Payback: Straight Up

What made the 1999 cut of the movie so great was its entertainment value. It was an incredibly fun movie to watch, with a cool fun style and soundtrack and some nice twists and turns to its story. All of that is basically gone in this version and its a much darker and serious one.

After production finished the Brian Helgeland was deemed too dark and not suitable for the mainstream public. A re-write got done and scene's got re-shot by a different director for the original theatrical release. 90% of the times that a studio decides to do this and changes a movie entire, it isn't for the best. Director's cuts are therefor often way better than the original released versions. However this time I have to say I agree with the studio. This version is a much poorer written and constructed one that lacks whit, charm and whatever more. The 1999 "Payback" was an original and fun movie to watch, "Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut" however is just one typical revenge flick that just isn't among the best the genre has to offer.

You could say that this movie is more of a thriller, while the original, even though it was more entertaining, was done much more film-noir style, that was also a more violent one as well.

What is surprisingly different as well in this movie are its characters. It's amazing what some editing, a visual- and musical style and different scene additions can do to a character. The main character is much darker and seems basically depressed all of the time. It just makes Mel Gibson less great to watch in this version. Also most of the other characters don't work out halve as effective. The whole Maria Bello story-line and character in particular don't work out at all and seem totally out of place.

The movie is just overall also often too slow and dull to watch. Some sequences drag on for too long and not everything in the flows well.

The movie story-wise actually isn't that much different from the original release, until its final 30 minutes or something. The movie its ending is a totally different one. I must say that the ending of this movie is just a much weaker one that besides comes far too sudden and isn't really very satisfying.

Lacks all of the whit, charm, originality and entertainment of the original version. As a director's cut this movie is nothing but a disappointment. Just watch the 1999 "Payback" instead.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I was as curious to see Helgeland's cut of "Payback" as the next guy. It was years before I even knew there were on-set complications, and I've been dying to see what he'd had in mind.

It certainly isn't better, but I can appreciate where he was going with this. The hardened noir angle is heightened, and the original's steely blue filter is gone - but so is the '70s revenge movie vibe, and in its place is something a little more generic. The new score certainly doesn't do the movie any favors. Gibson used to have a wry grin underneath the violence, and now it's just brutality. He's no longer someone to root for.

None of these are negatives towards "Straight Up"; just strong differences. These are two completely different movies, each offering its own flavor. As curiosities go, this is on the entertaining side, but I've always been partial to the sheer style of the original movie.

7/10

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.

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.

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.