IMDb RATING
7.4/10
6.7K
YOUR RATING
Porter is shot by his wife and best friend and is left to die. When he survives he plots revenge.Porter is shot by his wife and best friend and is left to die. When he survives he plots revenge.Porter is shot by his wife and best friend and is left to die. When he survives he plots revenge.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Mel Gibson
- Porter
- (archive footage)
Gregg Henry
- Val Resnick
- (archive footage)
Maria Bello
- Rosie
- (archive footage)
David Paymer
- Arthur Stegman
- (archive footage)
Bill Duke
- Detective Hicks
- (archive footage)
Deborah Kara Unger
- Lynn Porter
- (archive footage)
John Glover
- Phil
- (archive footage)
William Devane
- Fred Carter
- (archive footage)
Jack Conley
- Detective Leary
- (archive footage)
Sally Kellerman
- Bronson
- (archive footage)
- (voice)
Kwame Amoaku
- Radioman
- (archive footage)
Justin Ashforth
- Michael The Bartender
- (archive footage)
Len Bajenski
- Fairfax Bodyguard #1
- (archive footage)
Kate Buddeke
- Counter Girl
- (archive footage)
Roddy Chiong
- Chow's Thug #2
- (archive footage)
James Deuter
- Tailor
- (archive footage)
Tom Equin
- Razor Clean #1
- (archive footage)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
7.46.6K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Typical Mel ruthless to the bone
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.
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.
Seventy grand, I want it back.
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.
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.
A callous disregard for likeability and an engaging plot make this a strong revenge thriller.
This delayed director's cut made drastic changes, warranting its own listing on IMDb, that positively effected the quality of this revenge thriller. 'Payback: Straight Up (2006)' pits a relatively unsympathetic anti-hero protagonist against an arguably even more unsympathetic bad-guy and just lets him off the leash. The film isn't perfect, though its better in this form than in the washed-out and narration-heavy studio-mandated theatrical cut, but some brutal action, a callous disregard for likeability and an engaging plot mean that this is an entertainingly, and refreshingly, downbeat affair. 7/10
edges out the original
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.
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.
An interesting "What if?"
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
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
Did you know
- TriviaThis is Brian Helgeland's version of Payback (1999). Helgeland was replaced by Paul Abascal as director after Helgeland was fired from the original.
- GoofsWhen Porter sits on the sidewalk to wait for Rosie, the blue backpack is about a foot behind him. Although Porter later says "Backpack, backpack," and Rosie replies, "Got it," when Rosie first comes around the car, the backpack is nowhere to be seen.
- ConnectionsEdited from Payback (1999)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $90,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 30m(90 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content





