Payback: Straight Up

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.

I have to agree with the previous poster's comments. I do miss Mel's voice over a bit and especially the opening score. Overall this version is better, but just edges out the original. It is really cool to see a movie which was good to begin with, but with a twist and still good. I found Maria Bello's performance towards the end especially powerful. I'm still on the fence about the very end.

A lot of good extras on the DVD, the director's narration in particular. You have to feel for Brian; it never ceases to amaze me some of the BS the directors have to coupe with from the studio executives. For the most part, the successful films have been ones which are new and original, where the studio exec's always seem take the exact opposite stance.

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.

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 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