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/

Director's Cut could mean any number of things...studio interference, re- shoots, poor test screenings. Most of the time that just means a couple more minutes added but sometimes there are drastic differences from the original released. This is one of those big changes. I liked this movie with it's sharp writing and nice mix of violence with dark humor. 'Like' has become 'love'. If you've never seen it and your a big film buff I'd say watch both versions to see the difference. If you've never seen it, Straight Up is hands down the way to go.

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