been. As much as I love Jimi Hendrix and BB King, they were out of place as you never really heard music like that in 70s revenge films. I liked the look of the film as well - the bleached, high contrast look. It was perfect for the gritty nature of this version.

It was also a much darker version. Mel Gibson is much harsher toward his wife when he comes home, and as hard as that is to watch, it feels more appropriate. He is justified in doing what he does. I felt she got off too easy in the theatrical cut.

People complain that they miss Gibson's humor in this version. I don't think the book its based on was ever meant to be humorous, nor were many 70s revenge films. There was a bit of humor in the director's cut, but it all stayed serious in the end, unlike the joke of an end in the theatrical cut.

There were a lot of bits missing here and there from both versions, none of which was really missed from this edit. I noticed that scenes were missing, but it added a bit more mystery to the plot.

The most important change to this cut is in the last act. In the theatrical cut, I found the last act to be very trite, light and out of place. For a movie that began very dark, it ended on a light note that didn't suit the film at all. The final act in this edit was more in line with the great endings of 70's style films. It kept building and building and building. You didn't quite know what was going to happen. It also has a very mysterious ending. You don't quite know what is going to happen and therefore it makes you think. The theatrical version was severely dumbed down. I guess they didn't want us to think.

This is the version that should have been released theatrically. It is the version that I will revisit in the future.

Payback revisited and a whole new ending. I wanna get this off to begin with; I really like the original cut. It's been circulating for years that it was the result of studio tinkering and the director wasn't all that pleased with the final version. Given that many films suffer similar fate and with disastrous results I thought maybe Payback was the exception.

Gone here is the blue bleach filter look, a lot of the music score which has been filled in with new cues, some alternate scenes throughout and some excised and a whole new final act. Everything is good here. I liked Porter's confrontation with his wife (brutal and uncompromising), the music score does help in giving it a darker tone and the new ending is fitting.

But I must say that the difference in quality between this Director's Cut and the original theatrical one isn't huge. Call me crazy but I actually miss Mel's voice over and I thought the bluish look suited the film. The humour has been downsized drastically and Porter's mean side has been fleshed out a bit more, which is good by the way. I just don't think one can be called great and the other crap.

The film plays more like a direct homage to the old 70's crime flicks and as the director explains that was what he was going for. The original does feel a bit lighter but that wasn't maybe such a bad thing. This darker version leaves more unanswered as to how Porter got back from the dead (but probably everyone has already seen the theatrical cut so they already know) and is more understated and mood driven.

To sum it up; Payback: Straight Up is an excellent companion piece to a first rate film. It's good to see director Helgeland's cut restored to his liking and it thoroughly deserves to be seen. Now fans can pop the film in the player that best suits their mood. The original a bit lighter and the latter more moody. It doesn't go wrong either way.

What I was hoping for in the director's cut of Payback is extended roles for Maria & Lucy. Lucy is absolutely hilarious in this film, with some great lines ("I need some satisfaction"), and her interaction with Porter ("I have a few minutes", "Go boil an egg") was just magnificent. There is some extension to the scene where Rosie & Porter meet up again, and she gets more of a part in the finale of the film. But Lucy definitely needed more of a role! Having watched both versions of Payback within the same day, I was shocked at how different they are. The original version of Payback is a lot darker, almost black & white in some parts, but this version keeps the colour. The beginning loses the opening of a doctor digging bullets out of Porter's back, and starts with him returning to the city, with no indication of a double-cross just yet until the flashback appears. It also appears to be cut together much better, and give the first few scenes a much quicker feeling. Porter no longer has a voice-over either. The scene with his wife is extended as well, leading to a more brutal confrontation, which leads more into him carrying her into the bedroom. Also, Porter the dog doesn't survive in this version. Big awww. The torture scenes are also cut from the film, and the boss's son who was originally going to get together with Rosie as his birthday present.

The finale is a load better, as in the old version, I did find myself getting bored, but the finale is more abrupt, and unexpected. Maria Bello gets a bigger role in the finale, although it does leave viewers hanging a bit, but I won't spoil it for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.

The only thing I'm gutted at is the low-class hooker, who Porter approaches when he's looking for Rosie, is completely cut from the film. Which is a shame, as she totally reminded me of the hooker from Pretty Woman that was Julia Robert's roommate. She's funny as well, despite the shortness of her scene.

Overall, I have to say I prefer the director's cut of Payback. Sometimes you find with some directors cuts, they tend to go a bit OTT, and keep in all the scenes which really weren't necessary, but this is well edited, and changing the finale was a really good idea. And seeing it in HD is well worth while too, if you can get your hands on it. I do like the idea of having it almost black & white, and I did miss it in this version. But it's well worth seeing if you want a different take on the film.

Porter (Mel Gibson) common criminal is just doing his thing and rather flamboyantly. He pilfers from the mob and his cut is $70,000. He is double-crossed by his buddy and wife as he was left for dead. Well, Porter may be a common criminal but he does have a sense of Justus and does whatever it takes to recover his $70,000. In the process, he is roughed up a few times and the perpetrators find themselves skillfully dispatched. The questions are will he get his money back before there is no one left to give it to him.

Yep, it is a formula; yep Mel has a tendency for overacting. We get the standard surprises. Lots of action.

Be sure to check the details out on the different packaging as there are variations on the story.