Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
He's back with a vengeance.
Porter is shot by his wife and best friend and is left to die. When he survives he plots revenge.
| Hugh Bonneville | Businessman |
| Christian Stolte | Val's Thug |
| James Coburn | Justin Fairfax |
| Jack Conley | Det. Leary |
| Richard Cotovsky | Homeless man at end |
| William Devane | Carter |
| Bill Duke | Det. Hicks |
| Mel Gibson | Porter |
| John Glover | Phil |
| Gregg Henry | Val Resnick |
| Gene Kelly | Bank patron |
| David Paymer | Arthur Stegman |
| Roderick Peeples | Hit Man on 'L' Platform |
| Sterling Wolfe | Elevator hood |
| Brian Helgeland |
7.90 out of 10 (1683 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (2006)
posted on 19 Jul 2009I just received the Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (2006) DVD from the United States of America, because Australia doesn't have the movie yet, and Wow what a disappointment, all that waiting just to see the a great movie killed, half the story was gone overall my family and friends give it 0/10 pretty dam crappy.No Johnny, No Ferrari, No Birthday Present, No getting hammered, and No telephone bombs, Just a cheap shoot out at a train station, then the end.Director dude altogether you cut too much story out and also missing the monologue from Mel (Porter) which in the end killed the plot of the story.If any one is thinking of buying this movie just wait till it comes down in price or into your country.
this is how payback should have been
posted on 14 May 2009the theatrical version of payback was a good,if slightly uneven crime thriller.this cut is how the original director-brian helgeland-wanted you to see the film .hollywood wanted something more accessible,so the rewrites made the film very disjointed in places,swithching from dark to comedic,particularly towards the end.what started off as a dark,moody revenge film ended up a dumbed down action fare for the lethal weapon fans .thankfully,some years later,helgeland got to restore payback to its previous status.gone is the ridiculous,abrupt ending of the theatrical version version, replaced with a far darker,twisted ending.this movie really shows off porters hard edged character.much better than the easy,comfortable ending of the old version,the gritty train station shootout leaves you on the edge of your seat.a modern classic.
Paydown
posted on 06 May 2009Wow. I loved the theater version of 'Payback' even giving it 5/5 stars and ranks as one of the best Mel Gibson movies ever made. 'Payback: Straight Up –The Director's Cut' (P:SU:TDC) however is the biggest director's version disappointment since the 'Richard Donner's Superman II' cut. I have yet to review (and now should go back and watch the original 'Payback' in order to do so) the theater version, but I've seen it so many times to know where scenes were cut and added, tone/lighting altered and of course the deletion of Kris Kristofferson's character along with the theater's ending. If rented, one should absolutely watch the making of features on the 'P:SU:TDC' DVD to learn so much more about how this version surfaced. Such as the director Brian Helgeland being fired when conflicts with his vision and what the studio wanted us to see surfaced. Too funny: when fired, he was concerned of Donner's (who worked with him on 'Conspiracy Theory' also with Gibson) opinion, stating that Donner wouldn't have been (fired or removed.) Uh, well, he was – Warner Bros. threw him out of 'Superman II' that he almost completed. Also, you'll learn that Gibson, himself, didn't like this version as much as the theater one. What 'P:SU:TDC' contains is more violence – see Gibson beat up his wife and kill in cold blood and a relatively non-suspenseful cat/mouse ending. What this version took away, was almost all humor, great voice-overs, the suspenseful closing including Kristofferson's wonderful scenes and pretty much all the fun. Donner's 'Superman II' did almost the same things, even though 'II' wasn't the best one, the magic, humor, fun and action packed closing all vanished. 'P:SU:TDC' isn't even worth a viewing. Skip it – only watch the theater version for great entertainment.
Stick to the Original
posted on 09 Mar 2009This review has many spoilers.Gone are the blue visuals many associate with the theatrical cut. Instead director Brian Helgeland has replaced them with more standard, though maybe slightly oversaturated, visuals. Porter's (Gibson's) voice overs have also disappeared, and this all equates to a less noiry feel. But the biggest changes come in the story. In the original version, we're introduced to Porter as he lays, shot up from his recent betrayal, on the table of a not-really doctor in some grubby basement who takes a drink of his whiskey before sterilizing his "instruments" in it. Porter vows he'll get the money he lost. This slam-bang start is omitted, and the director's cut seems to steam ahead at full speed, polishing off the first 25 minutes of the movie in a time closer to 15. From what I could recall, most of the middle portion is then relatively identical story-wise. The main changes begin once Porter kills Resnick. In the original cut, he and Rosie then head to a safehouse. There, the phone begins to ring and a suspicious Porter finds a bomb attached to it. Like a true badass, he subtly makes his way outside, cuts the fuel line of the guys in the car watching from the street, and waits behind the car for them to notice him. Then he throws his cigarette into the leaking fuel with predictable, and badass, results. No such safehouse exists in Straight Up. Porter and Rosie just pack up and leave her apartment, and that's the end of that, with the exception of a brief trip back to frame the cops trying to take his money. Following Resnick's demise, Porter goes to Carter and Fairfax to convince the Outfit to give him his due. This is the same except that Kristofferson is replaced by a woman on the phone named Bronson. We never see her. At Fairfax's home, Porter convinces Bronson to give him his money at a subway station. This is where the plot diverges the most; a whole alternate ending begins. Porter goes to the station, and fully expecting some sort of ambush, begins taking out all the henchmen hanging around before they know what hit 'em. He eventually gets to the man with the bag of money, but just before he takes it and makes his getaway, a woman he hadn't suspected pulls a gun and shoots him. Shot once, he manages to fire back and take her down. Bleeding, he stumbles off the platform to the street below, the backpack with $130,00 in one hand and a gun in the other. Rosie gets to him and they drive away. She says he needs a hospital. He refuses - he "knows a guy." The movie ends, and Porter's survival is left in question. It's not a bad ending, but it just kind of happens and is over. The Kristofferson subplot in the original was more effective, I thought. It was more drawn out, more satisfying. And we could put a face to the bad guy, a bad guy who brutally tortures Porter using a sledgehammer until he gets what he wants. Porter was then, with a little luck, able to outwit the Outfit one last time using their own ambush against them. Was this the cut Helgeland really wanted? I understand he was limited in the footage he had to work with - a lot had been lost. So was this really his true cut, or just kind of sort of how he wanted the movie to turn out? Either way, I prefer the original. It was darkly funny, and Straight Up lost that sense of humor. I don't mind the blues being gone, but the voice-over did a lot to add atmosphere to the film. But most disappointing was the elimination of some of Porter's best, most badass moments. I wouldn't have minded the alternate ending if there was more to it, but as is it didn't seem to do the story justice like the theatrical cut's ending. Payback: Straight Up isn't a bad movie by any means. If I had seen it first, I'm sure I would've loved it. It's just that the original is a classic in my book, and the director's cut doesn't quite do it justice. Payback: 9/10 Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut: 7/10
Very Disappointed
posted on 14 Jan 2009Where do I start? First of all, the post production blue tint was removed, making the ambiance of the film brighter. Mel's character Porter, although a bit meaner in this version is lost in the brightness, and lack of grit to support his enhanced character.All the good music is gone. In the original version, Porter uses a very intuitive scenario as leverage to get his payment. In this version the storyline is completely changed leaving hardly any believable leverage scenario at all. Needless to say this is where the story took a dive into pure lousy.I wasn't impressed with the lengthened scenes because they didn't continue on to support the climax of the film. Honestly, the climax was non-existent. This version just fizzles out too quickly leaving us desperately wanting more.Like my father always told me... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
i want my 1.5 hours back!
posted on 13 Dec 2008I really enjoyed the theatrical version so when I saw the there was a directors cut I could not wait to see it. I was so utterly disappointed in this version. I liked the fight scene between Mel and his wife. I wish it was in the other version, and that was about all I liked about this version.Sally Kellerman was the head of "the syndicate", and we never see her. She is only a voice over speaker phone. A great idea but for one BIG problem. Her voice sounds like she has inhaled helium! She was tough talking but it sounded ridiculous!!!(It sounded to me like Steve Martin's voice in Trains Planes & Automobiles. When he was picked up by his balls) I almost was laughing at it.The two leads Bello and Gibson had zero on screen chemistry in this version. The scene where they "passionately kiss" was tepid at best!Do yourselves a favour DO NOT watch this version.The theatrical version is much much better!
A Director's Cut that really does draw some blood
posted on 28 Sep 2008Remaking a classic is never a good idea at the best of times, but when Brian Helgeland's remake of Point Blank ended up being shelved, heavily re-edited, rewritten (by Terry Hayes) and reshot by another director (production designer John Myhre) to make it more 'accessible' to an audience after committing the triple sins of having a hero who doesn't get the money and doesn't get the girl and – worst of all – having a character kill the dog, it must have seemed like an out and out suicidal one. So much of the film's last third was dumped that half the footage in the film's trailer (and even its poster image) were nowhere to be found in the finished film itself by the time it made it to the theatres. Somehow the version of Payback that did get released turned out to be both surprisingly good and more surprisingly commercially successful, but now that, eight years later, Helgeland's finally had the chance to restore his version for DVD (as Payback – Straight Up), the only response to the theatrical version's tag-line 'No more Mr Nice Guy' is "Oh yeah?" This time Mel Gibson's Porter doesn't have a voice over to excuse his actions, and they're not diluted by focus groups either. So he steals from a homeless guy? So what, it's not as if the guy is faking a disability in this cut, he just wants his money. So he asks a barman for information by breaking his hand? So what, he doesn't have time for subtlety, he just wants his money. So his wife O.D.s after he beats her up? So what, she shot him anyway, he just wants his money. So he kills a handcuffed heavy after disarming him? So what, he didn't like the guy, he just wants his money. In fact, Porter doesn't care what happens to anybody as long as he gets his money. The only thing that makes him the hero is that the guy who has his money is even worse than he is.Unlike most Director's Cuts, this really is a very different version of the film: while the first hour has more or less the same structure as the theatrical version, the last third is a significant departure. Running some ten minutes less than the theatrical version, there's no convoluted kidnapping subplot, no Kris Kristofferson character in this version, only a couple of shots of prominently-billed John Glover at the end, though sadly no Angie Dickinson either: although originally providing a link with John Boorman's film as the voice of the syndicate boss in Helgeland's first cut, for some reason she's here replaced by Sally Kellerman on speaker phone. Instead we get a much better realised and rather more organic finale at a transit station that brings the film to a more convincing conclusion and is more attuned to the character's strengths and weaknesses than the kind of plot contrivances that gave the theatrical version its more explosive resolution. Oh yes, and everything doesn't look blue anymore.There are differences from the first cut that Helgeland submitted that was floating around as a bootleg for years – the fire truck diversion to get into the outfit hotel and the infamous elevator scene where Porter blinds a henchman are missing, while this time round the money doesn't end up in the hands of a homeless guy – but while it's a shame these aren't included on the DVD, it's a leaner, meaner movie, playing it down and dirty (none of Boorman's "Is he really dead?" ambiguity here) and on its own terms. Is it a great film or a lost masterpiece? No, just a good movie with a heart of darkness underneath the studio sheen, but that's good enough for me.
Seventy grand, I want it back.
posted on 07 Aug 2008Before 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.
Blows theatrical away
posted on 09 Apr 2008I 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.
The alternate version of Porter getting his money back
posted on 09 Feb 2008Payback 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.
Payback - straight up to the roots!!! The genuine cut. POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD
posted on 08 Jan 2008After watching "Point blank" I decided to check out the new (and hopefully improved) version of Payback. I just finished watching it and I must say WOW!!! While I liked the theatrical version I found it to be trying too hard to be too cool. After the first half or so it became pretty much a different movie. It began as a hardcore movie in the spirit of the 70s and ended as a standard popcorn 90s cinema. I was kind of disappointed, because Porter was a tough guy and in the end became sort of Martin Riggs character which would be OK - but in a Lethal Weapon movie. To make a long story short - what I miss from the theatrical cut is the blue filter, the soundtrack and maybe the voice-over. This is not a major problem and on the other hand all the things that annoyed me are missing as well - gone is the comic relief (I have enough of action-comedies, it is nice to see a major star like Gibson in such a gritty, grimy, cold and misanthropic film, in a role like nothing he's ever done except maybe for Mad Max), gone are all the funny faces that Gibson used to make, gone is the whole third act - instead we have a few shootouts more and a completely different and ambiguous ending. Porter is much more brutal and cold blooded (like killing a guy over something he said), much more like Lee Marvin - very aware of his environment and not committing stupid mistakes anymore. Gone is also the romance or at least is not so emphasized. Porter's meeting with his wife is also not what it used to be, he is no more the knight who wouldn't hit a woman. Kristopherson is gone (don't get me wrong - not that I had a problem with his character, and he himself is always enjoyable to watch)... Gone is also the scene where Porter blows up some goons using his cigarette to light up the gasoline, which I've never tried but according to most people is impossible (we still have the moment where Porter fires up I don't know how many rounds from his revolver when the Chinese gangsters try to assassinate him though). I have the feeling that in many scenes all we have changed are just minor cuts - just before characters smile - but they change their facial expressions in the particular scene and thus their reaction to what's happening and the overall tone of the movie. An example is when Porter is looking for Stegman at his office and has to beat up the guy at the desk who tells him to **** himself - in the theatrical cut we see him looking pretty funny - as he wants to say "Well now, that wasn't a very nice thing to say, was it?" - here we don't, cut to the chase. Porter doesn't look funny anymore - he looks like a mean person that you really really don't want to have to deal with. And i think that's exactly how Porter/Parker was intended to be (By the way I still can't figure out why did they change his name both in "Point blank" and "Payback"). Pretty much like Marvin acted him. The difference between the two versions is basically like the difference between Guy Richie's films and "Layer cake" (or "The long good Friday", while I am at it). Or the difference between the Brosnan Bond films and Casino royale - however the funny thing is that here we don't have Brosnan vs Craig - we have Gibson and he is playing the same character, here we watch Porter with different eyes though - he is a real antihero (and not supposed to be such just because he is a criminal) - which comes to show how important editing actually is. In the end to me this is the superior movie - I gave the theatrical cut 7 or 8 out of 10, this version gets well deserved 10.
Really misses the entertainment of the original.
posted on 12 Feb 2007What 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
edges out the original
posted on 23 Jan 2007I 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.
Still wish Maria Bello & Lucy Liu had bigger roles
posted on 02 Nov 2006What 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.
For the first time, the studio got it right...
posted on 27 Jul 2009Like many other fans of the theatrical cut of Payback, I couldn't wait for this film. I think this is the only time I have ever thought the theatrical cut (studio) was better than the director's cut. Alien 3 extended, Blade Runner, T2 and virtually every other film you can think of have director's cuts that were better than the original. While Brian Helegland is a good screenwriter, he has proved to us with this cut that he has bad judgment as a director. If you want to argue with this comment, just look of the quality of films he wrote for and juxtapose them with the ones he's director. I understand his original intention for the film, but he fails to achieve what he wanted to do and the studio operated on the film to give it a two dimensional, entertaining feel and its still bad ass. The d's cut is just one dimensional, anti-climatic, and bland. Trust, watch Brian Helegland's cut and then pop in the theatrical cut and you'll see how much better it is. A true surprise. I thought it would have been better. In the future, they should have another cut that includes the scene where Gibson and his wife have that brawl and just put it in the theatrical cut and leave everything else. It would be called "Payback: the best possible cut". Trust me, I know we want to be on the director's side and I'm a filmmaker myself, but the version under the studio is just better. Brian didn't really add anything. He just took stuff away. It's like having a good haircut and then someone keeps cutting until there's nothing left. The tire worked and then, he messed it up. Trust me, people, stick with the theatrical version...